Russian Ship Yantar

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful question. Be in no doubt: we will defend every inch of this country and our territorial waters. If anything is taking place in our EEZ, in particular, we will expose, we will attribute and, be in absolutely no doubt, we will hold people, organisations or countries accountable should there be any impact on or disruption to our critical national infrastructure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now announce the result of yesterday’s deferred Division on the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 376 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The cadets play such an important part, with the sea cadets right at the forefront. Seeing Joshua thriving in that environment is absolutely superb, and hearing of Martin Rowley excelling after being in service is hugely admirable—I thank him in particular for his service.

As we remember the generations who have sacrificed so much, their testimony lives on, inspiring us to be strong in the face of adversity. Being resilient during difficult times and standing up for values that we believe in—that is the way we will remember our military heroes best, and that is how we will ensure that their priceless legacy of peace and freedom will endure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, let me inform Members that a five-minute speaking time limit will be imposed after the speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Defence Committee and on behalf of the whole Committee, I want to express our deepest gratitude to all those who have served our country to keep us safe. On this day, we remember and honour those whose bravery and sacrifice secured for us the freedoms that we value so dearly, and pay tribute to those who continue to protect our way of life today. It is our great privilege as members of the Defence Committee that we are able to see their work at first hand.

This year we have visited the British battlegroup stationed in Tapa in Estonia, whose presence deters Russian aggression against our NATO allies in eastern Europe. We have also met serving personnel during our many visits to military sites across the UK, including RAF Lossiemouth, HMNB Portsmouth and the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where we met the impressive young people who will be the soldiers of the future. Meeting those remarkable individuals reminds us that the work of our armed forces never stops: they are always vigilant, and always prepared to do what is necessary to keep us safe—and that lifesaving work goes beyond defence. Earlier this month, HMS Trent was deployed to support disaster relief efforts in Jamaica following the devastating impact of Hurricane Melissa. I am immensely proud that the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces are out there representing the best of British every single day.

One of our Committee’s missions is to speak up on behalf of these exceptional people, and to raise the issues that matter to them. When the Committee was appointed by the House last year, one of our first priorities was to complete the previous Committee’s work on service accommodation because of the importance of that issue to serving personnel and their families. The standard of the housing in which we expect personnel to live has been unacceptable for some time, and that must be addressed. We are encouraged to see that the Government are focused on the overhaul of defence housing, and we will be scrutinising the new defence housing strategy as it is rolled out to ensure that it delivers what has been promised.

Another area that we continue to scrutinise is the treatment of women in the armed forces. More than 16,000 women serve our country in the military, but there are still unfair biases and barriers to their participation, and, sadly, many examples of bullying and harassment. That must change. We have agreed to hold an annual public hearing with the Ministry of Defence and the single services to drive them to improve, and to stamp out discrimination for good.

We want to ensure that all members of the armed forces community are treated fairly, which is why this year we held an inquiry on the Government’s plans to update the armed forces covenant. As Members know, the covenant is a solemn commitment from Government and society to the armed forces community that serving personnel, their families and veterans should not be disadvantaged in civilian life. Our inquiry asked veterans and serving personnel whether they felt that that promise was being fulfilled. While some of the feedback was positive, we still heard of too many examples in which the covenant is not understood or, worse still, is ignored. That means, for example, individuals having to wait for years for NHS treatment because they fall to the bottom of the waiting list each time they are deployed to a new area.

There are also gaps in the covenant, which means that the forces community still face disadvantages in social care, employment and the tax system. That is why we recommended that when the Government legislate in the next armed forces Bill, they should extend the covenant duty to every single Department. We look forward to that legislation, and hope that it will properly embed the covenant in our institutions and in wider society, so that those who have served can be in no doubt that it is there to support them. We also look forward to seeing the delivery of the new veterans strategy. The “Veterans Strategy” policy paper was published yesterday, and the strategy will be another important part of fulfilling our nation’s promise to the armed forces community.

In my constituency, I am pleased that the covenant has also been adopted by Slough borough council, but its implementation must of course be robust. Slough has a proud and enduring history of supporting our troops. In fact, the very roots of our iconic Slough Trading Estate lie in its establishment as a military repair depot in the first world war, and Langley airfield was the proud producer of thousands of Hawker Hurricanes in the second world war. Slough’s history is interwoven with defence. Just last week I had the honour of hosting an event to celebrate, in Parliament, two local heroes. Both those veterans, Havildar-Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt and Daffadar Mohammed Hussain, served in world war two, and sadly passed away earlier this year. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of brave troops from across the globe for our freedom, must never be forgotten. We must do more than just be thankful; we must actively celebrate and honour the service given by all, especially in these febrile times, including those from across the world who ensured that our freedoms could be preserved. Remembrance should never be exclusive.

Today’s remembrance services honour the past, but they also remind us of the duty performed by those who defend us today in an increasingly dangerous world. Our Committee’s visit to Ukraine last month was a sobering reminder that war in Europe is no longer a thing of the past. We must never forget our debt to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, and we must never neglect our obligations to those who make sacrifices today. Our Committee will continue to honour the fallen, while also putting the welfare of the of the servicemen and women of our armed forces at the heart of our work throughout this Parliament. We will remember them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), made a statement. During the statement, he said:

“Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.”

He went on to say:

“I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.”

I pressed the Secretary of State on whether the information had been cited by the WASPI women, or whether the information had been cited by the Department for Work and Pensions, and was unable to get a clear answer. However, WASPI women have since contacted me and told me that they provided the report to the court proceedings. The report that was provided by the WASPI women, the Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 434, is called “Attitudes to Pensions: the 2006 Survey” and it was published in 2007.

During the speech in December 2024 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—now the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—announcing that the Government would not be compensating WASPI women, she said that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

“does not properly take into account…research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

The numbers about the 90% of women aged 45 to 54 come from the research report that was published. This is a document that the former Secretary of State did not have, according to the current Secretary of State, and therefore new decisions now need to be made and this needs to be looked at again. I am struggling to understand how we can get more information on whether this was indeed the report mentioned, whether the former Secretary of State did have that report, and if she did not have the report, how she was able to quote the report when she made her statement to this House in December 2024.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given notice of her point of order, and I take it that she has notified both the Secretary of State at the DWP and the former Secretary of State at the DWP of her intention to refer to them in the Chamber.

[Kirsty Blackman]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This, as the hon. Lady will know, is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point very much on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her comments.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—he is someone for whom I have a lot of respect. I would tell my constituents that this country is now safer and more secure because of the deal that this Government have done.

Let us see who is on the Government’s side. The United States backs the deal, with President Trump having called it

“a very long-term, powerful lease”.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, NATO and the overseas territories all back the deal, because they understand that Diego Garcia is vital to our security and theirs. Who lines up against it? Who is the proud company that the Conservatives keep? Nigel Farage and Reform.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We do not refer to Members by name, but by constituency.

[Graeme Downie]

I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have seen Reform UK peddling fantasies about America that were flatly wrong. Beyond these shores, what do we see? Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Beijing both know that they could have access to the waters around Diego Garcia were it not for the deal that this Government have secured. That is the roll-call—that is who Conservative Members stand with, and that is who they will be voting alongside if they block the Bill. We saw Reform swaggering around, claiming that it would get President Trump to block this deal, but the truth has been the exact opposite. The United States has clearly welcomed this treaty, as we have heard so often this afternoon. Reform did not just misread the room; it misread and misrepresented one of our closest allies, talking Britain down and peddling fantasy while a serious Government deliver and secure our safety. This Bill is about strength and weakness. This is strength and that is weakness—order from the Government versus chaos from the Opposition, Britain standing with our allies versus Britain opening the door to our adversaries.

Just a couple of years ago, the Conservatives knew that this deal was vital. They wanted it in office—like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), it pains me to sometimes agree with the Conservatives, but for once, they were correct. They were right to want this deal, but only when they lost power did they suddenly discover their doubts. That is not principle; it is opportunism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lillian Jones]

I will not give way. The Bill is pragmatic, proportionate, grounded in the national interest and fully compatible with our democratic values. It does not ignore the past; it confronts it, and seeks to chart a responsible path forward. I urge my colleagues across the House, especially those wavering on the fence, to vote not out of ideological purity, but out of practical necessity. The world is watching. Our allies are watching. History, too, will judge what we choose today. Let us choose strength, responsibility, regional and global security, and to back the UK’s national security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Paul Holmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by.

This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that.

This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that.

This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories.

I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

I will make some progress, if I may. I wanted to intervene on Opposition Members earlier, but was not allowed to.

It was the Conservatives who rightly described the situation in 2022 as unsustainable, and it was they who held 11 rounds of talks on sovereignty. In 2023, when he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) said that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. At the time, when they were in government, Conservative Members recognised that the base’s legal status was under serious threat, and that an interminable sovereignty dispute risked paralysing operations.

Let me make a quick point about international law. In reflecting on the ICJ advisory opinion, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that it is an international court that few have heard of. Those kinds of reckless throwaway remarks undermine the United Nations’ highest judicial organ. She mentioned that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There are judges sitting in the ICJ who are elected by members of the General Assembly, and through the Security Council. Although we have had judges sitting in that international court since its inception, we have not since 2018, which is a source of much shame for the country at large. I hope that she will take back those remarks denigrating the international system of law that underpins our international work. Let us not forget, after all, that in the 1940s, the United Kingdom was the first country to submit a case for arbitration by the ICJ. [Interruption.] I ask those Opposition Members who are chuntering: where were you when those 11 rounds of negotiations took place? I know that two years is a long time in politics, but have you already forgotten—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I wasn’t anywhere, and I have forgotten nothing. Will Members please be careful about the language they use in the Chamber?

[Phil Brickell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Labour has finished what the previous Government started—what was left to us after former Prime Minister Liz Truss let the genie out of the bottle in starting negotiations with Mauritius in 2022. That was reported, and much maligned, by Matthew Parris in The Spectator at the time—let us not forget that. This Government have sought to strike a deal in Britain’s best interests, given the legal mess that they inherited. Let us be clear: this agreement secures the future of the Diego Garcia base. Britain retains control of the base, as the Minister confirmed in response to my intervention near the start of the debate. There is a protective buffer zone, and no foreign security forces will be on the outer islands. There will be a robust mechanism to prevent interference, and for the first time, Mauritius has agreed back the base’s operations. That is a huge strategic win.

What about cost? Let us get this clear, because some of the disinformation coming from the Conservative party is concerning; it is unnecessarily setting hares running about the future of other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The overall cost has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister, and suggestions to the contrary are simply false. When set against the cost of inaction, the financial component is modest. It is far cheaper than the spiralling costs of legal uncertainty, and far cheaper than the price we would pay if Chinese expansionism went unchecked in the Indian ocean. For a fraction of our defence budget, we will secure a cornerstone of global stability. Let us not forget that the agreement will have an average annual cost that represents 0.008% of total Government spend, according to the Government Actuary’s Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

So many Labour Members seem to have forgotten that the reshuffle was a couple of days ago. They will have to wait another few months, possibly years, for their obsequiousness to be rewarded.

May I suggest that we are in a somewhat through-the-looking-glass world? Over the last few hours, we have heard very clear questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is no longer in his place. He explained that we are hearing a circular argument about legal intervention to which there is absolutely no response. All we hear from Government Members is ChatGPT-generated press releases—“I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd.

This building and this Chamber are a complete waste of time when our electors and fellow citizens hear that we have listened to the arguments of Mauritius, China, India and the United States, but are not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain. We are not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people, or to look at the strategic interests of UK defence. Instead, all we hear consistently is that the Americans are for the deal. Of course they are for it; this is a territorial deal, and they have no interest in the territory. All they are interested in is the lease of the base. They are leasing the base off us at the moment, and they will be leasing the base off Mauritius via us into the future, so there is no change for them.

Of course, India is in favour of the deal. By the way, I respect the position of the Indian Government greatly, but do you know what? I am not an Indian MP. I have a different perspective, because my job—and, I thought, the job of Labour Members, but clearly I was wrong—is to stand up for the British people. Instead, all I hear is that Labour Members are standing up for the interests of different foreign powers. That is absolutely fine. They worship international treaties and stand up for so-called international law, but they conveniently forget—[Interruption.] Members should hear the end of the sentence. They forget that international law is conflictual, challenged and regularly, if not almost always, in direct confrontation with itself, because it highlights different interests. At different points, Governments champion different aspects of international law in order to seek different outcomes. That is how it has grown up. It is the job of sovereign Governments to stand up for our interests. I thought that was the job of our Government, but it clearly is not the job of this Government. Instead, this Government do something quite different; the moment that they are challenged, they run away. Brave Sir Keir bravely turned his tail and fled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

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

Ukraine

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of the success in securing the Norway deal. Groundwork was certainly done under the last Government, and he led a lot of that as the Defence Procurement Minister, but I have to say that we had a great deal more to do when we took over in July last year. Frankly, we had to reboot the campaign, which we did, and I am grateful that we have secured it, as it has huge military, economic and strategic importance.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s continuing support for the action we are taking to support Ukraine. He is absolutely right to call out Putin’s remarks at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation council, and the pressure is now on Putin to prove that he wants peace and to do what he says he wants. While he has sat down to discuss peace with President Trump in Alaska, he has of course been turning up his attacks in Ukraine. He launched this war, and he can stop it tomorrow if he chooses.

The hon. Gentleman asks about sanctions and encourages us to take further steps. He will know that we have already introduced more than 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships. We have sanctioned 289 vessels as part of the Russian shadow fleet, and very soon the Foreign Secretary will announce further UK steps.

On the security guarantees, the commitments we have secured already from many of those involved in the discussion are substantial. The discussions continue, and we look for contributions to be further confirmed. Much of the shape of any deployment of a coalition of the willing will depend on the terms of any peace agreement. At this stage, I certainly do not want to offer any more public details on that, because it would only reinforce Putin’s hand and make him and the Russians wiser.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I wholeheartedly welcome the historic frigate exports deal with Norway, and join him in paying tribute to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Radakin for his distinguished decades-long service to our country.

Recent Russian attacks across 14 different regions of Ukraine are not actions of peace. Words and actions must align, and it is abundantly clear that both from President Putin present a threat to us all. With such drastic escalation of Putin’s violence running concurrently with peace negotiations, along with Putin’s false reframing of his invasion as some sort of reaction to a Western-backed coup, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shed further light on what levers he has pulled to help enable a peaceful outcome?

[John Healey]

It is a truism that peace is secured through strength, and our task in countries such as the UK that strongly support Ukraine is to put it in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That means stepping up military support for Ukraine now, which we are doing, and will do further at next week’s UDCG meeting that I will co-chair. It also means stepping up economic pressure on Putin, which the House will have a chance to hear more about —the Foreign Secretary will announce further measures soon—and stepping up our preparations for securing any peace for the long term if Trump can help lead negotiations that will lead to a ceasefire and a peace agreement. That is the way that we support Ukraine now, and it is how we can help reinforce the steps towards the possibility of peace tomorrow.

I say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that I will ensure tomorrow that Admiral Radakin is aware of the kind comments from both sides of the House. I know that he will appreciate them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps.

I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine?

We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?

Ukraine

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.

Today is day 1,239 since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion and it is more than a decade since the Ukrainians have known peace in their homeland. They have had homes destroyed, lands seized, children abducted and loved ones killed by Putin’s forces. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with remarkable determination—military and civilian alike. Almost three and a half years on, I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine. Britain remains united for Ukraine, too. Polling shows that we retain the strongest public support for Ukraine of any European nation. Our solidarity is grounded in our deep respect for the Ukrainian people’s courage, and in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine—because we know that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop with Ukraine.

Let me begin by providing a battlefield update. Russia is maintaining pressure along the whole length of the frontline, with a special focus on Sumy in the north-east and Pokrovsk in the south-east, as well as in Kursk. Last month, Russian ground forces seized approximately 550 sq km of Ukrainian territory—an area greater than the size of Greater Manchester—yet they face continuing difficulties attempting to take fortified towns and cities, and they have not taken a significant town for months. Indeed, they have tried without success to seize Pokrovsk for nearly a year. What ground they do gain comes at great cost. Last month, the number of Russian troops killed and wounded surpassed more than 1 million. This year alone, Russia has sustained 240,000 casualties.

Despite those catastrophic Russian losses, Putin’s ruthless ambitions do not appear to be waning. Russia is escalating the high numbers of one-way attack drones launched at Ukraine: 1,900 in April, 4,000 in May, 5,000 in June and already 3,200 in July. On 9 July, a week ago today, the largest aerial strike of the war was recorded when Russia launched more than 700 attack drones in a single night.

Despite the onslaught, Ukrainians are taking the fight to Putin, striking military targets in Russia that his people see and know about. Spider Web was an operation of remarkable precision and extraordinary success that dealt a fierce blow to Putin. After one year of meticulous planning, it resulted in the damage of 41 long-range bombers—planes that threaten not only Ukraine but NATO.

We must now step up efforts to get further military support to the frontline. Last month, on the eve of the NATO summit, we welcomed President Zelensky to No. 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister signed a UK-Ukraine agreement to share advanced battlefield capabilities and technologies—a deal that means our defence industry can rapidly develop cutting-edge technologies from Ukraine, and step up production for Ukraine. At the NATO summit that followed, 32 nations came together to sign a new investment pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035. Those 32 nations reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, with €40 billion pledged in security assistance for this year. It was a good summit for Ukraine, for Britain and for NATO; it was a bad summit for Putin.

On the basis of those commitments at NATO, President Trump signalled a significant shift this week on Ukraine: he announced NATO weapons transfers, and a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace. Together with the NATO Secretary-General, President Trump agreed to large-scale purchases by NATO allies of US military equipment, including Patriot missiles and other air defence systems and munitions, which he committed to getting

“quickly distributed to the battlefield”.

The UK backs the scheme, and we plan to play our full part. On Monday, we will discuss this further when I chair the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside my German counterpart, Minister Boris Pistorius. The contact group continues to be the forum through which more than 50 nations provide Ukraine with what it needs to fight back against Putin’s war machine. I am pleased that Monday’s meeting will be attended by US Secretary Hegseth; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich.

Britain is providing more than £4.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year—more than ever before. At the UDCG, I will provide the following updates. First, on the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, two thirds of the UK’s ERA total of £2.26 billion has now been disbursed, including £700 million on artillery shells, long- range rockets and air defence missiles—exactly what Ukraine needs most. Secondly, on drones, since March the UK has supplied nearly 50,000 drones to Ukraine. This helps us to meet our commitment to increasing tenfold our supply this year. Thirdly, on air defence, the UK and Germany have agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine. Fourthly, on the NATO comprehensive assistance package, the UK will donate a further £40 million, which Ukraine can use, through a range of programmes, on anything from de-mining to rehabilitating its wounded.

It is four months since President Zelensky responded to President Trump’s peace negotiations with Ukraine’s full commitment to an unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has shown no such interest in an end to the fighting, but peace in Ukraine is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes. Since March, the UK and France have led the coalition of the willing on planning new security arrangements to support Ukraine in any ceasefire. More than 200 military planners from 30 nations have worked intensively for weeks with Ukraine; that includes work on reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.

Last week, at the summit, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer said that this initial phase of detailed military planning had concluded. I can confirm that the military command and control structures have been agreed for a future Multinational Force Ukraine. The force’s mission will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defences on the land, at sea and in the air, because the Ukrainian armed forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression. The force will include a three-star multinational command headquarters in Paris, rotating to London after the first 12 months. When the force deploys, there will be a co-ordination HQ in Kyiv, headed by a UK two-star military officer. It will regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armament and training experts. It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft to deliver a level of support similar to that used for NATO’s air policing mission, and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black sea taskforce with additional specialist teams.

When peace comes, we will be ready, and we will play our part in securing it for the long term. Next month, on 24 August, Ukrainians will gather to celebrate their independence day. For another year, the anniversary of Ukraine’s liberation will be marked under the pain of occupation. Whatever else commands the world’s attention, we must never lose sight of this war. We must never lose sight of Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of that proud and sovereign nation, and we must never forget the price that Ukraine is paying in fighting for its own freedom and the security of all free nations, including ours. The UK will stand with the Ukrainian people today, tomorrow, the day after, and for as long it takes for Ukraine to prevail.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: the UK has been the most reliable ally for Ukraine since before the full-scale invasion almost three and a half years ago. She is also right to say that a test of this nation is whether we are willing to step up the leadership on Ukraine, as we have; whether we are ready to step up the leadership in NATO, as we have; and, underpinning all, whether we are ready to step up the level of defence investment in this country, which we have. The Prime Minister announced in February that this country would invest 2.5% of GDP in defence by 2027, alongside the £5 billion extra in defence this year—Labour’s first year in government. This is the largest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the additional support to Ukraine, because we must continue to support Ukraine to defend Europe. Russia’s increased attacks are devastating, and we recognise the resilience of the Ukrainians and support them.

President Trump only now seems to be realising what has always been clear: that Russia’s brutal dictator has no interest in peace. While I was surprised and relieved to see the President announce potential secondary sanctions if no ceasefire is agreed within 50 days, we all know that he is as changeable as the wind. No one has forgotten the humiliating ambush he laid for President Zelensky in the Oval Office, and there is no guarantee he will not soon revert to praising Putin again. A 50-day deadline could even encourage Putin to escalate his attacks in the meantime. That is why the UK must go further to support Ukraine and increase pressure on the Kremlin.

Could the Defence Secretary update the House on progress towards seizing the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets here in the UK and deploying them to Ukraine? What discussions are under way with European partners, especially Belgium and Germany, on doing the same across the continent? More must be done to cut off the oil revenues fuelling Russia’s war machine. The Secretary of State spoke about the shadow fleet, but will the Government expand the UK’s designation of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet, including those that are already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US?

Finally, I turn to the announcement on the Multinational Force Ukraine. We welcome the conclusion of this first phase of planning and the UK’s leading role in shaping the future security architecture for Ukraine, but we need clarity on what this means in practical terms. Can the Defence Secretary confirm what the specific UK armed forces contribution will be to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Will there be any planned deployment of UK personnel on land, at sea or in the air once the mission is operational, and if so, what role will the UK play in that deployment?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy share the sentiment across the UK of strong support for Ukraine, three and a half years into this war. [Interruption.] There is a recognition that this matter rises above party politics, and a recognition in general that the UK not only needs to say that we stand with Ukraine, but needs to demonstrate that through our actions. I hope her constituents will support the Government in what we are doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive.

It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan?

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he cannot intervene from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I hope I can give my right hon. Friend time to get to the Benches behind him, as he may wish to intervene on me. I am sure that he will not be noticed in that movement, swift and ghost-like as he.

I am not going to stretch this out any longer. The individual I will refer to today worked alongside British forces in Afghanistan, providing operational and intelligence support under direct threat from the Taliban. His family and his home were threatened. He served in the national security directorate in Kabul. His work involved sharing critical intelligence with the British special forces and intelligence services in Kabul and, of course, in the wider region. That intelligence undoubtedly saved lives and contributed to the success of key operations. His contributions are simply not in doubt or in question; they are evidenced extensively, including in a powerful testimony from the most senior commander of British forces in Kabul at the time, who is now a general. He personally worked with this individual and has testified to the crucial role he played.

I am not going to name the general at this point, but he says in his letter in support of this individual’s application:

“His daily security briefings covered possible threats and intelligence reports. These reports made a substantive and crucially life-saving contribution not only to the UK’s military and national security objectives with respect to operations in Afghanistan, but also to the day-to-day safety of British troops and civilian British Embassy staff”

and others. He also says that by the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share within this high-level forum, the threat to his life and that of his family was unquestionably at an elevated risk from targeted attacks, including a high risk of death or serious injury by the Taliban regime. I would have thought that that alone was powerful enough evidence to say that this individual should be here now, as he is currently in fear for his life in another country nearby.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 2 and 3, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 4 to 7.

[Luke Pollard]

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to the House. I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were proposed by the Government in the other place, as well as Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were proposed by the Opposition and to which we have proposed an amendment in lieu to strengthen them.

Before I start, I would like to recognise the publication of the strategic defence review yesterday, which signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence. We made clear then, as I do today, that our people are at the heart of defence. The strategic defence review sets out our mission to look after our people better, to unlock their full potential, and to build a “one defence” culture that is focused, inclusive, respectful, and centred on valuing all contributions. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner is a key part of that mission.

I thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. It is a landmark step in this Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind those who serve our nation. I extend my thanks in particular to Lord Coaker, the Minister in the House of Lords, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place. I also thank Baroness Goldie, the Earl of Minto, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord Stirrup, Lord Stansgate, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Beamish and Baroness Newlove, to name just a few who made valuable contributions in the other place on this important piece of legislation.

Seven amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Before I turn to them, I remind colleagues that this Bill is part of a manifesto commitment made by Labour during the general election to improve the service life of all those who serve and, importantly, to provide for the very first time an opportunity for family members to raise concerns about service welfare as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

In Southend and Rochford I have had the pleasure of meeting many veterans and service people, men and women, who keep our country safe. An Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for those serving and their families, and will have direct authority to investigate welfare complaints from housing to kit to issues affecting family life. As a former soldier myself, I know that losing a lot of kit happened often, but I digress. This role comes alongside record amounts of funding for the armed forces and housing, so I am sure that colleagues across the House are extremely proud—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member really ought not to be making a mini-speech. Perhaps he is drawing his comments to a close.

[Mr Alaba]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure colleagues across the House are extremely proud of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that this Bill is an opportunity for us to show a united Chamber in support of our armed forces and that colleagues should support it?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments.

For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call shadow Minister Mark Francois.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.

The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.

The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?

Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.

To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.

Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.

In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.

I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address.

I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation.

I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints.

I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office.

Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

Ukraine Update

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the job he does in chairing the Defence Committee. One of the trickiest tasks in the work undertaken by our military planners is that it is not clear in what circumstances any forces may be required to be deployed, and it is not clear that the details of the negotiated peace deal we all want to see will be in place. He asked me a straight question, and when the deal is done, the peace is negotiated and the ceasefire is in place, I believe it will actually be easier, not harder, to hold together and enlarge the number of nations willing to be a part of the coalition of the willing. In the meeting I chaired at NATO headquarters 10 days ago—the first ever meeting of the Defence Ministers of the coalition of the willing—the 30 nations around the table, all participating in the detailed operational military planning that is continuing, were not just from Europe but beyond.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the surge in UK support to Ukrainian troops on the frontline. It is important to support them at this point in their close fight. That is what we are determined to do, as well as preparing for the longer term peace that we hope will be secured.

On the peace negotiations, I would just say to her that it is President Trump who has created this opportunity for negotiations and for peace, and it really is too soon to call failure on those negotiations. Everything about the determination of some significant US figures and the work they are doing, the discussions we will help support and play a part of in London tomorrow, demonstrates that there is a broad coalition of nations that wants to see a peace in Ukraine, wants to see Putin negotiate seriously, and is willing to take the steps to help bring that about.

On the question of the pressures on Putin, whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian state assets is something we are looking closely at. It is not just a question or a judgment for the UK. It will be much more powerful if that is done with other allies, particularly through the G7. If we make any progress on that front, that is the way we will do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the job that she is doing chairing the FAC, and for her commitment to Ukraine and her recent visit. I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. I am proud of the way it was led by the previous Government, supported by us in opposition. I am proud that the official Opposition now provide the necessary support for this Government to step up still further the support we can offer.

On drones, it is not just a question, as my right hon. Friend asks, of whether we will do it. We have been doing it, and for some time. I said earlier in response to the shadow Defence Secretary, since the election in July alone, we have gifted more than 14,000 drones to Ukraine. In some cases, those are drones we have made, designed and developed here, and in some cases we have done that jointly with Ukrainian companies. Sometimes, we are ensuring that they can design, develop and manufacture for themselves in Ukraine, because that is the most effective way for Ukraine to reinforce its own armed forces and industry, and it is the quickest way of getting into the hands of frontline troops the necessary equipment and assistance to fight off Putin’s invasion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What worries me is that President Putin has said he will not accept NATO troops on the ground. In the absence of NATO troops on the ground, could we not be back to a 1939 Sudetenland situation where the aggressor takes a slug of territory and then moves in several months later? Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is absolutely convinced—perhaps he can also convince President Trump—that in the absence of NATO troops on the ground, this is a worthless peace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am going to get all Members in, but that would be greatly helped if we could have shorter questions.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Over recess, I delivered a message of solidarity from St Andrew’s church in Barrhead to St Andrew church in Bucha, the site of a horrific massacre. It was clear when I was in Kyiv that that brutality has meant the Ukrainians are still determined to fight, but again and again, they raised their concerns about their exposure and their overreliance on American air defence. What can we do to mitigate that, and what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating an integrated air defence zone in the west of Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), work is going on with allies on the question of the Russian assets. Our first focus in the Ukraine defence contact group was on what we could do now, what we could do quickly and what we could do in order to keep Ukraine in the fight today, because it is important that we do not jeopardise the prospects of peace by forgetting about the war. That is where the €21 billion—a record level of commitment—came from in that meeting in Brussels 10 days ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Lastly, I call John Cooper.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

That was worth waiting for. My first focus as Defence Secretary is securing a defence and security agreement and seeing that as the passport to more British firms and British jobs as we play our part in some of the Europe-wide procurement programmes and industrial developments that we need to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. I will allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. On 8 May, this House, together with the whole country, will celebrate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. This important milestone provides us with a renewed opportunity to reflect on the sacrifices and struggle of that greatest generation, who fought to protect Britain and preserve our freedom and democracy in the face of fascism and tyranny.

It is our duty in this House and in our communities across the UK to recognise and celebrate the contributions made by our incredible service personnel to the security, defence and prosperity of this country. That must include reflecting on the service of all current military personnel who protect us today, the living veterans who have finished their time in the armed forces, and the servicemen and women from previous generations who are no longer with us.

They are, all of them, bound together by a thread of service and sacrifice for this country. We must continually renew our gratitude and remembrance of that service. Therefore I welcome today’s incredibly valuable debate. It shines a spotlight on the gallantry and heroism of one of the UK’s most decorated servicemen, Blair Paddy Mayne, whose proposed recognition with a posthumous Victoria Cross I warmly support.

As the premier operational gallantry award, it is worth while reminding ourselves of its requirements. It is awarded for

“most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy”.

It is clear that Blair Mayne personified the highest standards of bravery in the face of the enemy and across his career in the Special Air Service, and on that basis merits the award of a Victoria Cross.

Blair Mayne was one of the first leaders of the SAS following its formation in 1941. It was designed with the intention of conducting guerrilla warfare against the axis powers, which were at that time on their march across Europe, Africa and Asia. The SAS’s role in the second world war was unconventional but crucial. Its work to disrupt operations behind enemy lines, particularly through its use of small-scale raids, intelligence gathering and support for networks of resistance groups against the fascist occupiers, was vital in undermining the axis’s political and military strength.

As part of the then regiment, Mayne showed extraordinary valour and heroism while carrying out dangerous and daring raids in north Africa, Italy and France, harassing Nazi and fascist supply lines. Indeed, in November 1941 Mayne led one of the first SAS missions considered to be a major success—an attack on a Libyan airfield, which saw dozens of enemy aircraft destroyed. In January 1943, following the capture of Colonel David Stirling, Mayne took over the command of the SAS, going on to lead his men in campaigns in Sicily and Italy, before the SAS took part in the D-day landings. These are just a few examples of the conspicuous bravery displayed by Mayne in his leadership of the SAS.

It is important to remember too that for Mayne and all the members of this elite regiment, being apprehended by the Nazis from 1942 onwards would likely have meant their summary execution at the hands of their captors. Consistently operating under such conditions requires, without doubt, exceptional bravery. Mayne is already one of our most decorated veterans. He was one of only eight people during the second world war to be awarded the Distinguished Service Order on four occasions—at the time the second highest gallantry award behind the Victoria Cross. This serves as an important testament to the consistency of his bravery, leadership and resolve, often in the face of odds stacked against him.

It is only right and fair that we honour that courage today through the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross. Indeed, the award of a Victoria Cross would honour not only Mayne but in many ways the role of our special forces writ large, both historically and to this day.

For many people, their knowledge and understanding of the SAS will have been informed by the BBC’s dramatisation of the regiment’s founding in “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, which Members have already extolled. The series has had an important impact, highlighting the enormous contribution of the SAS in securing the freedom we celebrate today and protecting it still. It has also highlighted the important work of the BBC in bringing stories such as these to the public’s attention, impressing on all of us the sacrifices and courage of our armed forces.

There are now only a few living veterans of that greatest generation who can recall their stories and remind us of the price that they and so many others paid to defend our way of life. Just last month we said goodbye to another Paddy, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, who was the last surviving pilot of the battle of Britain and who, as part of the RAF, defeated the Luftwaffe and defended our country from invasion. We have a responsibility to champion their voices and their deeds, and to continue to recognise acts of outstanding valour and heroism in our armed forces. That is why I warmly support the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, the decoration that King George VI said had “so strangely eluded him” but is within our gift to correct.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to this place today. It is really important that we shine a light on this issue. I have the greatest respect for the sustained and passionate advocacy in support of a posthumous Victoria Cross for Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne. I would also like to fully associate myself with the powerful tribute the hon. Member has paid, as have many in the House today, to Lieutenant Colonel Mayne, who was without doubt one of the greatest heroes of the second world war. His legacy lives on in the spirit of the Special Air Service today, and his courage and accomplishments were rightly celebrated for our generation by the portrayal—slightly dramatised, perhaps—in the recent BBC drama “SAS: Rogue Heroes”.

It is particularly pertinent that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne was recognised for his bravery at the time. He is one of the very few recipients of the rare third bar to the Distinguished Service Order—I only have one; he had three—in recognition of his actions as commander of the 1st SAS Regiment during Operation Howard in April 1945. It should be remembered that this made him one of the Army’s most highly decorated officers of that time. While it is possible to give gallantry awards posthumously, it is a key tenet of the British honours and awards system that they are not granted retrospectively. This ensures that awards are timely and clearly linked to specific actions or activities, and in particular that they are awarded within the context of the time.

As I have mentioned many times, specifically when talking about Northern Ireland and various inquests and inquiries, it is the responsibility of those investigations to understand the context of Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. It is also up to us, sitting in this warm place on these wonderful Benches, to understand the context in which the senior generals made those decisions around gallantry medals. For gallantry awards, as well as for civilian and military honours, the guiding principle is that they will not be considered more than five years after the incident in question.

It is worth recalling that all significant battles and operations that took place in the second world war were discussed in great detail in the context of medal recognition at the end of the war. It is worth noting that, out of all the years of war, it was only in 1945 that more Victoria Crosses were awarded posthumously than to those living. After years of war, many had seen conflict, courage and commitment to service, and while it is not necessarily fact, the bar—no pun intended—for VCs was statistically higher at the end of the war. It is worth noting that it was recommended in June 1946 that no further recommendations for gallantry awards should be considered after 1950.

From what we know, from the paperwork that exists about Lieutenant Colonel Mayne’s recommendation for a Victoria Cross, there is lots of speculation that appropriate processes were not followed or that an administrative error took place. The evidence we have suggests that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne’s citation passed through the correct chain of command and was properly considered by a succession of senior officers, all of whom had a lot of combat experience in leadership and in the field, and were experienced in the consideration of medallic recognition and gallantry awards after many years of hard fighting during the second world war.

I thought it might be worthwhile bringing forward some of that correspondence. Certain correspondence—held by the Canadian National Archives—from the Deputy Military Secretary to his counterpart in the first Canadian Army reveals some doubt about the VC in the discussion between members of the VC committee. It states that the VC committee considered it not quite clearly up to VC standard, and that it was not a single-handed act of heroism—that goes to the point about “single” or “signal”. In the letter, the Deputy Military Secretary also suggests the award of the third bar to the DSO. It cannot be known for certain whether that is the reason why the VC was amended to DSO in third bar form, but it is likely.

It is clear that, at some point in the process, it was considered more appropriate for Lieutenant Colonel Mayne to be awarded a third bar to his DSO, which is itself an exceptionally high honour. That decision was signed off by Field Marshal Montgomery, who had considerable combat experience throughout the whole of the conflict. We also know that it was not uncommon at the time for the recommended level of award to be changed as the citation went through the consideration process.

Today, the process remains relatively similar. I sat on many such honours and awards committees in my time in the military. Such committees, at unit, brigade and division levels, will rank awards against the context from their own particular perspectives. A unit may have 20 to deal with, a brigade 60 and a division 100. We do not necessarily know the totality of the picture at the time Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne’s citation was considered at each level. There may have been stiff competition across the military, particularly in the Army.

I fully respect all those who disagree with the decision made in relation to Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne. However, I believe it credible to conclude that he was a war hero of the highest order while also concluding that, in some cases, it is not appropriate for officers, officials or Ministers working today, some 80 years later, to overrule the decisions made by senior officers at the time, who were steeped in wartime experience and had a contemporary appreciation of the brave actions of Lieutenant Colonel Mayne and, importantly, his peers.

Fantastic points have been made in this important debate. Winston Churchill casts a shadow over those who perhaps did not get a medal. For everybody who did get one, there are probably 100, if not 1,000, who did not get one but definitely deserved to. Interestingly, the Australian precedent was mentioned twice, including by the hon. Member for Strangford. However, Australia’s separate honours system does not have any impact on UK policy. Australia not only bestowed one VC retrospectively for Vietnam, but, as was rightly mentioned, a second retrospective VC to Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean, who was killed in 1942. That speaks to the VC having no boundaries across services or domains.

The remarks about the Falkland Islands were news to me. I am sure that Paddy Mayne enjoyed the isolation and camaraderie of a small team wandering around those pretty barren but amazing places. The Bomber Command medal highlights how divisive the medals and honours system can be. I am sure that those with military service can remember multiple conversations about who got awards and who did not.

As we talk about honouring those who served in the second world war, it is worth noting that many world war two veterans were up on the main screens of Piccadilly Circus today for thousands to see, honouring their service during that war.

Combat can bring the best and worst out of us. As I have said several times in the House, courage is a decision, not a reaction. It was clear to me that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne made multiple decisions that were deeply courageous rather than just reactions or habit—indeed, they probably became habit because he made them so often.

To conclude, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the opportunity he has given us all today to mark and lionise the incredible bravery, leadership and spirit demonstrated by Lieutenant Colonel Mayne some 80 years ago. Robert Blair Mayne was simply one of the greatest from our greatest generation —a man of audacity, ingenuity and fearsome courageousness, whose raids behind enemy lines and courage in rescuing injured comrades under fire is the stuff of military legend; a man whose spirit lives on in the “Who dares wins” motto of the SAS. The proud history of the SAS marks it out as one of the most battle-hardened and professional organisations of its time, and the very tip of the spear. Paddy Mayne is not only a hero within his regiment but a national hero, and he reminds me of the saying, “In times of peace, we must protect the mavericks.”

It is recognised that clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in language, can explicitly be fixed—and there is no time limit for doing so—as long as the intent of the original decision holds. As a Member of Parliament who has a mention in dispatches, a Military Cross and a DSO, I will take note of the new evidence that has been highlighted, its context, and the exceptional circumstances of this debate, and I will ask the honours and awards committee to review the evidence and find a decision. Once the decision is found by that independent body, it will be finalised. That will provide an answer, once and for all, on how Paddy Mayne’s service is recognised.

There was lots of mention today of looking at the evidence with fresh eyes in the context, and having a cool, calculated review of the historical facts. The honours and awards committee will do that, and we will present that evidence in the House. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for our debate. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne is a man whose spirit and legend will remain recognised in the annals of the mother of Parliaments in perpetuity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Jim Shannon to wind up the debate.

[Jim Shannon]

I was not sure if I got the chance to wind up the debate, so thank you for giving me this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all Members for their contributions. I learned today, for instance, that Blair Mayne served in the Falklands—that was the first time I had heard that—and I look forward to sharing what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) told us with some of the family.

I thank everyone for spending their Tuesday afternoon before recess in this Chamber to discuss awarding Blair Mayne a posthumous VC. I thank the hon. and gallant Minister for agreeing to review the matter; we are deeply indebted to him. The family back home and we in Newtownards and the constituency of Strangford, where that good son we are proud of came from, look forward to a successful conclusion of that review.

I wish every Member a very good recess. Rest yourselves —I know I will not, but that is by the way—and have a nice time, and come back here energised.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his inspiring Easter wind-up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of awarding a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to make this point of order. We are about to retire for the Easter recess—indeed, the Adjournment debate is about to begin—but I am rather perturbed by the fact that the Order Paper no longer lists it as the Easter Adjournment debate, but instead as a general debate on “Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment”. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member of Parliament for 24 years, and the Easter Adjournment debate was always a significant occasion, marking the fact that Easter is the holiest time of year for Christians in this country. I look over to the other side of the Chamber and see the crest of Sir David Amess, who was here for every Easter Adjournment debate. Can I have an assurance that this is the Easter Adjournment debate, that we have not taken away the Christian character of this important occasion, and that that will be reflected in future Order Papers and in Hansard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The subjects for debate today, including the titles of the debates, were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. The debate titles are not a matter for the Chair; the hon. Member has the opportunity to take that up with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I suspect might be about to speak.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I assure you, and the whole House, that no discourtesy was intended whatsoever? We did not get notice of whether we would get time for a debate, and when that time would be, until quite late on. I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has said. We will take that point back to the Committee and will ensure that we correct the matter for the future, and have Easter and Christmas recess debates. The summer recess debate we have already rechristened the Sir David Amess debate. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for that clarification. That brings us to the Backbench Business Committee debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming—I believe I might have the licence—Easter adjournment.

Unity Contract

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is almost a shame to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on an important development relating to our Royal Navy submarine fleet that will boost national security and economic growth, and deliver savings to the taxpayer.

This morning, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is visiting the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy site in Derby to announce our new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. Unity is worth around £9 billion over eight years and, as its name implies, brings together eight contracts into one, covering the research, design, manufacture and in-service support of the nuclear reactors that power the current and planned Royal Navy submarine fleet, which helps to keep the nation and our allies safe.

This is the biggest contract that Rolls-Royce has ever had with the UK Ministry of Defence. The contract will help Rolls-Royce to operate in a more integrated and efficient way, driving efficiencies, reducing waste, saving more than £400 million and delivering on the Government’s commitment to provide value for money for the taxpayer. It will ensure that our committed submariners, who, alongside their families, sacrifice so much to keep us all safe, can continue to protect us around the clock, every minute of every day.

Not only is this new deal a boost for our national security, but it underpins the Government’s triple-lock guarantee to our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our important AUKUS defence and security partnership with the United States of America and Australia by enabling the development of our next-generation SSN-AUKUS nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines.

The Unity contract is also a boost for British industry, for the resilience of our defence supply chains, and for jobs, skills and economic growth in communities in the east midlands and across the country. The Unity deal will create more than 1,000 new jobs, sustaining around 5,000 skilled and well-paid roles in total—the majority in Derby, but also around 200 in Glasgow and Cardiff. The deal will also help to deliver the next generations of skilled workers we need in our nuclear defence enterprise, with the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy offering 200 apprenticeships each year. Unity also paves the way for the use of safer and more sustainable materials in our fleet, supporting the commitment made by defence to better environmental performance.

The new contract with Rolls-Royce—an historic British industrial success story—comes as we consult industry partners and trade unions on our new defence industrial strategy, and as we seek to create a new partnership with Government fit for our more uncertain age. The Government recognise not only that defence is critical for our national security, but that it is a key driver for economic growth. It makes the UK more resilient. Through our defence industrial strategy, we aim to strengthen the virtuous circle that connects a more resilient UK-based defence sector and economic growth across the country. That virtuous circle will enhance our military capabilities and in turn make them more resilient, which not only deters our enemies but acts as an engine of growth for opportunities, skills and well-paid jobs across our devolved nations and regions.

By onshoring and putting British manufacture first wherever it is in our national interest to do so, we will build on the 200,000 skilled British jobs currently sustained by MOD expenditure, delivering on the Government’s plan for change and our primary mission to kick-start economic growth, while simultaneously delivering on the first duty of any Government: to keep their people safe.

We in this House are all passionate about defence. The defence of our nation should be too important for political point scoring, and I hope we have a consensus on that. It is in that spirit that we are consulting on our strategic defence review, so that we have a national plan for defence—not just a Labour plan for defence—that will inform our path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. In that spirit, I thank my predecessor in the role, the current shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for the groundwork he put into this deal. What he started, we are finishing.

On Wednesday, the Defence Secretary updated the House on the key role of our submarine fleet and the role it plays in deterrence. We all saw it warding off the Russian spy ship Yantar from UK waters. We should be under no illusions: this was just the latest example of growing Russian aggression targeting the UK and our NATO allies. In our increasingly dangerous world, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy that protects our freedoms and our way of life.

This deal underpins that insurance policy for the next eight years, as we begin to phase in our new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines. This deal also foreshadows a brighter future for the UK defence sector, guided by our defence industrial strategy, which will make us more secure and prosperous at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She knows a lot about the subject, and she is correct that it is a landmark deal. It is particularly beneficial for Derby. As she said, there are many skills there already, but the Nuclear Skills Academy will be creating 200 apprenticeships and opportunities a year for young people to get into nuclear skills. Of course, those are transferable skills that are relevant not only on the military side but on the civil side, which will give young people with those skills great opportunities in life. That is one of the most important parts of the deal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I welcome this announcement of the UK’s new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. This £9 billion investment will create 1,000 new jobs in the industry, and this sort of investment represents a boost for not only our national security but communities across the UK.

It is right that we celebrate this success for British industry and its skilled workforce. However, while we welcome this development, the Government must go further to create the stability and certainty that businesses need to thrive. Long-term growth requires an industrial strategy that incentivises investment in ethical, inclusive new technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. We must position the UK as a global leader in these sectors, so that we tackle the climate crisis while creating good jobs and driving economic growth.

Furthermore, we urge the Government to work in closer partnership with businesses of all sizes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to the defence supply chain, yet too often they are left out of the major procurement processes. What are the Government doing to ensure that SMEs are included in the MOD procurement process? We also want to unlock British businesses’ global potential by bringing down trade barriers and building stronger relationships with our closest trading partners, including by fixing our broken relationship with Europe.

Universal liberal principles are at the core of what we believe as Liberal Democrats, not least among them internationalism, human rights, the pursuit of peace and the rule of law. That is why we continue to champion the liberal, rules-based international order, which provides a strong basis for multilateral co-operation to address the world’s biggest problems.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a policy of pursuing global disarmament. However, in the meantime, and in the light of all the current threats, we call on the Government to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and maintain the current posture of continuous at-sea deterrence.

I urge the Government to rebuild trust with our European allies. Our security is inseparable from Europe’s, and we must work towards a UK-EU defence and security agreement. Recent agreements with Germany are promising, but they must be a starting point for deeper co-operation. What steps are being taken to strengthen the AUKUS partnership with the United States and Australia, particularly in the light of concerns about potential shifts in US foreign policy? National security and economic growth—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman will be aware that she is allocated two minutes, which she has already exceeded significantly.

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the deal and for our continuous at-sea deterrent; that has not always been the Liberal Democrats’ position, so I welcome the fact that consensus has increased in this House.

The point that the hon. Lady made about enabling SMEs to get involved in the defence supply chain is tremendously important. We are currently consulting on the defence industrial strategy, and I am particularly keen to ensure we take steps to make that better, because the potential for innovation, agility and pull-through of new technologies is tremendous. I invite her to contribute to the consultation and to watch out for the defence industrial strategy when it is published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right that skills are key, which is why this deal has established a defence nuclear skills academy to ensure that 200 apprentices a year can benefit from gaining those skills. I have no doubt that long-term partnerships with defence industries will enable us to do that on a broader scale. The defence industrial strategy will be a key part of giving that confidence to companies that it is the right time to invest in skills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. While the Ministers switch places, I inform Members that we are going to return to the Climate and Nature Bill.