Armed Forces Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I reiterate the fact that there are no Members here from the party led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in particular because so many of the local authorities responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant are led by that particular party. It is grossly incompetent that they are not here to listen and learn.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor).

During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system.

I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have

“the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.”

It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the Committee for its indulgence; I will sit down now to facilitate other contributions, not least on education, health and care plans. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I might want to speak again towards the end, when we have heard the debate, particularly on the new clauses. For the moment, though, I will rest there.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee.

The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views.

The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system.

The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system.

The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later.

While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do.

In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two.

Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.

Defence Readiness

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Today, we have been talking about defence readiness, and I commend the members of the armed forces and, indeed, the veterans who live or are based in my constituency. However, our defence comes in various forms. Farming and food security were not mentioned in the King’s Speech, and this was surely a major omission.

Today, I am wearing a WaterAid tie that I was given 35 years ago when I started working with it in Tanzania. Aid is a major part of our soft power. It not only helps to save lives and helps people withstand climate change, but it allows us to stand tall for all the good things that we do around the world. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State confirmed that UK aid will not be cut further to just 0.1% of gross national income. This is doubly important now that the spectre of Ebola is haunting Africa.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is an honour to wind up the final day of debate on the King’s Speech for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have heard many sterling speeches from Members across this House, and I will turn to some of them shortly.

First, however, I want to pose once more the central question of this debate, and ask every Member to answer it honestly: is our national defence truly ready? My honest assessment is no, it is not. War is no longer a matter of history. The international order we have all lived under is fracturing. War has broken out across multiple continents, and rapid technological advancement and the accelerating consequences of climate change are compounding an already dangerous volatility. The world is not as it was, and we cannot afford to govern as though it is.

While it is encouraging that so many Members are engaging with this epoch-defining issue, it is equally clear that there is a “corrosive complacency” at the heart of this Government. Those are not my words; they belong to Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General and one of the most distinguished voices in this country’s defence establishment. He did not use them lightly, and he directed them squarely at this Prime Minister and this Chancellor. When a man of that stature speaks in those terms about his own party’s Government, this House would do well to listen. More than that, there should be no politics in acknowledging the reality that stares us plainly in the face. Where politics legitimately begins is in the harder questions about where the money comes from and how and what we choose to spend it on.

Turning to the speeches, opening the batting was the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and I think we can all agree that he made quite a brave and powerful speech. He laid bare the holes in the Government’s approach to defence in a constructive way, as I have seen him do repeatedly in his work as Chair of his Committee. It was also good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an excellent speech, as is to be expected. He touched on the supply chain issues and reliance on China, and I will come back to those points later.

The right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is no longer in his place, but it was quite intimidating to see the Streetonian praetorian guard out in full force. He articulated the weighty issues we face as a country and I seriously hope that defence issues are front and centre of his coup d’état attempts.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) illustrated lessons from world war two, and what we need to learn and act on without delay, points that were reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

I think we can all agree that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is doing a fantastic job as trade envoy to Italy. She called out some of the supply chains that she is seeing in her work with Italy around the Global Combat Air Programme and pointed out the Government’s dither regarding the slow release of the defence investment plan.

We also had strong contributions from the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), my right hon. Friends the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). There were many more contributions—too many to mention, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it was great to see so many of my constituency neighbours from the south-west. As the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has championed repeatedly, it is a region that will play a decisive role in our defence readiness going forward.

Like many in this House, I am utterly tired, if not bored, of asking when the defence investment plan will be published, and I am not even going to bother asking about the planned defence readiness Bill. The Government set their own deadline last autumn and 10 months on it is still nowhere to be seen. For the large prime contractors, those too big to fail, the calculation is simple: they leverage their workforce and industrial base to force the Government’s hand. But for smaller companies in the supply chain, the picture is far bleaker. With a meagre number of contracts being awarded, they are being starved of work. If they have not already gone out of business, many are reaching the same conclusion: if you want to grow, you have to go. And go they will. The United States and European defence markets are rising to the moment. Companies and finance will follow the business. The Government’s indecision and delay is placing British defence at the back of the queue at precisely the moment when the queue has never mattered more.

That leaves me to challenge a phrase used too freely by Defence Ministers: sovereign capability. For many of the areas where we most want to excel, true sovereignty is a myth. The best AI needs the best chips, and we do not own the means of production. Our options are either our American allies or China. I know which one I choose. The Government talk a good game on drones, but most small aerial drone systems depend on neodymium magnets and China controls over 90% of global supply. That is not a supply chain problem; it is a strategic vulnerability. What is truly in our national interest is to identify these dependencies—a point reinforced by the Chair of the Defence Committee, whose Committee is looking at this—and swiftly partner with allies who can help to address them. I do not see that joined-up work happening across the Government.

That leads me to the structure of our public defence establishment. We have roughly 55,000 MOD civil servants, yet we recently struggled to deploy a single, partially functional destroyer to protect our sovereign base area in Cyprus, a point expanded on by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. There are many fantastic civil servants in the MOD—I have personally had the privilege to work alongside a number of them—but I cannot believe I am alone in seeing the imbalance in that equation.

Lastly, I turn to our service personnel and veterans. At every UK training establishment, the law of armed conflict is rigorously instilled into every recruit and officer cadet. That legal framework underpins a service person’s conduct throughout their career and on operations. I speak with the lived experience as a former Royal Marine. Where someone transgresses from those rules, they are investigated and if found guilty the full weight of the law is brought to bear, and rightly so.

However, the Government must confront an uncomfortable truth. By dragging veterans through the courts decades after the event, as will likely occur under the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles legislation, the process becomes the punishment. Indefinite legal jeopardy, with no discernible end, causes profound and lasting mental anguish. Apply that logic to serving personnel operating in unimaginably violent environments: hesitation in the heat of battle, borne of legal fear rather than military judgments, can cost lives. For most of us in this House, it is impossible to truly comprehend what that means, but we must try. We owe it to the people who place themselves in harm’s way on our behalf to give them the assurance that this House has their back.

I want to extend a hand of co-operation to the Government—an olive branch offered by the Leader of the Opposition and carelessly dismissed by the Prime Minister. In this new era of geopolitical instability, we want to support the Government in delivering the defence readiness that this country deserves. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), has set out the Conservatives’ proposals clearly. We will continue to work on them, and I hope the Government will receive them in the spirit in which they are intended.

Our country needs politicians who can rise to the moment. This is that moment. With that, I wish the Government Godspeed in this new Session, for it is not their party’s fortune that depends on it but our nation’s security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Secretary of State, I would like to say that, while I appreciate that I am preaching to the choir, because every Member present is indeed present, perhaps the message can get back to colleagues who are not present that page 4 of the guide to Chamber courtesies indicates that if you have contributed to the debate, you must return for the wind-up speeches. I call the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Videos are emerging of civilians, including British nationals, blindfolded, bound, forced to the ground and crying out in what appears to be agony after Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla in international waters. These were ordinary people carrying aid to the starving and besieged population of Gaza. Their crime: refusing to sit back while the world watches genocide unfold live on our screens.

I met members of the flotilla team here in Parliament before they sailed. They were sincere, courageous people driven to act because Governments would not. Moved by images of genocide, they chose to act. All 14 British nationals on board—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get to the point of his point of order.

[Mr Hussain]

I have asked the Government whether they will summon the Israeli ambassador, demand the immediate release of those detained, including British nationals, and speak out in the face of such barbaric breaches of international law. What recourse is available to secure immediate answers from the Government on the detention of British nationals and the action being taken to secure their release?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will know, it is not a matter for the Chair. He might have an opportunity tomorrow to raise it with the Leader of the House at business questions. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard his question, and I think it is best this evening that we move on.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two Sikh women were raped in the Birmingham and west midlands area. While one of them was being raped, a perpetrator directed Islamic and Muslim slurs at her. My mosque in my constituency was attacked not once, not twice but on three separate occasions. These attacks do not happen in a vacuum. We all saw the scenes from the march over the weekend and heard the vile Islamophobic comments that were made. What advice can you provide about getting a Minister to make a statement on this topic?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Again, that is not a matter for the Chair, but Government Front-Bench Members will have heard his comments. I am sure that if they are planning to bring a statement forward, they will indeed do so.

Middle East: Defence

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for paying such close attention to my statement; Iran has now fired 500 ballistic and cruise missiles, and over 2,000 drones.

Even after the Iranian President’s apology and promise to the Gulf states over the weekend, Iran struck multiple countries with drones and missiles, including Bahrain, where 32 civilians were injured in one attack and a desalination plant was hit in another. We totally condemn these attacks. They are putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, including British nationals and members of our armed forces.

Although Iran’s current indiscriminate strikes began last Saturday, the Iranian regime has for decades been a source of evil, exporting violence across the middle east and beyond. It has supplied nearly 60,000 Shahed drones to Putin for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Here in the UK, Iran conducts aggressive cyber-attacks against us and has plotted assassination on Britain’s streets. The Iranian regime is a destructive force that has slaughtered protesters in its own streets and inflicts terrible suffering, especially against its own people. We want to see Iran stop its strikes, give up its nuclear ambitions and restart the negotiations.

As Defence Secretary, my No. 1 priority is protecting British people, military and civilian alike. Since January we have moved significant military assets into the region, ahead of the first US-Israeli strikes. Those preparations made a real difference and mean that we have conducted defensive military operations from day one. Our F-35s have destroyed Iranian drones over Jordan. Our Typhoons have shot down targets heading towards Qatar. Our counter-drone units have defeated further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq. We acted early to protect British people and British interests, and to support our allies.

As the Iranian response became clear last weekend, we adapted our actions to the changing circumstances, driven at all times by military advice. That is why we accepted a new US request for the use of British bases at RAF Fairford and on Diego Garcia last Sunday, and why I committed further resources to the region last week, including four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters, a Merlin helicopter and HMS Dragon. I can confirm today that Dragon will set sail in the next couple of days, and I want to personally thank all those who are working tirelessly—some for up to 22 hours a day—to get the ship ready. HMS Dragon will join US air defence destroyers to provide additional protection in the eastern Mediterranean.

Let me provide the House with the following operational update from last night. The UK is now conducting defensive air sorties in support of the United Arab Emirates. Typhoons successfully took out two drones—one over Jordan, and the second heading to Bahrain. The third Wildcat has arrived in Cyprus, and we have now deployed additional RAF operations experts to more than five countries in the region, helping to co-ordinate regional military and civilian airspace. The fragments of the drone that hit Akrotiri are being analysed for foreign military hardware by our experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

British pilots have now racked up over 230 flying hours. We have eight jets in Qatar, including the joint Qatari-British squadron, which is flying in support of regional allies, and we have more jets in Cyprus than any other nation. I visited our 400-strong air defence team at our base in Cyprus on Thursday last week. They are there in addition to the 4,000 personnel regularly stationed on the island. I was subjected to the daily air sirens that they face. I saw the impact that the Iranian proxy drone had caused, and I asked the Commander British Forces, General Tom Bewick, “Do you need anything more from us back in Britain?” He said to me, “No, I have been given everything I have asked for.” The UK is leading the response to Iranian threats in close co-ordination with our allies, and Cyprus’s head of the national guard told me last week, “Our military co-operation has never been closer.” Our support is backed up by our NATO allies, including the US, France, Greece and Germany—something that I discussed with E5 Defence Ministers last week.

I can confirm to the House that, having given the US the go-ahead to use British bases for specific defensive operations into Iran last Sunday, the first US bomber landed at RAF Fairford on Friday. As the Prime Minister has set out, this activity is part of

“the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives…in accordance with international law.”

These missions are to destroy Iranian missiles at source.

We are deeply concerned about escalation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a dangerous terror organisation that is tied to the regime in Iran. It must cease its attacks against Israel, but we do not want to see Israel expand this conflict further into Lebanon. More than 400 people have already been killed, and half a million displaced, by recent Israeli operations. The solution to these problems, and to this conflict, must be guided by the Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government. We urge de-escalation and the return to a negotiated process.

Moving beyond defence, I know that many Members have constituents with friends and family who are caught in the region, and they are worried about the safety of loved ones. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams are working as fast as possible to get our people out of the region. Three chartered flights have now taken off, with more to come this week. More than 170,000 people have registered their presence, which has allowed us to get them the information, support and advice that they need. More than 37,000 British nationals have been evacuated since the start of the crisis response, and as the Prime Minister said last week:

“We will not stop until our people are safe.”

These are deeply uncertain times. While we deal with the immediate crisis in the middle east, we must also maintain our strong support for Ukraine, deter increasing threats in the High North, fulfil our NATO commitments, and ensure that our homeland is protected. Our adversaries are watching. We must manage rising demands on defence, balancing resources to best effect. We must also deal with the cost of living impact that this conflict could cause, just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her statement.

I am proud of the UK’s response. Acting at all times in our national interest, we will defend our allies and support our armed forces. We will do everything necessary to protect British lives and British interests, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Let me start by recognising the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary supports the steps we have taken to put UK defence capabilities in the middle eastern region, and that he recognises and supports the fact that we did that in advance of the current crisis. These capabilities and our co-ordination of them have been alongside our US allies and have been purely defensive in nature. We have been making our best contribution to the protection of British interests, British personnel, British bases and British allies in the region.

The shadow Defence Secretary asks me about HMS Dragon. While we have been building up that significant military presence in the middle east since January, which he for the first time has recognised and welcomed, it is totally right that, as circumstances change, so should our military posture. He asks me when the option of Dragon was first put to Ministers. As the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC on Saturday, he looked at the proposals for Dragon being deployed to the middle east on Tuesday last week, and I signed them off the same day. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about the state of the British Navy, he should take a hard look at his Government’s record. Over 14 years, they hollowed out and underfunded our forces. They cut £12 billion from the defence budget in their first five years. Total frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 17, and in 14 years in government they did not order a single new destroyer. We have Dragon available to go to the middle east today only because the Labour Government commissioned it before 2010. I completely—[Interruption.] I am proud of the work our military are doing in the middle east, and I reject claims about the response. We got ahead of the first strikes in the way that we have set out.

I have been unable to find any evidence, in public or in this House, of the shadow Defence Secretary calling at any stage before the war began for military assets to be moved to the middle east. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary was calling barely a month ago in this Chamber for our military

“to prioritise or repurpose…inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 81.]

The shadow Defence Secretary really is proving himself quite an armchair general—General Hindsight, wise only after the event. I am really disappointed.

The shadow Defence Secretary asks about the defence investment plan. We are working flat out to produce that. He asks about defence spending. He cut it; we invested in defence. We have seen the greatest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we are spending £62 billion on defence, which is £8 billion more than the last year of the Conservative Government.

I am really disappointed, and our forces will be disappointed, that the shadow Defence Secretary did not stand up and offer an apology for what his leader said on Friday. His leader’s claim that British forces in the middle east are “just hanging around” is totally wrong and deeply insulting. They are working flat out, in the face of air raid sirens and warnings, to protect British lives, protect British interests and protect British allies. It is time the Tories did the decent thing, and apologised for her remarks and withdrew them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for his operational briefing beforehand. I also want to pay tribute to and praise our armed forces for their bravery, dedication and professionalism in defending our citizens and our allies in the region.

I agree with the Defence Secretary that we must urge de-escalation and a return to the negotiation process. I am glad that the Government pre-positioned Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone units and other air defence assets in the region. However, the lack of a naval presence should be a cause of huge concern for all of us. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments that our armed forces are significantly overstretched from the High North to further beyond, and that the hollowing out in recent years has meant that we do not have enough assets, but what is being done urgently to rectify the situation and increase the investment in defence in the near future, so that we can be in several places at once?

[John Healey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action we have taken—the deployments I have decided to commit to the region. He asks what we are doing to make good 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under the previous Government. The first step is to increase defence spending: this year, it is more than £8 billion greater than in the last year under the previous Government, totalling £270 billion in this Parliament alone, which is the single biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The defence investment plan that will follow up the strategic defence review is a vision and a plan for rebuilding our forces, strengthening our deterrent, integrating our armed forces for the future and harnessing the accelerating power of new technology. I am grateful to him and his Defence Committee members for supporting and recognising that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces in putting their lives on the line for us all.

The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump’s illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. Given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US navy ships, including aircraft carriers such as those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide an assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the middle east?

Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war.

Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are. I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I encourage Members to ask short questions and the Secretary of State to give briefer answers.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shed no tears for the demise of an Iranian regime that murdered and repressed tens of thousands of its own citizens, particularly women, but I am proud that this Government have not joined the US and Israel in this reckless war, which lacks a clear plan and which is hitting my constituents in the pocket and threatening the global economy. Given that this Government have our own independent foreign policy, we are not the handmaiden of Washington, as the Tories would like, nor the poodle of Putin, as Reform is. Can the Defence Secretary say how important it is that the Chancellor is providing new funds for our armed forces who are defending British interests and British citizens in the region?

Ministry of Defence

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary]

As the hon. Member says, he has asked me that question before. I have done my homework, and we have published the full background. This sits within the Government’s fiscal rules, and is actually a relatively small cost to the Government. Let me now ask the hon. Member—he may wish to answer during his own speech—how his party would invest quickly in defence spending. This is a credible proposal, and I should like to hear credible proposals from others too. We should like the Minister to announce defence bonds, with no further delay.

With conflict in the middle east, it is easy to lose focus on the war much closer to home, in Ukraine. The United Kingdom has so far committed £10.8 billion in military support between February 2022 and March 2026, drawn from the Treasury reserve. The £3 billion annual pledge and the G7 loan facility are welcome commitments, but we can and should go further. The UK holds an estimated £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. My party has tabled the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill to direct those funds to Ukraine’s military, reconstruction, and humanitarian defence, and we are calling for that today.

National security is the first duty of any Government. The spring statement contains real increases in defence spending, and I do not dismiss that, but it also contains a £9 billion accounting adjustment with no explanation, a defence investment plan that remains unpublished, and a 3% target that is still under vague consideration.

British forces are currently engaged in defensive combat operations to protect our bases and citizens in the middle east and eastern Mediterranean. We must focus on not just new kit but existing kit, and it is conspicuous that so many of our vessels are not currently available to the Navy.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear about what is needed. We have proposed pragmatic, realistic steps to make our nation safer now and in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will not be announcing deployments from the Dispatch Box, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is one of the reasons that we are seeking to invest more in our Royal Navy: to provide not only crewed but uncrewed capabilities.

The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about his desire for a larger Royal Navy. In 2017, when I had brown hair and sat broadly where the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is sitting now, I made the case in my maiden speech for more surface combatants for the Royal Navy. That is what our hybrid Navy will deliver—and not only crewed platforms, which are being built in Scotland at this very moment. Last week, I saw the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active—two of our new Type 31 frigates—which will be sailing alongside uncrewed and autonomous systems as part of that hybrid Navy concept. This is something that the Prime Minister announced in his speech at the Munich security conference and which we are keen to extend to many of our European partners, increasing the mass and lethality of our Royal Navy and, importantly, improving the survivability for our crewed platforms.

I will quickly rattle through some of the questions that have been asked. Are we looking at novel financing methods? Yes, we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) spoke about advanced ceramics; she is right to do so. I was happy meeting her before and I am happy continuing that discussion. I know the progress she is making. The hon. Member for Spelthorne will know that we have increased pay for our armed forces and are increasing the supply of ammunition and missiles through the munitions and energetics factories that we have already announced; I hope to provide further updates about the rapid procurement process that is under way in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) spoke passionately about the importance of Typhoon for his area. I was very pleased that the Government were able to secure the Typhoon deal with Türkiye, and I can assure him that we continue to have conversations with a number of our other allies, further promoting the Typhoon as an essential platform for air defence. He is right to praise the work they are doing. I really liked the phrase he used about the best jobs being just down the road—that is echoed by colleagues right across the House. Indeed, my fellow south-west MP, the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), gave a good shout-out to regional jobs, which I enjoyed. It is right that we increase defence spending so that it can be felt in every single nation and region, and that is exactly what we are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) made a passionate case for submarines. Her constituents build them, and mine refit them in Devonport—teams working together, with Team Plymouth and Team Barrow, as well as the work that takes place in Derby. It is an important part of bringing together our nuclear enterprise.

I welcome the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) speaking about the compelling vision in the SDR; he is right to do so. I am happy having a conversation with him about the tax credits issue, especially if he could bring small business examples.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) was right to talk about the DSRB. I know she is passionate about this, as are a number of other Members. I am happy to meet her to talk further about it.

Finally, perhaps the most important part of this is our people. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) raised recruitment in an intervention. Let me say clearly that since September 2024, we have seen an 8% decrease in outflow from our armed forces and a 13% increase in inflow into our armed forces. As the hon. Member for North Cotswolds mentioned, we do need to do recruitment differently, which is why we have a new direct entry scheme for cyber, and we will go further on that.

Let the message go out clearly to our troops in combat operations around the world: they have our support and they have a Government who are increasing defence spending, putting their welfare at the centre of our future defence plans, ensuring that we move towards warfighting readiness with new equipment and new capabilities, and putting our people at the very heart of our defence plans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to wind up very briefly.

Armed Forces Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be directing his comments at me.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when Putin invaded Ukraine, something pretty extraordinary happened: inflation went through the roof right around the world. The whole world was trying to buy defence equipment, and it still is. Guess what? That means a higher inflation rate in defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, Members might like to be aware that there are a lot of colleagues wishing to speak this evening. I am not planning to put a time limit on—yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I remind Members to be careful, good-tempered and moderate in their language in debate? If anyone needs any instruction, pages 496 and 497 of “Erskine May” are very helpful.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

For deployment overseas, so that we can achieve the objectives that we want to achieve. The Conservatives cut troop numbers during the last Government. It is understandable that you are embarrassed —that they are embarrassed—about that, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have heard two uses of the word “you”. It is not about me.

[James MacCleary]

It is understandable that the Opposition are embarrassed about that. We need to get our troop numbers back up to a critical mass that will allow us to carry out our duties overseas.

The Government’s decision to increase the upper age limit for reserves and cadets to 65 warrants serious scrutiny. Ministers must explain whether the change will genuinely enhance operational effectiveness, skills and readiness, or whether it is simply a mechanism to inflate headline recruitment numbers without addressing the underlying retention and capability challenges facing our reserve forces.

That brings me to the important issue of defence spending, which, of course, underlies all of this. The Liberal Democrats support increasing defence spending in every year of this Parliament, and we will explain how to do it. We are calling for a clear, credible pathway to reaching 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, backed by cross-party talks to secure long-term consensus. As part of that plan, we have proposed the introduction of time-limited defence bonds—capped, fixed-term, and legally tied to capital investment—to raise up to £20 billion over the next two years. That would allow the Government to accelerate investment in the capabilities set out in the strategic defence review, strengthen deterrence now rather than later, and send a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike that Britain is serious about its security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I intend to introduce a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

Ukraine

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the work that they have done over the past 12 months in support of our service personnel and our allies, not just in Ukraine but across the world. We continue to work alongside our European partners to look at how we can use the immobilised sovereign Russian assets; indeed, we are undertaking discussions on that very topic today. There is strong support from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary for progress on this issue, and we are seeing more progress from our European allies.

I hope that we will continue to make progress, because the case that my hon. Friend makes about Russia paying for the damage that it has caused, and about the cost that it has inflicted on the Ukrainian people, is absolutely right. We need to continue to make that case, especially as we get towards what I hope will be a peace deal that brings a just and lasting peace. It needs to be a fair peace, in which the voices of the Ukrainian people are heard very clearly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Most Members of this House recognise that Vladimir Putin has no interest in securing a just peace for Ukraine. The only peace he will accept is one that carves up Ukraine and leaves it defenceless against future Russian invasion. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to apply more pressure on Putin, and I encourage Ministers to go further.

As the Minister has pointed out, Putin’s oil profits are still propping up his war machine. They will continue to serve as a lifeline to the Russian economy until the UK, together with our international partners, turns the screw more tightly. Has the Minister considered the Liberal Democrats’ call to work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap to $30 a barrel, which could cut more than a third off Putin’s oil profits?

Donald Trump has become another vital lifeline for Vladimir Putin, as he remains fixated on rewarding the Kremlin’s illegal invasion by pressuring Ukraine into giving up unconquered land in the Donbas. Reports now suggest that Trump is trying to block the UK and Europe from seizing frozen Russian assets, despite the transformative leverage that they could give Ukraine by funding new weapons. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow Trump to block efforts to seize those assets? Can he confirm whether the Government will seize the £30 billion-worth of assets in this country, which estimates suggest could fund half of Ukraine’s military budget for 2026?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that it is important that we make progress on the seized Russian assets. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing today, and I hope that we will be able to report positive news in due course. He is right about the threat not just to Ukraine, but to our NATO allies along the eastern flank. It is for that reason that the UK has deployed forces and Typhoon jets in support of our allies. We are supporting our Estonian allies through Op Cabrit and the presence of the British Army’s forward land forces, and we will continue to do so.

I recognise what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of making sure that we can be proud of the measures that we are taking as a country to stand up against money laundering and illicit finances. We have made good progress, but my colleagues in the Treasury will continue to look at new avenues to clamp down on illicit finance. We hope that peace comes soon to Ukraine, but the threat from Russia will not end when peace comes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that we have to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, because that is how we are strongest, so can we agree on the following two points? First, it would be intolerable if any peace settlement forced Ukraine to give up territory that Russia has not already conquered forcibly and if Ukraine gave up its fortress belt. It would be like stripping Czechoslovakia of Sudetenland and leaving it defenceless.

The second point is even more important. We cannot have a peace settlement through warm words alone; we must have a commitment that Ukraine’s defence is protected by the equivalent of an article 5 declaration. The only thing that will deter Putin is knowing that if he invades again, there will be war with the west and we will win. Can we unite on those two powerful points?

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will take it provided that it pertains to the statement we have just had.

[Mr Francois]

Absolutely; it does pertain to the statement. We had been hoping for a Christmas present in the form of a defence investment plan. The Minister has told the House that the Government are working, in his words, flat out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is not a point of order.

[Mr Francois]

It is—it is about when it will be delivered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend the debate we have just had on a separate matter. He will know that that is not a point of order, and it is not a matter for the Chair whether the MOD is going to bring forward—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

To the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is simply not a matter for the Chair. It does not pertain to the statement.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Army has a number of vehicles that, as we have heard in this discussion, have been in service for a long period. In refreshing our capabilities, it is not just the Ajax platform that we as a nation are seeking to update, but the Land Rovers and a whole host of other platforms. We are seeking to do so to provide the men and women in our forces with the equipment they need to increase our warfighting readiness.

Sitting behind that, we need to have systems that procure faster and better than we have seen in the past, and that provide more value for the taxpayer, even though we are spending more on defence than ever before, because I want to see increased value for the taxpayer. We are making sure that we deliver a safe working environment for all our service personnel, because when we ask them to do extraordinary things, I want to have confidence that the equipment and vehicles I am asking them to do those things in are as safe as they possibly can be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses.

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.