Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I want to correct what I hope was a slip of the tongue when he mentioned parties “of both colours”; he means “of all colours” because I believe the Liberal Democrats have come forward with a proposal for £20 billion-worth of defence bonds in order to properly finance the rapid scale-up in defence manufacturing that we need in the UK.

[Jack Rankin]

I am delighted to correct the record; it is good to see that parties of all colours are backing increased defence spending in a more uncertain world.

The ESG system implies in some sense that defence investment is unethical, but there is nothing less ethical than sending British sons and daughter into battle under-equipped. That is not a blue, red or yellow party political point; I am proud to represent the parts of Slough borough not covered by the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), we have discussed this very point, with which I understand he and his Committee all agree.

Many on the Government side of the House also see the problems of ESG. In March last year, a group of 100 Labour Members of Parliament wrote to banks and fund managers urging them to prioritise defence investment and class British defence investment as ethical. I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) in the Chamber today; I know he has discussed this matter both directly and with the Financial Conduct Authority, and I look forward to his substantive contribution in the debate.

I gently point out, however, that some of the ideology is pushed by some of those on the left who might take woolly views on certain conflicts, specifically Gaza. We should do what we can in this place to challenge that culture, and I suspect that there are many of those naive rules made in this place—perhaps under different geopolitical circumstances—that we should reassess.

To fix this problem, we must first acknowledge just how bad things are in some instances. I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and a few weeks ago we were able to question Warrick Malcolm of ADS Scotland, which represents Scottish defence businesses, about the chilling effect that progressive authoritarianism has had on the businesses they represent. When he attempted to host a Scottish parliamentary reception to highlight science, technology, engineering and mathematics apprenticeships —broader than just defence—200 protesters shut down the Parliament, allowing no one in or out, and essentially cancelled the whole event. Those people who did squeeze through the melee outside, many of them apprentices in their young 20s, came in in tears because of the abuse they faced.

Sadly, only the Scottish Conservatives supported the reception, while all others steered clear. What message does that send to those in the industry, those hard-working constituents of Members of the Scottish Parliament, when their representatives have no time for them and effectively shun them. Mr Malcolm also talked to the Committee about how a company he represented was vandalised, reducing its capacity by 75%. How will that business remain viable? We can think of careers fairs at universities being shut down, and damaging the attractiveness of defence as a sector to work in; it is a sector that keeps us safe, but it is often not one that employees feel safe to work in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for humouring me with a second opportunity to intervene. He raised the important point that many defence manufacturers, especially in the South West, provide high-skilled job opportunities for local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has already mentioned Leonardo in Yeovil, which also employs vast numbers of people in my West Dorset constituency. Those links with local schools and higher education institutions are vital to creating a pathway for people in the south-west, especially those in rural communities, who might not have another avenue into high-skilled labour.

[Jack Rankin]

Of course the hon. Member is right. We have a collective responsibility to advocate for these businesses, as he just did, but as a nation we must also face down this pernicious culture.

To return to the point about financial institutions, the culture we set in Parliament influences them. We do not need to look too far from ourselves to see where the problem is—our own parliamentary pension fund de facto excludes British defence companies by investing in sustainable funds. Its single largest equity holding, the BlackRock low carbon equity fund, fully excludes nuclear weapons, which in reality excludes nearly all defence.

What does our pension fund invest in instead? Tencent Holdings, the parent company of WeChat, which largely considered to be part of China’s surveillance state. That is the very nub of the issue, and illuminates the great irony of the situation. The FCA will unequivocally say that there is no conflict between ESG and defence; while that might sometimes be technically true, the reality often paints a different picture. We just need to follow the money.

The Devon county council pension fund—which I picked because I thought the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) might have been the Minister responding to the debate, and it covers his constituency—states clearly that it prioritises return on investment and does not impose ethical exclusions. However, if one follows its investment down the rabbit hole to its pool provider Brunel Pension Partnership, which handles 93% of the council’s pension funds, we find Paris-aligned pooled funds with carbon thresholds and controversial weapon screens. As we can see, the system is set up against the defence industry. In that system, smaller companies have no chance, because the filtering happens long before capital ever reaches them.

It may well be that pensioners also end up short-changed, given that major British defence companies BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and Babcock have made returns of 50%, 100% and 146% respectively this past year. This issue extends to our most sensitive areas. While I hope we never need it, I think most sensible people in this country support the backstop of our nuclear deterrent, and ESG potentially threatens that.

We currently have retained EU law that adopts the Paris-aligned benchmarks that exclude nuclear as a controversial weapon. For a fund to be considered Paris-aligned, it will have to meet that benchmark and, by retaining that law, we are encouraging that. Although the Government nominally prioritise Trident, around 1,500 businesses in the supply chain are implicated and will therefore be potentially excluded from finance. As long as we continue to tolerate this madness, we are fighting with one hand behind our back.

We have discussed access to capital, but that is useless for SMEs without a bank account. Defence companies in this country are being debanked. I first came across the issue when meeting a defence SME in my constituency, which had been debanked three times by high street banks. That business makes ammunition for Ukraine. Think of the message that sends to a defence start-up: an entrepreneur just would not go near it. Some of the problem is being driven by the B Corp certification, and I urge the Minister to look at that. “Know your customer” and anti-money laundering operation checks are also a huge issue that needs to be addressed. All that is downstream of the same negative approach to defence that I have described.

This culture has, at least in part, been brought about by successive Government policy, and can also be reversed by it. As a start, the Government should insist that all publicly managed funds should not be investing in funds that explicitly exclude defence. That would be a clear statement of intent about the Government’s expectations, and it would encourage others to do the same. We should also have clearer rules about the exclusion of nuclear so that the SMEs vital to the Trident deterrent are not unfairly cut out.

Much as it pains me to say it, perhaps we could even learn from France, which treats the defence sector as strategically vital. The Chancellor could write to the FCA today and change its remit. Just imagine the change if we were to approach defence as we have approached climate policy over the past 20 years. I am aware that the Government passed legislation in October to permit the FCA to regulate the ESG sector from 2028; although that might seem like a positive step, it could simply entrench the concept legally and say that ESG is sanctified by the Government. If we are serious about rebuilding our defence infrastructure and about national security, we must get serious about the self-harm that ESG culture has done, and is doing, and be prepared to take steps to address it.

Arctic and High North

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I believe that that is what I did—or I certainly hope that is what I did. I would certainly like to see things move much faster, and in a way that is much clearer about the UK’s defence posture and intentions.

However, to justify that action, the British people need to understand the threat that we face, and that must start from the very top of Government and carry on continually. More effective defence spending is, in some ways, the ultimate in preventive spending. The cost of not being prepared will lead to increased instability and hybrid attacks on the UK, or encourage future Russian aggression in Europe, all of which will increase the day-to-day costs of Government and the bills of ordinary people. It could also lead to an armed conflict with Russia that would be truly devastating for our country and the world. Acting with strength now is the only way to prevent those awful consequences.

With the increased threat to the High North, the Arctic and the North sea, I also ask the Government to consider the increased use of assets on the east coast of the country, such as Rosyth or Defence Munitions Crombie in my constituency. That would improve response times and resupply capability and deterrence posture, and such a move would demonstrate that the UK is serious about defending its northern approaches and critical infrastructure.

We should value our relations with the US, but Europe must also show that it is able to respond alone, or with only limited US support. In a piece last week, titled “Greenland is Europe’s strategic blind spot—and its responsibility”, Justina Budginaite-Froehly of the Atlantic Council said that Europe must have a

“presence capable of monitoring the GIUK gap”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred to that earlier—

“and denying Russia and China the ability to encroach further on the Arctic region.”

Action is already being taken by both Norway and Denmark, while across Europe Poland is laying mines and digging trenches in preparation for a Russian invasion; Germany has recently confirmed £50 billion of spending on new conventional military equipment; and we have had instances of Russian aircraft encroaching on NATO airspace in Estonia, with Estonia triggering article 4 consultation from NATO as a result.

The UK must match the urgency of our European allies. I come back to the point I made at the very beginning: we are not a country distant from conflict. Just like Estonia or Poland, the UK is a frontline nation—that frontline is in the High North and the Arctic.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate, and I commend him on his speech. He has listed a large number of instances across Europe of hybrid warfare and, in many cases, physical attacks by Russia. In the UK, we have also seen Russian-sponsored attacks on Ukrainian drone suppliers. On his broader point, the British public need to be aware that that war is already on our borders.

[Graeme Downie]

Once again, I could not agree more. Going back to the poisonings in Salisbury, the UK public need to be very aware that Vladimir Putin is now a threat to our shores—he has been in the past, and he will be in the future. It will be the most vulnerable people in the UK who will pay the price of that aggression, which is why we must ensure that we respond with force and clear action, not merely words.

Vladimir Putin’s regime is undoubtedly a criminal enterprise masquerading as a Government, and its aggression must be met with strength. Putin’s ambition is clear: to dominate and rebuild Russian influence across his perceived empire, and he reacts to action, not mere talk. Delay is not defence. We cannot wait for threats to emerge before we act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the UK Government are doing to meet those threats today.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the tone in which he asked it. I have a lot of time for him and his arguments. In fact, I think that “Shifting the goalposts?”, which talks about the rise and fall of defence spending, is one of the very best Defence Committee reports and it was issued when he was Chair of that Committee. I certainly recognise what the hon. Member for Yeovil said about timings. The contract in the procurement of the new medium helicopter included a period where the prices were guaranteed; we are keeping that in mind, because we want to make a decision and not to be timed out.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on securing this important urgent question. Leonardo may be based in Yeovil, but many of its 3,000 employees live in my West Dorset constituency, which is why, when I was elected, one of the first meetings I had was with Leonardo and it was about the new medium helicopter. The Minister has said today that the decision will be made “as soon as possible”, but on 10 February, in response to my question in the Chamber, his predecessor told me that the decision would be made “swiftly”. Given that every single defence manufacturer, SME and even the military personnel I meet say that we need to speed up defence procurement decisions—even the SDR itself urges the speeding up of defence procurement decisions—how much confidence can British industry have that the Government are listening to that need, when a decision about something as simple as a single contractor bid is taking so long to decide?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for his constituents who work at Leonardo. I entirely understand what he says. We are already taking steps to reform defence procurement to speed up decisions, but I am clear that a big decision about the future of the NMH and the funding for it needs to be taken as part of the whole programme. The defence investment programme is so important and it is important that we get this decision right, so that everyone can have certainty and confidence in every single line item in the DIP, which is something they have not been able to have with the equipment programme that we inherited.

Use of Drones in Defence

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune]

This is a good point at which to mention the armed forces parliamentary scheme, of which colleagues from across the House are part. That great enterprise enables us to better understand the pressures and the reality that our armed forces personnel face. My hon. Friend is right that we have visited sites where we have seen how drones can be used and how effective they can be for deployment on the battlefield. That drives my request to the Minister to look at how we can procure more drones.

We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine, where we have made the military links we need to learn how drones can make our British forces even more lethal. They can carry out unmanned assaults and provide the support that our personnel need.

Finally, and in equal measure, we need to look at how the armed forces can counter drones—what we can do to fight them off. HMS Diamond is a particular case in point, as it successfully destroyed nine Houthi drones, but at huge expense. We have seen the damage that drones have inflicted on prestigious targets—Russian jets, ships and bombers—so we clearly need to defend ourselves from them. As a nation, we cannot afford to let cheaply purchased drones with a grenade attached wreck a multimillion-pound piece of equipment. We are already developing solutions such as radio frequency directed energy weapons, capable of neutralising swarms of drones, but as we look to ramp up defence spending in a more dangerous world, the threat posed by cheap drones must be answered.

Drones will not make infantry, artillery, ships or aircraft obsolete; they are a new tool that will help to transform warfare. They must be an integral part of our efforts to strengthen the UK’s armed forces and face down the threats our country now faces.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Yesterday afternoon, we were in this Chamber discussing the battle of Britain, and we spoke at length about the reforms made prior to the second world war to the British military—especially to the Royal Air Force, including the use of radar. In fact, I am currently reading a book on the pre-world war one Haldane reforms to the British armed forces. In the light of the defence review and the changing nature of warfare, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the current structure and make-up of the British military reflect the urgent, pressing reality that we will be facing war close to our borders in the next five years? Does he have any recommendations to the British military for the changes that are needed?

[Peter Fortune]

I was hoping to attend the debate yesterday—of course, Biggin Hill in my constituency played a huge part in the RAF’s incredible efforts during the second world war and the battle of Britain—but sadly I was in the main Chamber in a different debate. Through those big conflicts at the beginning of the last century, we saw huge innovation and people learning, as the cliché goes, not to fight the previous conflict. We will always have to adapt and change. I know, especially through the armed forces personnel scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) mentioned, that senior people—and, I am sure, Ministers, with their huge experience—are considering all the time how we best get ready for the conflicts that we do not yet know we are about to face.

In conclusion, the Government must embrace a review of how we are developing drones, fast—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

The nature of warfare has changed. During the last three years of conflict driven by the war in Ukraine and, perhaps controversially, two years of Israel Defence Forces operations in Gaza, we have seen a paradigm shift in the nature of warfare—a tangential move away from the manoeuvre warfare that has shaped military thinking since the blitzkrieg illustrated the potential of speed and firepower. The previous Conservative Government recognised the direction of travel and introduced the UK defence drone strategy prior to the election, in February last year. Backed by an investment of £4.5 billion, the intention was to enable the rapid experimentation, testing and evaluation of uncrewed platforms.

The past year has seen the publication of the strategic defence review, which reflects the continued change of focus. It makes much of the need to adopt a high-low mix, combining exquisite capability with attritable capability such as drones—for high-low, read “expensive-cheap”. At the recent Royal United Service Institute land warfare conference, the opening address of General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, directly referred to the change to a high-low mix in the British Army. He said:

“I want 20% of our lethality to come from the survivable layer, 40% from the attritable, and 40% from consumable. That does not mean I want 1/5th the number of crewed platforms in the Programme of Record, it’s that I want each one to be five times more lethal, survivable and sustainable…And I want to spend 50% of our money on the 20% of crewed and expensive, and 50% on the remaining 80% of attritable.”

We have all seen footage of first-person view drones and how they have been used in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. As a former infanteer, the sight of individual soldiers being stalked slowly by drones hovering just behind them, and menaced and killed at will, strikes fear into my heart for the future of being an infantryman. This is, hopefully, a temporary situation, and in much the same way that the improvised explosive device was in conflict with electronic countermeasures—ECMs—so too will drones find themselves, in time, at the mercy of counter-unmanned aircraft system solutions. Last week, there was an article in The Washington Post about the measures the Ukrainians are taking to combat Russian drone threats, which include going as far as using a biplane with a crew member firing them out of the air with a shotgun. That is the sort of inventive stuff that is currently going on in the east—we would not believe it if we saw it in a movie.

We have already seen the RAF and the Army begin to employ agile combat employment such as the penetrative threat of drones, as illustrated by the bold attack by Ukraine on airfields deep inside Russian territory mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). There is, however, very little in place to prevent a copycat attack against our forces in the UK. If RAF Brize Norton can be breached by civilians on scooters, it can be easily breached by a swarm of drones. What price our air-to-air refuelling or heavy lift capability? That is not easily replaced and fairly easily defeated on the ground. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that we have permanent counter-unmanned aircraft systems capability at all operational flying bases? Agile combat employment will get us only so far and, as we have seen, it takes only a couple of litres of red paint to destroy a jet engine.

In Ukraine, we have seen that survivability is key: how we fight a vehicle is as important as how we physically protect it or conceal it. Before any talk about thermal camouflage or, increasingly, multispectral camouflage, we should consider how the age and capability of the kit we have makes it vulnerable to a drone threat it was never designed to encounter.

The strategic defence review outlines the British Army’s intention to move to a dynamic high-low capability mix, as I alluded to earlier, of 20-40-40: that is 20% crewed platforms to control 40% attritable—preferably survivable—platforms, and 40% consumables such as shells and missiles, also including attritable one-way effector drones. For such a fundamental doctrinal shift in manoeuvre warfare around which the entire Army would need to be restructured, a single sub-paragraph on page 110 of the SDR does not really cut it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on how he plans to extrapolate such a paucity of strategic intent.

At the lowest consumable level, handheld off-the-shelf drones are a plentiful, cheap and effective tool. They are low cost and high volume. Our funding of capability in Ukraine should really be seen as an investment; it is not cynical to suggest that the current conflict is a helpful proving ground for our own future capability. First-person view drones have quickly become a stalwart of the modern battlefield and sit within what the Ministry of Defence considers to be tier 1 and tier 2—those that are consumable or attritable. It is those drones that will see the quickest development, the biggest leaps in capability, and the most effort going into combating them from an anti-personnel perspective. We have already seen the development of a counter-UAS ECM that has led to the impractical horizontal development of fibre-optic drones. The pace of development should force us to ask what the capability will be like by the time British troops are required to use them in anger.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is right to point out the rapid change in drone technology in the field in Ukraine. We have also seen the deployment of artificial intelligence such that where drones are being jammed, the AI can take over and continue to lock on and have something in the region of a 70% success rate even after jamming. Obviously, there is an understandable shift in UK military thinking towards drones, but that needs to be supported by UK innovation in the AI space. We need to get greater ownership of that, especially in our technology sector and our universities, to support development. Does the hon. Member have any views on that?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I think AI will increasingly become a mainstay of the battlefield, and how we employ it will become incredibly important. My concern is about the control of AI and knowing that the target we are trying to prosecute is indeed still viable right up to the last safe moment. Once we lose control of a drone and it becomes AI-capable, in theory it could switch to a more preferential target, which may be a good opportunity, or it may be a catastrophe that ends up as front-page news. We need to think carefully about how we employ drones.

On the overall development of drones, another important factor to consider is how we employ the warhead. It is only a matter of time before we look at options such as the replacement of Javelin—I was a Javelin platoon commander when I was in the Army—which has a two-stage warhead, with the first stage penetrating the armour and the second stage going inside the vehicle, exploding and detonating to kill the crew. The application of something like a two-stage warhead to an FPV drone is going to become an increasingly potent threat. It will be interesting to see at what point that emerges on the battlefield.

At tier 3—a level up—we have those platforms that are firmly considered to be survivable. The entry into service of Protector RG mark 1, replacing Reaper, illustrates how the Royal Air Force is moving further into the world of uncrewed air systems. With a ceiling of 40,000 feet and a mission endurance in excess of 30 hours, it marks the next evolution in our drone capability. With an ongoing project to enable it with the low-collateral Brimstone 3, it will be a potent weapons delivery platform, although that project is currently rated at amber.

Indeed, the introduction of remotely piloted aircraft systems—RPAS—as its own stream within RAF pilot training illustrates the complexity of how drones will be used going forwards. We have already seen the SDR outline the desire to introduce a hybrid carrier air wing, with crewed and uncrewed platforms operating alongside one another from our carrier strike group.

That leads us into the category of exquisite capability. The elephant in the room is GCAP—the global combat air programme—a trilateral endeavour with Italy and Japan that aims to deliver a sixth-generation fighter by 2035. I do not wish to derail the debate by talking about the merits and pitfalls of sixth-generation fighters, and whether by the time they arrive we will still need or want an exquisite capability, given how precious we are already about our fifth-generation F-35s, but there is a key issue with the platform as an exquisite capability.

The intention of GCAP is not to have massed squadrons of fighters flying into dogfights over Russia. Those days are long gone; in future, we should expect most, if not all, engagements to take place beyond visual range. Any near-peer conflict will involve formidable air defence that will render the low-level bombing runs of yesteryear the stuff of Hollywood. No, the intention is to operate GCAP as a system of systems: a crewed platform where the pilot is less of a pilot and more an integrated part of the system—effectively, a weapons platform operator co-ordinating the battle space—and where the uncrewed autonomous collaborative platforms, or loyal wingmen, operate as a squadron and conduct the task as an attritable but very expensive asset that can complete the mission without risk to aircrew, impervious to being disabled by ECM, and operating networked to GCAP itself.

The RAF’s autonomous collaborative platform strategy aims to have ACP as an integral part of the RAF force structure by 2030, and we have started to see that being rolled out in recent weeks. This is a concept that I do not believe we can fully afford. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority already has the future combat air system rated at red—that is not just GCAP but the ACP strategy that accompanies it. It would be one thing to achieve an ACP capability, and another to develop and deliver a sixth-generation fighter, whether on time or decades late, but to deliver both seems fanciful based on the Ministry of Defence’s procurement track record.

In a world where the infantry are still using armoured vehicles that came into service the same year the Beatles released their debut single—closer to the end of the first world war than to today—with no current plans to replace them, I cannot envisage a situation where we have a sovereign fighter jet that ranks as the best in the world and a squadron of drone fighters operating alongside it. We urgently need to start managing our expectation.

The Government talk a good game on RPAS but, for all the talk of increasing the defence budget, our drone strategy looks an incoherent mess. I am sure the Minister will set me straight on whether that is accurate. We are pouring money into exquisite capability while watching the war in Ukraine spiral-develop capability that we have no idea how to use in the last 100 yards. The pace of technological change that is driving the evolution of the threat environment is such that unless we leverage the spiral development capability that already exists here, coupled with the expertise that now exists in Ukraine, British forces will be left behind.

The Battle of Britain

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this important debate to the House. Equally, it would be remiss of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for her passionate speech, or the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave a powerful and interesting speech about his father’s experiences in the second world war. I thank him for bringing that to the House today.

I wish to commemorate the battle of Britain, one of the defining moments in our nation’s history, but also to champion the extraordinary contribution of my local community in Essex. While the courage of the Royal Air Force pilots is rightly celebrated across the country, we must not forget that the defence of Britain was not won by pilots alone; it was secured by towns and villages, by the people who built, maintained and sustained the airfields, roads and communications, and by ordinary citizens, who became the backbone of our nation’s resilience.

Essex played a pivotal and proud role in that effort. Airfields such as North Weald and Duxford were protecting London and southern England from the relentless attacks of the Luftwaffe. Near Harlow, RAF Matching, which is in my constituency, contributed to the broader air defence and bomb operations, reminding us that the battle of Britain was fought not only in the skies but on the ground, in every village and town that supported it.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In a similar vein, I pay tribute to the brave radio operators around the country, one of whom, in my constituency, was awarded the George Medal for staying at her post in the Sherborne post office, even after it was hit. It was thanks to the bravery of civilians such as Maude Steele that we were able to succeed in the battle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

When we started the Etherton review, a lot of engagement went out across some of our NATO allies to take best practice. Now that we have launched the programme, we are also making sure that people can understand the successes and perhaps some of the improvements as it progresses. As the House will know, the Defence Secretary announced our findings from the Etherton review on 12 December, with a 50% increase in the financial redress system for those affected by the LGBT ban. Things are now heading in the right direction, with more than 500 people starting the application process.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

13. What his planned timetable is for awarding the new medium helicopter contract.

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

The new medium helicopter competition is at the evaluation and approval stage. If everything goes well, I anticipate a contract award later this year, subject to all the usual approvals.

[Edward Morello]

A significant number of my constituents contribute to the defence sector, whether through apprenticeships, graduate roles or skilled employment. Many were schooled in West Dorset and now work in the surrounding areas, including for firms such as Leonardo in the neighbouring constituency of Yeovil. What assurances can the Minister give that contracts such as the new medium helicopter will be awarded quickly so that the futures of the many apprentices and employees in the defence sector are protected?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right: some of these programmes can take a long time to get to contract. In fact, this programme experienced delays in securing outline business case approval under the previous Government. I hope that we can get it to the end of the line as swiftly as possible, in accordance with the current process, and that some of his constituents will benefit from having work to do on the new programme.