Middle East: Defence

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The UK Government are urging Iran to de-escalate. We are deeply concerned about regional stability. Part of the reason for our co-ordinated defensive actions—the contribution we are making in the regional co-ordination centres, but also with our jets flying in defence of middle eastern allies—is to reinforce regional security and stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement this afternoon, and included the confirmation of the commitment to approve for the Ministry of Defence access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities as they are needed to the middle east. I am sure the House will welcome that, as it will welcome the fact that she said,

“I am committed to giving our military the resources they need.”

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership at this time. One of the defining characteristics of the UK’s response to the crisis when Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was the political unity that this party, the Labour party, offered our country. Does he find it extremely disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying that our military are “hanging around”, when they are putting themselves in harm’s way to defend our interests abroad? Does he expect, as I do, the shadow Secretary of State to apologise for that really disappointing, cheap political point scoring?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I had the honour of spending part of Thursday with our personnel on our base in Akrotiri, it was not just the teams and the pilots flying the fast jets who were working flat out—the F-35 team I spoke to had deployed at five days’ notice to Cyprus. The whole of the military personnel on that base were doing so, including those looking after and ensuring the relocation of non-essential personnel and families to hotels in the Paphos area. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more insulting than the suggestion that they are simply “hanging around” in the middle east. I really would like to hear—we did not hear it from the shadow Defence Secretary—any Conservative Member contest what their leader said and apologise on her behalf. Let us have the sort of support that recognises that our armed forces are in the region to protect British personnel, British bases and British interests. We are proud that they are doing that job.

Ministry of Defence

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It is shocking, as my hon. Friend says from the Front Bench. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, not only is it terrible for defence companies wanting to be able to plan their manufacturing programmes, but it is not good for MOD personnel, because they do not know how to plan either.

Current events in the middle east have given a serious warning that we need to increase defence expenditure. It is therefore really important that we see the defence investment plan so that Parliament can scrutinise the latest plans. Without this information, the Office for Budget Responsibility has questioned whether the Government will be able to reach their target of 3% in five years’ time. That will also be too late, because we need to get the investment soon. As everybody knows—and the Minister certainly knows—it takes a long time to procure and manufacture some of these important bits of kit, so we need to get on with that now.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that, given what has happened in the past few days in the middle east, the country needs to spend more on defence, but does he agree with me that the country needs to spend differently on defence? When drones cost barely tens of thousands of pounds, we need to start buying or making capabilities to take down drones that do not cost the British taxpayer millions and millions of pounds.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. and gallant Member has great experience in these matters. I think he must have been reading my speech. If he is patient, I think he will get exactly what he wants.

The PAC recommended more than two years ago that the Government should set up a sensitive scrutiny committee to examine confidential military expenditure. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister on the Front Bench today, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, for their careful consideration of that matter. I hope it will now be possible to make real progress, but as the Minister will remember, I raised this matter in the estimates debate in June last year. I hope it will not be necessary to raise it again in another year’s time.

There is a commitment to increase defence expenditure from 2.2% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, followed by an increase to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. In the Government spending review, the current budget is expected to increase by 18.2%, or £11.3 billion by 2028-29. Minister, we really do need to see those numbers incorporated into the Government’s expenditure plan in the autumn Budget so that we can be absolutely certain about them.

Many Members will know—certainly the Chair of the Defence Committee knows, because I have been a guest on his Committee—that the MOD has been reorganised into the Quad: the permanent secretary Jeremy Pocklington; the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton; the National Armaments Director, Rupert Pearce; and the Chief Of Defence Nuclear, Madeleine McTernan. I sincerely hope, given their new powers, they will radically reform how the MOD functions. We need to take a more strategic view of systems that we procure—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas)—and consider above all the capability and speed we are able to acquire them.

Why is it, I say to the Minister, that the Japanese can procure their version of the highly sophisticated Type 26 frigate, a Mogami class, in a third of the time that we do? The consequence of that is that the Australians have just struck a deal for £10 billion to purchase those ships from the Japanese. Why is it that the Israelis can procure their military equipment with just 1,000 people, yet our procurement body, Defence Equipment and Support, employs 12,500 people? Our procurement system is far too slow, subject to mission creep, usually late and usually over-budget. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Ajax is a classic example of all those problems. We need to learn those lessons, move on and make sure they do not happen in future.

Last week, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned—he is no longer in his place—I joined a group of 20 MPs who visited Ukraine. We were in air raid shelters several times during our visits to Odessa and Kyiv. On one night the Russians fired 290 drones: 220 were destroyed but 70 got through, causing a significant amount of damage, and a few injuries and fatalities as well. Ukraine’s technology and digital capability in tracking and destroying those drones is some of the most sophisticated in the world. The drone operators’ experiences are directly and rapidly informing their procurement decisions. The Ukrainians are able to change the specification of their drones within a week. I suggest that it would probably take us some months to do the same thing.

One of the top Ukrainian military experts told us that the future of warfare was following three domains: drones, cyber/electronic and space. I think, hearing those words, that some of our capabilities in those areas need bolstering pretty rapidly. We and NATO need to learn the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Without being too specific, there are severe gaps in NATO’s anti-drone technology.

The experts also made the telling point that modern main battle tanks can cost between $4 million to $9 million per unit, but they can be destroyed by a swarm of drones costing less than $20,000 each. They say that tanks are effectively redundant. The Ukrainians inform us that 80% of their kills are as a result of drone strikes. Modern warfare is changing rapidly, and the MOD needs to be sufficiently agile to adapt.

From the recent activity in Cyprus, and other lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine and ongoing war in the middle east, we need to invest in comprehensive counter-drone systems and training across our armed forces. As an example, we use the Sky Sabre air defence system, which can shoot down drones, but can cost up to £250,000 a shot. We need to invest further in anti-drone technology to ensure we can do this far more rapidly and cheaply.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, last Thursday the PAC visited RAF Marham, which houses two F-35 squadrons. I have four main takeaways from that visit, all of which stem from the lack of urgency to be ready for war according to General Walker’s three-year timescale. First, the accommodation for our servicemen needs urgent upgrading. It is a disgrace that servicemen can be sent on long tours while their families do not have proper accommodation.

My second takeaway was the effect that has on retention. We were told that pilots and training instructors for the F-35 programme are 50% below optimum levels, which is highly unsatisfactory for a project of this importance.

Thirdly, it is difficult to plan the whole operation when the timing and procurement of the additional 27 F-35s are unclear. Hopefully, that will be revealed in the defence investment plan when it is published.

Fourthly, one of the squadrons had recently returned from the highly successful Operation Highmast to deploy around the world, ending up in Japan. Now, in a matter of a week or two, they have had to redeploy to the middle east. This is a good illustration of how some of our servicemen face considerable stretch. This is to be expected in wartime, but more resources must be deployed to support them and their families. Another example of that is that our submarine crew on HMS Vanguard recently served a 204-day deployment.

The MOD budget is going to grow considerably, but the money is not going to purchase military hardware in the most strategic or cost-effective way. That will happen only if the Quad radically reforms the way the MOD has been run, especially with smarter recruitment of personnel and procurement of equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will. My hon. Friend, who serves on the Defence Committee and did in the previous Parliament, will remember that total spending on defence in the last year of the last Government was just under £54 billion. She will know that this year and next year, it is set to be over £65 billion. She will see the increase in defence spending, she will recognise the importance of making that commitment, and she will recognise the value of the strategic defence review in setting the vision for transforming our forces, so that they are more ready to warfight, and better able to deter.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to increase the speed of the development and adoption of uncrewed defence systems.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

The Government are working exceptionally hard to ensure we speed up our procurement of uncrewed systems. In 2024 alone we are buying up to 5,400 drones, moving up to 8,000 in 2026. Really important is the development of our drone uncrewed centre of excellence, which will be launched later this year to provide better co-ordination and co-operation across defence, industries and academia in the delivery of uncrewed systems.

[Fred Thomas]

Britain’s future security depends on developing, testing and, crucially, adopting uncrewed systems quickly and safely, but the regulation is immensely complex. It spans many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The regulators include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Military Aviation Authority, Ofcom and the Environment Agency. The list goes on—it is endless—and for the military, the police, the agencies and our innovators, the barriers are stifling. My hon. Friend will know that I have worked with stakeholders to develop proposals for reform, which he has seen, and I know that the MOD, the Department for Transport and even the Treasury are considering them, but to make real progress, we need coherence in this area. Will he now help me to convene a meeting of all the key regulators across the Departments to drive this forward?

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about our service personnel. Every one of them should know that the vehicles or equipment they have been asked to operate are safe, which is why it is important that we get to the bottom of what has happened. We await those reports so that we can provide confidence to our people about what we are asking them to do, albeit with the level of risk that both we and they know they carry.

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the cost of the entire Ajax programme remains £6.3 billion—that price has not changed since 2014. We will be able to take next steps once we understand the cause of the issue, but the Defence Secretary has been very clear that we are bringing this saga to an end, one way or another. A decision will be made once it can be properly informed by the evidence of what has happened.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

To scrap the Ajax programme completely would be a very bold move, considering that the UK has sunk over £6 billion into it and it is nine years late. The vehicle is still making soldiers ill every time they get in it, even though Ministers both current and former have been repeatedly briefed that it is good to go. It is not good to go, but to decide that it never will be would be very brave. Considering that this Labour Government are the first UK Government since the cold war to increase defence spending, that they have a very ambitious defence reform agenda, and that finally confidence in the armed forces and the morale of serving personnel are going back up—certainly compared with way before I was in the military—does the Minister think we have enough confidence to take a bold decision like that?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. Taking bold decisions is the hallmark of this Government, because it would not be enough simply to tinker with some of the procurements we inherited, given the necessary increase in our capabilities to meet the threats that exist. When the defence investment plan is published, it will set out bold decisions, but it is really important in relation to Ajax that we get to the bottom of what happened during Exercise Titan Storm. The Ajax vehicle has completed 42,000 km of testing without such injuries, so we need to understand what has happened with the vehicles that have caused these injuries. Not all the vehicles on that exercise caused injuries, and that needs to be taken into account as part of the investigations. I am looking forward to those results when they come, so that we can make a clear and bold decision one way or another to bring this saga to an end.

Strategic Defence Review

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister and the Government have committed the funds—[Interruption.] We have committed the funds. We have built them into the terms of reference that will allow this strategic defence review to be delivered over the next 10 years and beyond. That is the confirmed view of the reviewers, and that is exactly what my job as Defence Secretary will be to do.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s support and his leadership in this time of increased threats. We saw over the weekend that Ukraine had managed to destroy, it says, as many as 40 Russian bombers deep inside Russia, with a value, it would say, of £5 billion. That is almost as much as we are raising the defence budget by. We have to get after innovation, and this SDR does that. In particular, I want to ask the Secretary of State about page 59, which talks about “rapid commercial exploitation”. It mentions the need to

“pull latest technology into operations”,

and to

“unlock private equity and venture capital”.

My question is this: do we need to change the commercial competition laws within the civil service to allow that to happen, or can it already happen?

[John Healey]

We certainly have to change the procurement system. The Chancellor and I have already announced in the spring statement the way that we will ensure that the sort of innovation my hon. Friend talks about can move to contract far faster than it has done before, and that we can ensure that the sort of spiral development that the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), first started to look at in Government can be pursued and put in place. We will do that; it is part of the procurement reforms that we are bringing into place. Pace, innovation and the new companies that have so much to offer are part of how we will do this in the future.

Ukraine Update

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this topic, and not just in the UK but in Europe. My question relates to tactics. Over the weekend, I spoke on LinkedIn with a British sniper who was formerly in the Army but is now fighting for the Ukrainians on the frontline. He told me about the tactical changes that he has had to make to how he operates, but those changes are not reflected in our own sniper training in the Army, the Royal Marines and the British forces. Therefore, if we are talking about a coalition of the willing and UK troops potentially being involved in defence, when will we update the training syllabus for our own forces to reflect the tactics currently in use in Ukraine?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks on this from a position of great experience and authority. He points to something that hits at the heart of the strategic defence review, which is close to being finalised. Hardwired into the terms of reference in July, when the Prime Minister commissioned the review, is the fact that we need to learn the lessons from Ukraine, not in order to fight in Ukraine, but in order to recognise that the nature of warfare is changing—the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned the importance of drones—which means that the combination of forces needs to be more integrated. They need to be driven much more by technology, and that will have implications not just for equipment, but for training. I know that my hon. Friend will look forward to the publication of the SDR and that he will be on the case, including for the Defence Committee, to ensure that it is fully implemented. I welcome his contribution to those debates.

Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate. He is a huge champion for SMEs in his constituency and for national security in general.

I will begin by pointing out that defence primes are not evil. They do not set out to harm British national security. They do amazing things, and some of the things we are proudest of in Britain—sovereign capabilities —are delivered by those primes. It is no surprise that a huge proportion of defence spending goes to them, because some of the capabilities that they deliver—things that give us our unique edge in the world—are the most expensive things on the British balance sheet.

Primes do not have to be negative in the context of SMEs either, because they can offer SMEs something that we all know is missing: the ability to communicate with the Government. By joining with primes, SMEs are sometimes able to advertise their ability to the Government in a way that they would not be able to otherwise.

[Richard Foord]

To reinforce the hon. Member’s point, the way that Supacat has teamed up with Babcock in Plymouth in recent years to scale up its skilled workforce by 60% is an example of what he is describing.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct. It is not quite in my constituency—it is in the neighbouring constituency, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport—but I agree.

In terms of SMEs, primes can also offer a service to the Government and the Ministry of Defence. If we had a massive change in system, which would be extremely hard to execute, and the MOD was suddenly able to procure directly from SMEs across the country, we would have an enormous challenge of integrating the different capabilities into a usable platform. Half of the things would not be able to talk to each other; they would be made to do their one task and we would then try to put on top of them a second radar system or some piece of satellite that could speak down to whatever comms link we were using. That is enormously expensive. However, primes can do that integration. They can go to the Government and say, “You have a demand signal to do something,” rather than to have a particular capability—to monitor the North sea, for example—and then go out to the SMEs in different constituencies that hon. Members have highlighted so fantastically, gather various bits of capability and knit that into one big package to sell to the Government. That would feel more expensive and slower to the Government, but it could be cheaper in the long term, in some instances.

That said, I and colleagues are overwhelmed almost daily by individuals in the UK defence industry reaching out on LinkedIn or by email, begging the Government to listen to what they are offering. They are patriotic people who think they can save us money and give us strategic advantage by delivering a piece of capability, when we currently spend obscene amounts of money on something that sometimes does not work well or produce the desired effect. I would love the Minister to give us a sense of what the Government are going to do differently from previous Governments to actively offer a forum for those SMEs to pitch their capabilities. I am immensely proud of the Secretary of State and the Minister who joins us today for their work so far—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

That is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence and it is not within my portfolio, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will ensure Northern Ireland Office officials respond to him. However, I do not think there will be strong support for such action from much of the House.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

On our journey to increasing defence spending, it is crucial that we keep the public on side, especially given our dire financial inheritance from the Conservative party and the hollowed-out state of our armed forces, as Conservative Members have acknowledged. That is why I welcome the Government’s break from tradition in informing this House and the British people about their steps to deploy a nuclear submarine to respond to Yantar, the Russian spy boat, along with the Plymouth-based RFA Proteus. What steps will the Government take in the future, over the coming weeks and months, to keep the British public informed, so that they stay on side as we increase defence spending to respond to the threat from Russia?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. He is right that last week we declassified information about the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar, including revealing details of the surfacing of a Royal Navy submarine to deter the Yantar’s activities loitering above our critical national infrastructure. It is absolutely right that this Government make the case that warfare has changed, especially when it comes to the protection of our critical underwater infrastructure. Making the case that we have formidable abilities, but also being clear in the SDR about how we will invest in those capabilities alongside our allies, is essential. The SDR will be published in the spring, when I am sure he will be able to see more about that.

Defence Programmes Developments

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.

With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?

On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Fred Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill: it is great news. I left full-time service only last year, and it is fantastic to see the pledges that I hoped the Government would fulfil being brought—I hope—into law.

I first encountered these proposals last year when we were joined by Eva Högl, the German armed forces commissioner, in the House for a panel event, only a couple of weeks after I had left full-time service and only one week after my selection as the Labour parliamentary candidate for Plymouth Moor View. It was an exciting moment, but the appointment of an Armed Forces Commissioner seemed very far away. It seemed to be something very positive that the Germans had and that we should have, but to do it would require a Labour Government, and we did not know when the election would be. All that has now come about: we have that Labour Government and we are committed to delivering an Armed Forces Commissioner, and it is great that we are doing so.

I commend the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for the way in which they are approaching the Bill, and for the collegiate atmosphere. I know I speak for many Labour colleagues when I say that matters relating to the welfare of the armed forces and veterans are over-politicised in this country, and approaching them as one House is extremely positive. I hope that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) will be encouraged by the extent to which the Labour party is holding up the German commissioner as a model. For one thing, Eva Högl is a woman, and for another, she has not served in the military. I am sure that those points will be taken into consideration when the Government make their appointment.

As the Bill makes clear, one of the commissioner’s aims will be to promote the welfare of serving personnel and their families, including, as has been mentioned, bereaved families. Another—the second of the functions listed in the Bill—is to improve

“the public’s understanding of the welfare issues faced”

by serving personnel. That is an excellent step, because it will deal with something that holds back serving people, particularly those who are drafted into a new community—anyone who has been in the military will have experienced this—where they have no roots laid down. They are at the mercy of whatever their camp or base can provide. It may be possible for them to obtain military housing in the area, but they may be on camp. Beyond that, they can play a part in local politics and local government, whether it is a parish council or a town council. It can be very challenging for serving personnel to understand and communicate with local government, and I was pleased to hear Members say that many councils have run positive schemes involving armed forces champions and their own armed forces covenants.

In Plymouth—which I represent along with the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—we have a fantastic Plymouth City Council armed forces champion scheme. If Members do not know about it, I urge them to look at it, because I know from speaking to residents that it has had a massive effect for veterans and serving personnel. One of the questions that the Government will face in respect of the Bill is “What is the relationship between the armed forces commissioner and local government—and, as a third party, the tri-service military?” Yes, listening is important, but doing is also important. We need to understand how the commissioner can bring about solutions and outcomes for residents and, obviously, for serving personnel.

The Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned reservists, and I know that they have been mentioned before. When we look closely at the Bill, however, we see that anyone who is subject to “service law”, or military law, will be entitled to access to the armed forces commissioner. Reservists—and, as of last year, I am a proud Royal Marines reservist—are subject to military law when they are serving, but not when they are not on duty. That needs to be clarified. To maximise reservists’ output, which I know the Ministry of Defence is keen to do, we must ensure that they feel wrapped up in the system, not just operationally and not just in training, but in that welfare sense. When will they have access to the commissioner? Will it just be on a Wednesday night when they are in their detachment, or will it be throughout the week? Obviously the answer should be “throughout the week”, and I urge the Govt to commit themselves to that.

Finally, I want to commend the Secretary of State, who has briefly left the Chamber. In the military, people are often taught about having the courage of their convictions. Having an armed forces commissioner who will report to Parliament annually will not be easy for the Secretary of State, because the commissioner is unlikely to report solely good findings every year; in fact, quite the opposite. He or she will probably point out the things that we need to be doing. That is good, because it is the sign of a strong, confident leadership that we are willing to appoint people who will point out flaws in the system that will be difficult and potentially expensive to solve.

All in all, I massively welcome the concept of an Armed Forces Commissioner, and the Bill. There are some detailed questions to which we would love to know the answers, and I look forward to hearing those in due course.