UK Nuclear Deterrent

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this important urgent question. Following comments in the press last month from Sir Simon Case, former head of the civil service, that the UK should consider air-launched nuclear capabilities, I wrote in the Express on 25 May that our nuclear deterrent needed to be made even more resilient, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also

“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”

I believe that it would be right to diversify our methods of delivering nuclear strike, because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and it has the ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able do the same.

We support in principle moves to widen our nuclear capabilities, on the assumption that we do so working closely with our NATO allies. However, I gently suggest to the Government that they may need our support to carry that decision. I remind the Minister that eight of his Front-Bench colleagues voted against the renewal of our nuclear deterrent in 2016, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and others. If the Minister was hoping that he could rely on the Liberal Democrats, let me say that not only did all but one of their MPs vote against Trident renewal in 2016, but as a condition of supporting the coalition Government, they shamefully demanded that we delayed the renewal of our nuclear submarines, leaving us to rely on older boats for far longer. That led to longer maintenance periods, and above all, directly contributed to the punishingly long tours of duty for our CASD naval crews.

Having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for nuclear, and having chaired the Defence Nuclear Board, I understand why the Minister needs to choose his words carefully, but can he at least recognise that 204 days for a patrol is far too long, and that in addition to any plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, we must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times? Finally, will he confirm what the estimated cost will be of delivering an air-launched option, and say by when he would expect that to be in service?

[Luke Pollard]

Let me again put on record my thanks to all members of our Royal Navy who go out on patrol, not just on our Vanguard-class submarines, but also on our Astute-class boats—and the previous T-class boats—that defend our deterrent while at sea. They guarantee our security by ensuring that there is a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent every day, and have done so for over 70 years. Every Labour Member was elected on a manifesto commitment to a triple lock for our nuclear submarines: first, we will continue to support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; secondly, we will build four Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines at Barrow, which we are committed to delivering; and thirdly, we will maintain and provide all the upgrades that are required for the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. That includes the renewal of our sovereign warhead, which the Defence Secretary will get to when he makes his statement on the strategic defence review later today. I am determined that we will guarantee our national security, and we will work across Government to do so.

Strategic Defence Review

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Before I turn to the substance, in responding to my point of order, the Secretary of State said that when he was in opposition,

“We were not offered a briefing”,

and

“We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please! It has not been a good day so far, and I do not want any more interruptions.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account?

While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it.

The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today.

Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before.

Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary—[Interruption.] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats.

Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism.

To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.

[John Healey]

I see the way the world is changing. I see the way the Chancellor is fixing the economic foundations after 14 years of failure under the Conservative Government. I have to say to the House that I have no doubt that we will meet our ambition to hit 3% of spending on defence in the next Parliament. It is something that the Prime Minister this morning reinforced. He said that the SDR can be delivered, because our commitment to 2.5% was built into the terms of reference. He said this morning that we are committed to spending what we need to spend to deliver this review.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about unfunded promises. He knows about unfunded promises. His drone strategy was unfunded. It was 12 pages, with more pictures than words. His munitions strategy was unfunded and even unpublished. His party’s commitment to 2.5% on defence was never in Government Budgets. It was a gimmick launched four weeks before they called the election—they dither, we deliver.

On Diego Garcia, I say this to the shadow Defence Secretary. This deal is a great investment in the defence and intelligence base that we share with the Americans. It is essential for activities that cannot be undertaken elsewhere, and that we do not undertake with any other nation. It is a deal worth 0.2% of the defence budget. The US backs the deal. NATO backs the deal. Five Eyes backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. India backs the deal. So how, on this national security issue, have the Opposition got themselves on the wrong side?

As far as the SDR goes, this is the defence moment of a generation. With threats increasing and defence spending rising, we now have a plan for transformation—a plan that will link the best of advanced technology with the heavy metal of our platforms; a plan that will drive the defence dividend to increase jobs and business support across the country; and a plan that puts people in defence right at the heart of our defence plans for the future, with increased pay, better housing and better kit to do the job of deterring our adversaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend hits at the heart of the strategic defence review with a different view of the investments we make. Those investments will not just strengthen our armed forces but help to drive growth in our economy. I pay tribute to Prospect, GMB and Unite, and the members and the workers in the defence industry who contribute so much.

I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, despite nearly two hours at the Dispatch Box, we have not got to everybody’s question. If any Member wants to raise points with me, they should please do so directly, and I will provide them with answers.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to add to what I said in my earlier point of order and to seek your guidance. I reiterate how incredibly disappointing it is, as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on the day of the SDR, not to be able to read it before having to stand up and respond to the Government.

I said earlier that we knew of one major defence company that received a copy of the document at 8 am this morning. I have been told of another major prime—one of the largest—that received a copy at 8 am this morning. That means that at the time that I was messaging the Minister for the Armed Forces and begging him to let us have a copy, and he was saying that we could not have one, they were reading the SDR over breakfast.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard Mr Speaker refer to the phrase “skin in the game”; he was very concerned about a document being given early in the morning to big defence companies that have skin in the game. Can you advise us on what more we can do to probe this point and hold the Government to account on commercial sensitivity?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of that point of order. The House will be aware of the importance that Mr Speaker, and indeed all occupants of the Chair, place on statements being made to the House first and on adequate notice being given. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on record.

Bill Presented

Short-term Lets (Planning Permission) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Ben Maguire, supported by Andrew George, Steve Darling, Martin Wrigley, Richard Foord and Caroline Voaden, presented a Bill to introduce a requirement for a grant of planning permission to change a residential home to a short-term let in England; and for connected purposes. 

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 251).

Diego Garcia Military Base

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

5.6 pm

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal.

Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots.

Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure.

Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years?

When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must

“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries?

As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [Interruption.] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern.

On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago.

And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”.

It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands—[Interruption.] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to interrupt, but Mr Gemmell, you are not being helpful to your cause. It is the worst day to be thrown out, so please, I want to hear no more from you—it has been continuous.

[James Cartlidge]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.

Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.

[John Healey]

I regret the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck this evening—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister was making a simple point: if the base goes, the countries that benefit—the countries that want to see the base go and the deal fail—are China, Russia and Iran. Quite simply, he was asking whose side of the argument—

[James Cartlidge]

Are we on?

[John Healey]

Yes, whose side are you on? [Interruption.] Frankly, if you do not back the deal, you do not back the base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am alarmed by the passion of Conservative Members for the Chagos islands—

[James Cartlidge]

Because we care about them.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will the hon. Member let me finish? I have on a number of occasions intervened on Conservative Members to ask them to name the Chagos islands, and they have been unable to tell me that there is Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos, the Salomon islands, the Egmont islands—

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On behalf of the official Opposition, we send our best wishes to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on his ascent of Everest.

On defence procurement, we will all have enjoyed the Red Arrows fly-past as part of our VE Day celebrations, but the fact is that the Hawk jet needs replacing. Given that one of the publicly stated roles of the Red Arrows is “supporting British industry”, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the next jet for the Red Arrows will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom?

[John Healey]

As a former procurement Minister, the shadow Secretary of State will know that the replacement of our jet trainer is long overdue. He will have heard me say earlier that, for the first time, this is a Government who will look to direct British taxpayers’ defence investment to British-based firms, British-based jobs, British-based technology and British-based innovation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I have previously raised, during Defence questions, my deep concern about the possibility that the Government would give away our fishing rights in order to gain access to the European Union rearmament fund, but in fact it is far worse than that. Is not the truth that we have surrendered our fishing grounds for at least 12 years and will become a passive rule taker, and that all we have in exchange is a glorified talking shop with not a penny of guaranteed defence funding?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. [Interruption.] He is quite right, in that during the last Defence Question Time he talked about our not being excluded from the Security Action for Europe defence fund that would include EU states. I would have thought that he would welcome this afternoon’s agreement, because this is the open door to those arrangements. Let me ask him this: does he therefore agree with his party leader, who declared before even seeing the agreements that will be signed today—including the security and defence partnership agreement—that she would tear them up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the highly topical subject of fishing rights, the Secretary of State will no doubt share my profound concern at reports that last week Mauritius and Russia agreed to deepen their co-operation on fisheries and other maritime issues. Does that not show that Labour’s policy of spending billions renting back a military base that we already own is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but a major risk to our national security?

[John Healey]

No. It shows that when we were elected last summer we inherited a situation of increasing questions and jeopardy over the continuing sovereignty—our operational sovereignty—of the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have been taking action since then.

[James Cartlidge]

The Chagos chaos continues, as multiple reports now suggest that No. 10 has put the whole £18 billion Chagos nonsense on hold. It has done that for fear that Labour MPs, who are being whipped to withdraw winter fuel payments from up to 10 million pensioners, will not vote for it. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is still the Government’s policy to stand by their crazy Chagos deal, or has he finally decided to give it all up?

[John Healey]

The Diego Garcia base is essential to our security and to our security relationship with the US. It was increasingly under threat under the previous Government. We have had to act, as the previous Government started to do, to deal with that jeopardy. We are completing those arrangements and will report to the House when we can.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies.

With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source.

The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability.

The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation.

That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran?

The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless?

Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday:

“it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.”

The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency?

[John Healey]

I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.

When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas.

Ukraine Update

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s wishing a good and successful mission to the crew of HMS Prince of Wales as it sets sail on its latest trip?

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, both for advance sight of his statement and for the support that was provided by his Department for my recent visit to Ukraine; we provided the same support when we were in government. It was a privilege to pay tribute to the victims of this terrible war at the Wall of Memory in Kyiv, but it was also a powerful reminder of the stark contrast between the reality on the ground of continued casualties and the lies and propaganda from the Kremlin in respect of any so-called ceasefire.

It must be clear that to Putin a ceasefire is simply part of a game—one that he has no intention of pausing—and we must continue to stand with all our allies in being 100% clear about who the aggressor is in this war. Those who pay the price for Putin’s game are innocent civilians, such as those killed in the terrible strike on Sumy on Palm Sunday. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on reports that Russian forces used a cluster munition as part of the attack on civilians, and if so, does this not illustrate the extraordinary contrast between claims of a ceasefire and the reality of the Russians’ continued indiscriminate bombing? In the face of such aggression, we remain proud of the extraordinary role that the United Kingdom has played in backing Ukraine’s struggle under successive Governments, and I welcome the continued support announced by the Ukraine defence contact group.

I turn to the Secretary of State’s latest update on the coalition of the willing. Although we will always stand with the Government in supporting Ukraine, he knows that it would be a major shift to go from the indirect provision of munitions to boots on the ground. Therefore, as the Opposition, we are duty bound to probe what remain several unanswered but very significant practical questions that any such deployment would raise.

A month ago, on 22 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State with a series of questions on the coalition of the willing, but I have yet to receive a reply. Given the importance of those questions, I will ask them now. First, what progress has he made on securing a US military backstop? Secondly, what would be the expected rules of engagement? Thirdly, how many nations have definitively committed to sending troops? Fourthly, will he consider derogating from the European convention on human rights for any deployment, given our military’s previous experience of vexatious lawsuits arising from overseas operations?

Of course, an extraordinary aspect of the coalition of the willing is that we are meant to be leading with France, while at the same time—behind our back—it is seeking to undermine our fishing rights in our sovereign waters over access to a European defence fund that will definitively include non-EU nations. When I pointed that out at oral questions last month, the Secretary of State asked me to “drop” the “Brexit rhetoric”, yet over the Easter recess it was he who blasted the EU’s foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas when she suggested that his plan for troops in Ukraine was unclear. What is clear? Almost alone, we stood by Ukraine from the very beginning of the war, helping it to avoid an early capitulation that would have been a disaster for the whole of Europe. We also offer our nuclear deterrent to European NATO 24/7—not to get better fishing rights, but to defend the freedom of European nations.

A country that does all that should not be excluded from a defence fund that will include non-EU states, and should not face punitive measures against its fishing fleet, when we are meant to be doing everything possible to strengthen European defence solidarity. The Secretary of State needs to understand that this is not about Brexit, Britain or France; it is about the security of the whole of Europe. Does he understand that, and can he confirm categorically that the Government will not offer any concessions on fishing rights in order to secure an EU defence pact?

Finally, I turn to procurement for our own armed forces. Both in Kyiv and with cross-party colleagues in Parliament this morning, I had the pleasure of meeting Ukrainian manufacturers of drones that have been highly effective on the frontline. Will the Secretary of State support such companies to partner with British companies and to set up operations in the UK, both to boost Ukraine and to give our military rapid access to proven capabilities? Given how much of this rests on the strategic defence review, will it be published this month?

[John Healey]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has been to Ukraine recently, and I am glad we were able to facilitate that visit. I am proud of the number of Members of this House who are regularly going to Ukraine. It has a big impact on the Ukrainian population, who do not necessarily hear our debates in the UK. When they see British parliamentarians of all parties and you, Mr Speaker—as the Speaker of this House—in Ukraine, they know that this country stands united and stands with them.

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to contrast Putin’s claims of a ceasefire with the reality of continued brutal attacks, including on the civilian population of Ukraine. He asked about a potential negotiated peace in which we, alongside 30 other nations in the coalition of the willing, consider how best we can help secure a lasting peace, which is what President Trump has promised to deliver. He will have heard the Prime Minister say that we are fully committed to putting British troops on the ground if necessary, and we would do that because the security of the UK starts in Ukraine. He asked about the US, and both I and the Prime Minister have been clear in our discussions with the US that, post a negotiated ceasefire and peace, Ukraine will need long-term security assurances and that there is a role for the US to play in those.

On the ECHR, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone, it is long-standing practice of successive Governments that UK deployments at home and abroad will always comply with international law. That is what sets us apart from nations such as Putin’s Russia. I will not be drawn into what any of the operational deployments may look like, because the only person who benefits from that is President Putin.

The hon. Gentleman raised two other things with me. On the EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas, and the question of a European Union-UK defence agreement and access to the EU programmes that it is stepping up and putting in place, he quite rightly says that we have a part to play and a contribution to make. Kaja Kallas herself has said:

“I think the UK is a very important defence and security partner. It’s the most logical defence and security partner that we have, and it’s a beneficial relationship for both sides.”

That is why she and we are committed to negotiating a defence and security agreement.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the significance of drones in the current battle. It is now the fact that more casualties on both sides are caused by drones than by artillery. On the UK-Ukrainian link, we have helped manufacture, in this country and in Ukraine, and supply over 14,000 drones since the last election in July. This is central to the Ukrainian defence strategy, and it is central to the future of our own forces—

[James Cartlidge]

And the SDR?

[John Healey]

The SDR, as we have said many times, is close to completion. It is being finalised, and it will be published in the spring.

Royal British Legion

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. In a debate that is really in itself a tribute to the RBL, I begin with a number of tributes, in particular to all colleagues who have spoken today. We have seen the House at its best with a strong cross-party consensus, commemorating our veterans as well as paying tribute to all those who work for the RBL for the brilliant work they do for our veterans.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He is a GP, an MP and, we have learnt today, the honorary president of the Royal British Legion Hinckley branch. He has done them proud. I think he has named all the key people and the key players; I am sure they will all be getting a hard copy of Hansard in the post to commemorate the debate. As he said, the RBL’s local work is the manifestation of a brilliant effort, which our constituents feel at the coalface.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for mentioning the National Memorial Arboretum. It is an incredible place. He asked which Minister will be there this year. I cannot help him there, but I can tell him who it was last year: I had that great privilege. He may know that in the central area of commemoration there is an arrow slit that, should it be sunny in Staffordshire, the sun shines through at 11 am.

[Dave Robertson]

It is always sunny in Staffordshire!

[James Cartlidge]

I am pleased to say it was when I was there. It shone through at 11 am, and it was quite wonderful to behold—a very spiritual moment indeed, just as we said those magic words, so I am grateful to the hon. Member.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for mentioning Poppy Day. I very much enjoyed that day alongside the legion and our team, both as a Minister and a shadow Minister. I did not have the privilege of serving in the military, but I did run my own business, and I would like to think that the sales approach when I was there was quite robust and direct in approaching members of the public and that we achieved some pretty healthy sales outcomes.

On the matter of the competitive spirit, I, like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), took part in the RBL static cycling challenge. It was the day I was renewed as shadow Defence Secretary, from interim to what one might call enduring—who knows? I did the challenge alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I am pleased to say I just pipped him to the post. It highlights what a key part of our lives in Parliament the RBL is.

As has been said, the RBL offers a wide range of services, both locally and nationally, from care homes to debt advice. In government, we did much to support veterans, and we are very proud of that. As has been said, we gave veterans a voice at the Cabinet table, which was particularly passionately embodied by Johnny Mercer. We also had Op Courage to support highly targeted mental health services for veterans. I remind colleagues that we also implemented an employer’s national insurance cut for veterans, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that will remain in place. As I understand it, it has only been confirmed until 2026, so that would be good to know.

The most important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made—I hope he gets a couple of minutes at the end to respond—was about how we continue this great festival of remembrance as the generation that served in the second world war passes from us. We have just mourned the passing of the last person who served in the battle of Britain—the last of “the Few”, as we say. We must keep that flame alive. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who said it was all about education. I hope the Minister will confirm that the attempt to keep the flame of remembrance alive will be at the heart of his work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they bring forward the details of how we will mark VE Day and VJ Day.

As has been said, this is about recruitment and how the public are inculcated with a sense belief in the armed forces, so that they support the taxpayers’ money that has to go to them. A lot more will have to because of the situation the world is in; there is huge consensus on that point. Finally, as I have not had a chance to do so to date, I thank the Minister for his letter on the Clonoe case. I hope we will continue to work together to stand up for our veterans.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member will not mind me namechecking Portadown, Banbridge, Donaghcloney and Lurgan and Brownlow in my constituency, which are exemplary in how they support veterans and their families, particularly those from Northern Ireland who served during the IRA terror campaign and were a human shield between good and evil. Many of them lost their lives and were seriously injured. Does he agree that the RBL hierarchy in Great Britain needs to recognise the sacrifice and service of those in Northern Ireland, and to continue to build relationships, rather than pulling things away from Northern Ireland? It is so important that those veterans are supported for the service that they gave.

[James Cartlidge]

The key point we have heard today is how the work of the RBL goes across every region of England and every part of the Union, and of course that includes Northern Ireland. It is not just about the first and second world wars; it is about all those other campaigns, Operation Banner included. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Paddy Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much?

On the potential peacekeeping force for Ukraine, we have heard from the Secretary of State that it is jointly British and French. In fact, in every one of his answers he stressed the amount of work we are doing with France. Is it therefore not extraordinary that, at the very same time, France should be working to undermine our defence industry by having us excluded from a £150 billion European defence fund, which will include other non-EU states?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly a glass-half-empty type of guy. The European Union, when it produced its defence and security white paper last week, set in place specific arrangements for any third nation, such as the UK, that strikes a defence and security partnership with the European Union. That is exactly what we went to the country with, promising to undertake that as a UK Government. Any country with a partnership in place then potentially has access to those sorts of programmes and that sort of funding, and that is what we will try to negotiate for this country and our industry.

[James Cartlidge]

I can assure the Secretary of State that I am full biftas behind our armed forces and the UK defence industry. Is not the point that we provide our nuclear deterrent unconditionally to European NATO countries 24/7, our Army is in Estonia defending Europe’s eastern flank, and we have done more than any other European nation to support Ukraine? Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand up to President Macron and stress to him that this is the worst possible time to prioritise fishing rights over Europe’s collective security?

[John Healey]

I just ask the hon. Gentleman to drop that Brexit rhetoric. We are leading efforts with the French Government and the French military to meet the challenge of the US and the requirements of Ukraine to have a coalition of countries willing to stand with Ukraine in the context of a negotiated peace, to help them secure enduring stability and deterrence, to prevent Russia re-invading that sovereign country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

If our forces go to Ukraine, it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission, but, as the Veterans Minister reminded us earlier, Operation Banner was also described as peacekeeping, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts. Our soldiers in Iraq were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. If our forces go to Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider a derogation from the European convention on human rights so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?

[John Healey]

If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace, not a shooting war. Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies and to ensure safe seas. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course not. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour Government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11, and a country in Europe has derogated from the ECHR since 2015. That country is Ukraine, and that is because there is a war on. Surely he recognises that, even if it is a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats, and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. Surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment.

[John Healey]

Our armed forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the hon. Gentleman, we, alongside France, are putting together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. We are responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give it the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. That is a worthy mission, and it is one that the UK is leading. I hope that it has the support of both sides of the House.

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s personal position, but can he explain why the leader of his party thought that the priority for President Zelensky should be to set a timetable for elections, given that Winston Churchill, when facing a dictator, did not hold elections because we were under martial law?

[Richard Tice]

The point about elections is a good one, because any peace deal can only work if it has the support and involvement of all Ukrainians. In the second world war, we had elections in the summer of 1945, before the war had ended, which was completely appropriate then.

At some point the Ukrainians will need to be involved in supporting a peace deal, if we get there. A peace deal, however, is only durable—it only works—if it endures. That means we need the security guarantees to ensure that the aggressor will never, ever attack again. It is those security guarantees that we must focus on, all be involved in and ensure that they are a strong, robust deterrent. If we get those security guarantees right, hopefully Putin and Russia will never try such a monstrous activity and invasion ever again.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is an honour to have the opportunity to mark the grim milestone that is the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate, and I pay tribute to all the brilliant speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

Above all, though, I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine. Without any provocation whatsoever, Ukraine has suffered vast casualties and a national trauma beyond our wildest imaginings, all forced on it by an aggressive dictator and bully. If we ask ourselves why this war has happened, surely Lord Acton had the explanation, when he famously said back in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is a reason why Putin can murder on our streets, threaten nuclear war, harass our maritime and airspace, invade free nations, do away with his political opponents and care not a jot for a casualty rate in his own forces of more than 1,000 a day. It is because he is not constrained by the checks and balances of a democracy that holds him to account. He has absolute power, and he has used it destructively, regardless of the impact on his own people, let alone the people of Ukraine. Putin’s motive is the motive of so many despots and dictators down the centuries: power lust and hunger for conquest. He externalises his nation’s problems, which his corrupt oligarchy can never solve, and that ultimately leads to internal economic hardship and pain for all, bar him and his close elite.

I am incredibly proud of the support that we gave in government to Ukraine; we provided the weapons to help it avoid an early capitulation, which would have been truly disastrous for Ukraine and the free world. In opposition, we have continued to stand resolutely with Ukraine, supporting the Labour Government to that end, as they supported us prior to the July election. We wish the Prime Minister every success in Washington and hope for a lasting peace, in which Ukraine can finally enjoy the security it deserves. For all the talk of peace, and for all our efforts to date, providing everything from tanks to Storm Shadow missiles, and despite the incredible bravery of Ukraine’s armed forces in defying the odds to push back Putin’s land and naval forces, the day-to-day reality in Ukraine is one of continued bombing, pain and suffering for its people.

A key question for us in this debate is: what action can we undertake this day to support the ongoing fight? I turn to the subject of drones and rearmament, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in an excellent speech, but one aspect of rearmament speaks to our own need to rearm. Also, Ukraine will need rearmament on a far greater scale, whether a settlement is achieved or not. If there is no settlement, the ongoing war will require that rearmament. If there is, the need to give Ukraine security about its future will also require a continued ramping up of military industrial production, not least to deter Russia, so now that the Government have confirmed their plan for a sustained increase in defence spending, we must urgently unlock our domestic procurement to drive our defence industrial capacity and that of Ukraine.

On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a brilliant UK defence SME, Modini, which is creating one-way attack drones and other capabilities for the British Army. When I launched the MOD’s first-ever defence drone strategy about a year ago, the plan was to procure drones at scale for Ukraine, as we have done, and to learn from that to build a domestic industry capable of arming our own military. It was frustrating to hear from Modini what I have heard from so many of our best defence SMEs, which is that procurement is largely on hold. En masse, our fantastic firms are like a coiled spring, waiting for the Government to press “go” on procurement at the scale and pace we have needed for months.

Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), I believe that a big step forward would be for our defence companies to urgently forge new joint lines of production with Ukrainian firms in the United Kingdom, honouring the pillar 1 promise in the 100-year partnership to

“Establish stronger and closer defence cooperation and industrial bases.”

That is so important because, for safety reasons, Ukrainian defence companies that I have spoken to want UK production, away from the bombing. They also know that partnering with UK SMEs will provide access to capital and ultimately a chance to feed into UK procurement. For the UK, that co-operation means access to the know-how and expertise of those companies with manufacturing capabilities that have succeeded in a war as it is being fought. For our armed forces and the MOD, it means realising the cultural change that we need—being less risk-averse in procurement, and rapidly developing capability to enhance the lethality and survivability of our armed forces in the near term. That will be particularly important should there be a peacekeeping force.

Ultimately, conventional war that is sustained for a longer period is fought in terms of factory production capacity, which is linked to innovation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) about capital controls—I think there is enough capital—but he made an excellent speech about the need to boost capacity. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I looked at multilateral procurement with NATO partners. Whatever its current military capabilities, Europe has a vast industrial base that could scale up if there is the will power to do so, and if there is leadership from Governments.

We led at the outset of the war, and with our greatest ally, the US, reasonably asking us and our NATO allies to do more of the heavy lifting in confronting the Russian threat, we will need to lead again. That requires leadership on industry and innovation in the UK and across Europe to massively boost our defence industrial capacity. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to accelerate partnerships with Ukrainian businesses that have delivered on the frontline, but which will be even stronger with British backing. That will create British jobs, and will deliver a far greater scale of production for both countries’ armed forces. We can and must continue to do everything possible to support Ukraine.

Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine.

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

Yesterday, at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary, we saw almost 50 nations and partners standing together. Ukraine is backed by the members of the group, and by billions of dollars-worth of arms and ammunition that have been committed to keep its warfighters equipped. That will increase pressure on Putin, help force him to the table, and bring a sustainable peace closer.

We were pleased that Secretary Hegseth confirmed the US’s continued commitment to the group, to Ukraine’s pursuit of what he called “a durable peace”, and to the importance of security guarantees. We heard his call for European nations to step up; we are, and we will. NATO allies pledged €40 billion in 2024, and went on to provide €50 billion. The majority of that came from European nations, while non-US NATO allies boosted wider defence spending by 20% in just the last year, so Europe is stepping up.

Finally, we saw a clear commitment to ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, using both military and economic tools. We all agree that 2025 will be the critical year for Ukraine. At this crucial moment, we will not step back, but step up our support for Ukraine. President Trump and President Zelensky have both spoken of their desire to achieve “peace through strength”. The commitments made yesterday provide the collective strength that we need to achieve peace. For our part, the UK will spend £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, which is more than ever before.

We have now provided more than 500,000 artillery shells, worth over £1.5 billion. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary announced that we will provide an additional £150 million of new firepower, including drones, tanks and air-to-air missiles. Ukraine’s security matters to global security. That is why the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group coalition of 50 nations and partners stretches from the Indo-Pacific to South America. This war was never about the fate of just one nation. When the border of one country is redrawn by force, it undermines the security of all nations.

The US is serious about stability in the Indo-Pacific, as are we. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the carrier strike group will go there next year. If aggression goes unchecked on one continent, it emboldens regimes on another, so on stepping up for Ukraine, we are, and we will. On stepping up for European security, we are, and we will.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder.

In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate.

We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator?

We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries.

Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the fact that, in the main, there is still consensus across this House on supporting Ukraine. That has been a tremendously important part of the support that we have given over the last three years, and before, to the Ukrainians.

The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine; my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made that clear in his remarks yesterday. NATO’s job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for any talks, but there can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine’s involvement. We want to see a durable peace and no return to conflict and aggression. That is the only way in which this war can end, with the kind of security that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have referred to.