New Medium Helicopter Contract

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right about two things. First, defence is an engine for growth. That is why we are investing more of the increasing defence budget in British companies. Secondly, the Conservatives left huge swathes of their equipment programme unfunded—a problem that we are sorting out because of the mess that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on tabling this urgent question. It was a real pleasure to visit the Leonardo factory last September and witness how critical it is to employment in his constituency. Visiting the factory, one gets a powerful sense of Britain’s rotary history, but we want it to have a brilliant future too. That is why it is so worrying that the CEO of Leonardo recently warned that at least 3,300 jobs could be at risk if the NMH procurement does not go ahead. It was with those jobs in mind that when I announced the formal tender of the new medium helicopter as Defence Procurement Minister in February 2024, I took the decision to give a much stronger weighting to two key areas of the tender: first, the commitment of bidders to delivering high-skilled rotary work in the UK; and secondly, exportability, so that the supply chain could endure. All that will count for nothing if the procurement is cancelled.

Can the Minister confirm whether there is still a military requirement for NMH? If so, is he still committed to procuring NMH? After all, when I asked the question last April, I was told I would get the answer in the strategic defence review, but the SDR document never mentioned NMH at all. Instead, when the Secretary of State announced the SDR to Parliament last June, he said that the detailed decisions would be covered in the defence investment plan, which he said then would be published in the autumn of 2025. Given that it is now 2026, and that promise has clearly been broken, can the Minister tell us in which month he will finally publish the DIP? Can he confirm reports from multiple sources that the reason the DIP is delayed is that there is now a £28 billion black hole in the MOD budget?

Finally, the Budget Red Book shows exactly what Labour will spend on removing the two-child benefit cap right up to 2031, but does not say what the defence budget will be that year. Can the Minister tell us? Is the reality not that by prioritising welfare over going to 3% on defence this Parliament, Labour are paralysing decision making in the Ministry of Defence and putting thousands of jobs at risk in our defence industry at Yeovil and across the UK?

[Luke Pollard]

Deary me. It is this Labour Government who are increasing defence spending to the highest level since the end of the cold war. It is the Conservatives who hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion. In their 14 years, they never once hit 2.5% of GDP on defence.

I remind the House that as the Defence Procurement Minister until the election, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left a defence programme that was overcommitted and underfunded. He left 47 of 49 major defence programmes over budget and delayed. He left forces families in terrible housing and our warfighters with broken kit. We are clearing up his mess while he focuses on gaslighting the public about the Tories’ record on defence.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing he provided to me and other parliamentarians on today’s operation. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, there should always be a statement to Parliament when UK troops are committed abroad, and we hope that the Secretary of State can provide a little more clarity than the Prime Minister was willing to provide earlier.

In recent days, we have seen extraordinary international developments, particularly in relation to Venezuela, but it remains the case that the single most important military action of recent years affecting our nation’s security is Putin’s illegal and wholly unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The ensuing war has led to terrible loss of life, and we all want peace, but it must be a lasting one on acceptable terms to Ukraine, and with credible security guarantees, so that any post-ceasefire settlement can endure. Having led the way in supporting Ukraine at the outset of the invasion, we will, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine. Specifically, it is entirely right to plan for a ceasefire. Just as we brought together an international coalition to provide weapons to Ukraine, we welcome the way the Government have worked with international partners to plan how a potential ceasefire will be supported militarily.

As to the detail of the plans, can the Secretary of State provide further information on the number of personnel involved? Earlier today, the Prime Minister did not give any specific details on troop numbers, yet The Times is reporting that the figure will be fewer than 7,500. What more can he tell us on that? Can he say more about the composition of the force that is to be deployed? Specifically, we note that British soldiers will be involved in logistics and training, but what proportion, if any, will be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? What air and naval assets does he plan to provide as part of the multinational force for Ukraine?

On rules of engagement, we note from the joint declaration of intent that our service personnel will be granted

“the use of force to fulfil the mission”

of the MFU, and will

“co-operate in accordance with international law”

and

“respect for human rights…as reflected in other international agreements whose participants are the Signatories.”

Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means that our soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment? Can he also state the exact mission of the MFU? The declaration of intent refers to “other contributing nations”, but does not name any countries from outside Ukraine other than Britain and France, so can he list those nations and tell the House what their primary contribution will be?

On the crucial matter of security guarantees, there appears to be no mention of any such guarantees in the declaration of intent. Can the Secretary of State tell us what explicit security guarantees the United States has agreed to, and will they involve US boots on the ground? Of course, this force would only be deployed in the event of a ceasefire being agreed with Russia, so what is his contingency plan in the event that the ceasefire is broken after the MFU has been deployed? Does this not point to the most important consideration: that this whole plan is based on the assumption that there is a genuine ceasefire? Having personally passionately backed Ukraine’s fight for freedom throughout, I would dearly love to believe that this peace is possible soon, but I fear that the occupant of the Kremlin is not interested in peace. Does the Secretary of State agree that in parallel with any preparation for the MFU, there must be no let-up whatsoever in the application of maximum economic pressure on Russia, along with all possible continued support for Ukraine?

Turning to other developments, we support today’s operation by the United States to seize the MV Bella 1 tanker in order to enforce sanctions on Iran. We also welcome the UK’s enabling role, undertaken by Royal Navy and RAF assets, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State on the objectives he set out, not least the objective of reinforcing our homeland security. I am pleased to hear that the operation has been successful, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to all personnel involved, and I join the Secretary of State in recognising the skill and bravery of the US forces who participated.

On the wider matter of Iran, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with all those who in recent days have had the courage to defy that nation’s despotic and repressive regime. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not speculate on operational planning by us or our allies, can he reassure the House that his Department is conducting contingency planning in case of any further escalation of internal unrest in Iran?

On Greenland, we totally support Denmark’s sovereignty over that territory. While the United States remains our closest ally, it is surely not in the interest of the US or any of our allies for NATO’s shared commitments to be undermined to any degree. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition earlier, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will be seeking an urgent meeting of all NATO members to provide mutual reassurance on the matter of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland?

Finally, is not the common thread in all this that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and we must therefore rapidly ramp up our defence spending and rearmament? When will the Secretary of State finally publish the defence investment plan?

[John Healey]

We are working flat out on the defence investment plan. We will complete it and publish it as soon as we can.

The sovereignty of Greenland is not at issue: it is clearly Denmark that has sovereignty. It is clear that Greenland and Denmark are a part of NATO. Greenland’s security is guaranteed by its membership, and by all 32 nations of NATO. Any decisions on the future of Greenland are a matter for the citizens of Greenland and for Denmark.

Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s more extensive questions and points about the declaration of intent yesterday and the situation in Ukraine. I welcome his commitment to and support for a lasting and just peace. He pledged his support for all efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and I welcome his support for our work to do that. On the detailed questions, I will simply not go into detail on the nature of the activities in the deployment, the numbers of troops that are likely to be deployed to Ukraine or the commitments that other nations have made. As a former Defence Minister, he will understand that well. The finality of this will depend on the details of the peace deal. He quite rightly said that we will deploy only if there is a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Disclosing, let alone debating, those sort of details would only make Putin wiser.

On the deployment in future of any British forces, I am proud to say that whenever British forces deploy, including abroad, they meet the highest possible standards of international law and professionalism, and they will continue to do so.

On the number of nations committed to and involved in the planning of the coalition, as the Prime Minister has said, and as I said in my statement, yesterday’s meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet. Yesterday’s declaration of intent signifies not just an advance in our work towards the security guarantees and peace, but a gathering of momentum behind that.

Although the hon. Gentleman welcomes our support and pledges his own for efforts to bring peace, he questions aspects of this deployment and of this coalition of the willing, though his party leader has still not publicly backed the coalition of the willing, and has still not publicly said that she would support the multinational force for Ukraine. If and when she does, we will gladly see that as support for the security of Britain, the future of Ukraine and the strengthening of our work with allies.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Putin is not interested in peace. He is quite right to say that we will not, and should not, let up on intensifying the economic pressure. My statement dealt with the shadow fleet, which is part of that. We should not give up, or let up on increasing the pressure on Putin through the military aid and support that we provide to Ukraine. I can tell the House that I will co-chair the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside the German Finance Minister. We will do that at NATO next month, and we will look to ensure the strongest possible pledges throughout 2026, so that we can step up support for Ukraine, both for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

5.36 pm

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on armed forces recruitment and retention.

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

This Labour Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve, and our commitment is reflected in our actions. That is why we have given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years, committed to invest £9 billion to fix forces homes, scrapped 100 out-of-date medical policies for entry standards, and created novel ways of entry including our new gap year scheme and a cyber direct entry pathway with its first cohort graduating in November. It is also why, at Christmas, this Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel to be with their families over the festive period.

The Government’s actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% this year compared with September 2024. Applications to join the armed forces and intakes to basic training both continue to remain high. On retention, under the Conservatives morale had been falling year on year, with more people leaving than joining; we have started to reverse that decline with an 8% reduction in outflow this year compared with September 2024.

The question refers to the impact of the troubles Bill. The Government have brought forward the troubles Bill to effectively and legally deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The complexity of dealing with this issue is not lost on me. The reality is that the previous Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not have unfaltering support, and we are focused on navigating a workable route through this incredibly emotive and difficult topic in a fair and proportionate manner.

The military cohorts most impacted by legacy processes are those at the very tip of the spear. There is no evidence to suggest that this Bill has had an impact on their recruitment or indeed retention. The House will understand that we do not comment on matters of special forces, but let me echo what the Defence Secretary has said directly to the community: we have your back. I am assured in my interactions with those in the command of, or serving in, our special forces that they continue to deliver at the very front edge of the nation’s effort to counter the threats that we and the UK face. I say to them: you have my support and this Government’s unequivocal support.

The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the armed forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that this Bill meets their need. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

Our legacy Act ensured that those who served bravely in Northern Ireland could sleep soundly in their beds at night, knowing that they would not be hauled before the courts for protecting all of us from terrorism decades ago. But when our Act was challenged in the courts, instead of appealing, Labour immediately caved and is now scrapping those protections. This will reopen cases, such as Loughgall, from 1987, when IRA members were shot while mounting a bomb attack on a police station, having fired first on the Army.

Loughgall involved 24 SAS soldiers, so it is no wonder that on 30 December, seven senior former SAS officers wrote an extraordinary letter stating:

“Commanders now hesitate, fearing years of litigation. Troops feel abandoned…This self-sabotage needs no foreign hand…In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

The Minister knows the operational importance of special forces as much as anyone. Does he recognise the huge hit to morale if cases like Loughgall are restarted because of the troubles Bill?

Of course, the Government will say that we need the troubles Bill to pursue unsolved IRA crimes, but as the Prime Minister’s own appointed Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner David Johnstone warned last week, soldiers may be dragged before the courts, but IRA terrorists walk free because the weapons they used were decommissioned without forensic testing. Was the commissioner not right to say that veterans are treated “worse than terrorists”? Furthermore, last October the Government said that the troubles Bill would contain protections specifically for veterans. Will the Minister confirm that all the protections in the Bill also apply to terrorists?

In November, eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal described the troubles Bill as a

“direct threat to national security”.

The letter from seven former SAS officers said that they

“are not asking for immunity; they simply want fair procedures and decisive political leadership”.

With the threats that we face and the need to maximise recruitment and retention, can the Minister show decisive political leadership of his own and scrap the troubles Bill?

[Al Carns]

As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.

Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.

Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

To the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country.

I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?

[John Healey]

The answer is simple, and it is the same one I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. The shadow Secretary of State of all people—having been responsible for deep problems, and programmes beset by deep-running failures, such as Ajax—will appreciate the scale of the challenges we face.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he does not know his diary for the rest of the week? He could ask one of the other Ministers on the Front Bench, or one of the special advisers or officials. Surely he knows whether later this week—on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—he will be giving the most important defence statement of the year. It is extraordinary that he does not.

To remind the House, in June the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that the defence investment plan would be

“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 63.]

It is already late—just like the strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the housing strategy. Does that not illustrate perfectly why the Defence Committee said that when it comes to war readiness, Labour is moving at a “glacial pace”?

[John Healey]

The House will know to take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was in government, his munitions strategy was often promised and never published. His drone strategy had more pictures than pages—and no funding. His Government’s defence funding plan was published as an election gimmick just weeks before the election and was never delivered in 14 years. We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the work on the defence investment plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?

[John Healey]

We were talking about the strategic defence partnership agreement. We wanted to follow that up with an agreement on Security Action for Europe, but that proved impossible to negotiate in a way that was good value for the British defence industry and the British taxpayer. That will not stop us from promoting the cause of the British defence industry and doing the record defence export deals that we have done over the past year—an extra £10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and £8 billion through the biggest Typhoon deal in a generation. We will do more alongside the European Union, which is a valued partner; in particular, we will do more on Ukraine, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 8th December 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 the latest developments concerning Ajax and other Army vehicles.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for tabling the question and Mr Speaker for allowing me to provide an update on the current situation, expanding on the written ministerial statement that I laid on 26 November.

As safety is the top priority for the ministerial team, prior to Ajax’s initial operating capability being announced, I asked for and was given assurances in writing by senior Ministry of Defence personnel that the system was safe. However, on 22 November, around 30 service personnel operating the Ajax family of vehicles reported noise and vibration symptoms during Exercise Titan Storm. In line with our safety protocols, the exercise was stopped immediately, and those affected received full medical care and attention. These personnel continue to be monitored. None of the symptoms are life-threatening and there have been no hospitalisations.

The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for the Ministry of Defence. As such, and out of an abundance of caution, I directed a pause on the use of Ajax for training and exercising while safety investigations are carried out. There are three investigations currently under way: one by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch; another by the Army safety investigation team; and the ministerial review that I have directed to be carried out in addition. While investigations remain ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential outcomes or to speculate on the causes of the symptoms. However, I can confirm that officials have been meeting General Dynamics daily since the incident on Titan Storm, and I am meeting General Dynamics tomorrow to ensure a collaborative approach to the issue.

The safety of our people remains the top priority for me and the ministerial team. As such, we will take whatever decisions are required to end the saga one way or another. Where people have concerns around Ajax, I remind them that each organisation involved with Ajax has its own whistleblowing processes to ensure that any concerns are addressed appropriately and, importantly, confidentially.

On vehicle safety more broadly, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, on the issue of the MAN support vehicle fleet—Army trucks—which I mentioned in my recent appearance in front of the Defence Committee, I can confirm that an issue was identified with the vehicles, and that a mitigation and repair schedule was created, which is being rolled out. That is an example of a system working properly in relation to MAN SV.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I state how shocking it was to hear of the Army exercise that took place on 22 November that resulted in more than 30 casualties among soldiers operating Ajax? There have been reports of symptoms ranging from sickness to hearing loss. As the Minister said, the priority must be the safety of our personnel, and we wish all those affected a swift recovery.

This matter is particularly disturbing for me, as the renewed incidents with noise and vibrations sound strikingly similar to the problems that I was assured had been resolved when I was the Minister for Defence Procurement. In the Defence Committee, the Minister confirmed that he received similar assurances when he agreed to announce that Ajax had reached the key milestone of initial operating capability on 6 November.

The Minister and I may have our political differences, but may I suggest that we have something in common on this issue? We have both been misled about the viability of the Ajax programme. After all, it is not just about the recurrence of extremely worrying noise and vibration problems; over the weekend, we have seen reports of serious allegations from anonymous General Dynamics employees suggesting systemic flaws with the Ajax platform. That includes a disgraceful incident in which a General Dynamics employee publicly belittled the injured soldiers. That is utterly unacceptable.

Given all that, and contrary to assurances given to and accepted in good faith by successive Ministers, including myself, surely the only possible conclusion is that the Ajax vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Does the Minister agree that the manufacturer, General Dynamics, must have been aware of that for years and must be held to account? As such, remembering that the procurement reform I launched in February 2024 stressed the need for a second opinion, will he bring in a completely independent organisation or company steeped in engineering excellence—from outside the Ministry of Defence, with no skin in the game—to pronounce on the one question that we all need answered: is Ajax viable without a fundamental redesign? If not, how much more will it cost to remedy?

On a personal note, I imagine that the Minister is as furious as I am at having been repeatedly given what now turn out to be false assurances by those responsible for the Ajax programme. Surely he is now left with a binary choice: fix it, or fail it.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and the tone in which he asked them. I too was disgusted when I heard the news of the injuries to our service personnel, especially after a point at which the vehicle was assured to be safe. It is for that very reason that I will not speculate—I hope he understands why—until the investigations have reported, so that we can understand the cause of the noise and vibration injuries. A decision can then be made based on that information. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I want to ensure that information given to Ministers—be it to me or any other Minister, in this Government or any other—is accurate and timely, so it is appropriate that we get to the bottom of this. I also share his concern around a particular issue with one GD employee, which he raised. I can confirm that General Dynamics has written to the Department to apologise for the recent social media posts from a member of its staff, and that was the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about an independent review of the platforms. As well as the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the British Army’s teams investigating, I have asked that an external organisation with experience of noise and vibration be brought in. We are building a team of experts from a number of organisations outside the usual GD production line to add expertise and external challenge to the work. Hopefully, I will be in a situation to say more to the House in my next update; I hope to table a written ministerial statement ahead of the Christmas recess to keep the House informed about progress.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for our service personnel. It is not good enough for our service personnel to sustain injuries in this fashion on a platform that they were reassured was safe, just as I was. That is why getting to the bottom of this issue is a priority for me. I await the reports of those three investigations to understand what happened and therefore what decisions we will take as a result.

War in Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin.

When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons.

Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence.

On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe.

The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.

With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.

On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort?

Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question.

I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive.

Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today.

To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government.

However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.

Russian Ship Yantar

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 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 the use of lasers by the Russian spy ship Yantar.

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

Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research—

[Al Carns]

Mr Speaker, I will pass the message on to the broader team.

I would like to make some comments on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research programme, known as GUGI. As the Secretary of State for Defence described yesterday, the Russian research vessel Yantar is part of this programme, and is used for gathering intelligence and mapping undersea infrastructure, not just in the United Kingdom but across many other nations, both in Europe and across the globe. The UK understands that the Yantar is but one ship in a fleet of Russian vessels designed to threaten our critical national underwater infrastructure and pose a threat to our economics and our way of life.

Russia has been developing a military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. GUGI is developing capabilities. It is deployed from specialist surface vessels and submarines that are intended to be used to survey underwater infrastructure during peacetime, but then damage or destroy infrastructure in deep water during a conflict. Russia seeks to conduct this type of operation covertly without being held responsible. Such capabilities can be deployed from surface vessels like the Yantar. That is why Defence directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture, so that we can better track and respond to the threats from this vessel and many others.

The Yantar has been operating once again—for the second time this year—in and around the UK’s exclusive economic zone. During that time, she was continuously monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset and the RAF’s P-8s.

We will ensure that the Yantar is not able to conduct its mission unchallenged or untracked. But that has not been without difficulties: a laser assessed to be originating from the port side of the Yantar was directed at British personnel operating one of our P-8s in a highly dangerous and reckless attempt to disrupt our monitoring. The P-8 continued to monitor the Yantar’s activity. Post incident, when its personnel arrived back safe in the UK, they were medically assessed. No injuries were sustained and no damage was sustained to the aircraft or her equipment.

Russia does not want us to know what it is doing or what the Yantar is up to; it does not want the world to know what it is doing. But we will not be deterred; we will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure. We will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses. I finish by saying a great thank you to the brave men and women of our Royal Navy and RAF who continue to keep us safe at home and abroad.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians?

I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved?

This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”.

On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law?

Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise?

As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale?

The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock.

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.

As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.

Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.

On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?

[Al Carns]

The irony! The Conservatives started the deal and they processed the deal. When Labour came into government, we finished it and we put it into place, supported by our allies—both the US and multiple others. Not only did we finish that deal, but we have started and finished an India deal, a US deal, a Europe deal, a Typhoon deal, a Norway deal and a Germany deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be

“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]

Will he keep that promise?

[John Healey]

The SDR quite rightly said that further decisions on investment plans were central to delivering the SDR. We are doing that work thoroughly at the moment so that we will no longer have what the hon. Member’s Government left: a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to meet the threats that face us.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?

[John Healey]

The hon. Member’s figures are wrong, and his characterisation and description are wrong. We have put £5 billion extra into the defence budget in this, our first year, and we are raising defence investment with the highest increase since the cold war. But the public expect us to manage better the budgets that we have got, so we are managing those budgets, which he failed to do. Alongside the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan, we are already acting and have let over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them to British firms. Today, we are putting £9 billion into defence housing for the future.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. I strongly welcome this very important news for UK fighter production. Combat air has historically been the largest component of UK defence exports, and few nations can hope to sustain such an advanced industrial base purely on domestic sales. I stressed throughout my time as the Minister for Defence Procurement the critical importance of exports, and this deal is very positive for the workforce in Warton—but also, as the Minister said, in Bristol, Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK—for the wider small and medium-sized enterprises supply chain, for our NATO ally Turkey and for the Royal Air Force, which requires a domestic base of highly skilled workers to maintain our ability to deliver sovereign competitiveness in the air domain.

At the very well-attended global combat air programme event in Mr Speaker’s state rooms, I said that defence exports were like a baton passed between Administrations, because the biggest deals take years to pull off and require teamwork within and across Administrations. As with the Norwegian frigates, there was a massive and concerted effort under the previous Government to engage constantly with Turkey in support of Typhoon exports. In my time as a Minister, Typhoon exports were a top priority in the MOD and I chaired a weekly cross-Government committee that was focused in particular on persuading our German allies to change their long-standing position of opposing Typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That work irrefutably helped pave the way for this deal.

I note that the Trinity House agreement with Germany, which I welcome, builds on the proposal to restore large-calibre barrel production to the UK, which I initiated from scratch. Does the Minister agree that Germany’s change of position on Typhoon exports underlines the strength of our bilateral relationship with the Germans and the welcome stiffening of their military disposition more broadly, given the common threat we face?

Of course, we should also recognise the important role of other long-standing defence export partners in this announcement. I note that it has been reported that the deal involves Qatar and Oman giving Turkey up to 24 existing Typhoons. Can the Minister confirm whether either will be buying replacement Typhoons? I note that Qatar has the option on 12, which I understand is still outstanding. Can the Minister update us on progress on Typhoon exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

That brings me to the very relevant matter of GCAP, the programme that is developing the Typhoon’s successor. I have previously spoken of how GCAP is, like AUKUS, effectively two pillars: the Tempest platform is pillar 1, and pillar 2 includes critical elements such as loyal wingmen and electronic warfare, with significant potential benefit to the RAF’s immediate lethality. While appreciating the complications in inviting new nations to join pillar 1, and having given strong hints about the German position in relation to its SCAF partnership with France, has the Minister considered inviting Germany to be a pillar 2 partner of GCAP? Does the deal include any movement on complex weapons for integration into Typhoon, given our industrial strength in that area?

The MOD has now retired some 30 RAF tranche 1 Typhoons. Does the Minister plan to order any further Typhoons for the RAF to replace those, and if so, when?

E-Scan radar for the RAF’s Typhoons, which is led by Leonardo in Edinburgh, has been successfully developed, but no production orders have been placed. I have previously urged Ministers to accelerate procurement to boost the lethality of our existing Typhoon fleet. When will E-Scan radar be in service for the RAF? The Typhoon needs an associated electronics upgrade known as P4E—phase 4 enhancement—to fully exploit the capabilities of E-Scan radar, but I understand that no contract for that has been placed yet either. When is P4E intended to be on contract?

Finally, it would be wrong of me not to welcome the Minister to his newly named position as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. Personally, I think it is a shame that there is no longer a Minister for Defence Procurement, but perhaps that should not be a surprise, given how little procurement is going on in the MOD. Is it not the reality that, for all the boasts about defence spending, Labour is prioritising penny-pinching in the MOD and forcing a deep freeze in procurement? Specifically, can he confirm or deny reports in The Telegraph that he is demanding that the armed forces make in-year cuts this year of £2.6 billion?

[Luke Pollard]

I was nearly going to say that I warmly welcome all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I am afraid that the good news had to be tempered with a little bit of partisan attack. First, let me welcome his welcome for this deal. It shows that when there is good cross-party work, we can achieve things well. I am very proud that it is this Government who have landed this deal. We know that when we took office, a substantial amount of work was required to improve the MOD’s export offer, and we have undertaken that work. It has shown benefits in the Norway deal, and now in the Türkiye deal, and we are working on a number of other contracts with our allies that I hope will produce similarly good news for workforces up and down the country in due course.

The hon. Gentleman asked about approvals from our allies. I can confirm that all Eurofighter nations have indeed signed off this export, including Germany. It is right that he raised the Trinity House agreement that was signed between this Government and Germany, which provides a huge amount of opportunity. Last week, to mark the one-year anniversary of the signing of that deal, Boris Pistorius and our very own Defence Secretary were in a P-8 flying from RAF Lossiemouth, which underlines our commitment to have German P-8s flying from Lossiemouth and to have German aircrews participating with our RAF jets in a really important international mission that flies from Lossiemouth.

GCAP is an essential part of our future combat air offer. That was reinforced in the strategic defence review that we published earlier this year, and the Typhoon order for Türkiye helps fill a gap in the production line between our current Typhoon orders and the production of GCAP platforms in the future.

The hon. Gentleman will know that all our spending announcements will be made as part of the defence investment plan towards the end of this year. The radar he mentions is an incredible piece of technology, which is of benefit not only to the RAF, but to other Typhoon nations.

I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since taking office just over a year ago, we have signed 1,000 major deals in the MOD. We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber, drones and other capabilities for our armed forces. We will continue to work with our allies because the change we need in our armed forces is not just about renewing the kit and equipment for our forces, but about buying equipment alongside our allies, cutting research and development costs, increasing interoperability, moving towards interchangeability and strengthening our warfighting resilience.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for this deal, and I hope he will join in thanking all the workers for their tireless efforts in supporting our national security and that of our NATO allies.