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.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

You will know, Mr Speaker, the importance of secure communications, and this is Defence questions, so before I ask my question, may I say that Conservative Members were sent all the Ministry of Defence’s answers to our oral questions in advance? I do not know whether we should be grateful or concerned. We have been forewarned.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought that Ministers thought up the answers themselves. You have shocked me.

[James Cartlidge]

I thought that it would benefit the House to know that, given the importance of secure communications. I turn to my question, which involves secure communications. It says everything about the Government’s priorities that they are delaying increasing defence spending to 2.5%, but accelerating their terrible Chagos deal, at a cost of up to £18 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister justified the deal by stating that without it,

“the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should”.

No. 10 later briefed that that was a reference to satellite links. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that there is an operational threat to US and UK military satellite communications at Diego Garcia?

[John Healey]

This is a question about defence spending. We have a cast-iron commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that the UK has not spent on defence since 2010, under the last Labour Government. On the Chagos deal, this is a military base that is vital to our national security. The Prime Minister was right to say that its legal certainty had been called into doubt. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. That is why we looked for a deal that would safeguard the operations for at least the next century.

[James Cartlidge]

When the Prime Minister said that the base “cannot operate”, he was referring to operations. That implies that there must be some kind of direct threat to satellite communications on Diego Garcia. The world will have seen that the Secretary of State has not defended that position—he is not leaning into it in any way—which makes us think this: given that the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and the previous Defence Secretary Grant Shapps saw the same intelligence and rejected the deal, which has since got worse and more expensive, is not the obvious thing to scrap it, and to spend every penny that is saved on our armed forces?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, of course, were responsible for 11 rounds of negotiation on the deal, and the Prime Minister’s point was that a lack of long-term legal certainty casts into doubt the operational security of the base. This deal will secure an operational guarantee for at least a century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?

[John Healey]

On the contrary, we are backing British industry. We are looking for firms that can design, invent and make in Britain—a big change from the industrial policy under the previous Government. I was in Derby recently to announce an eight-year contract for Rolls-Royce that will support more than 1,000 apprentices—200 each year—and thousands of small businesses in supply chains across the country.

[James Cartlidge]

I know all about the Unity deal because, as the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry said, I negotiated it. This is extraordinary complacency on tax from the Secretary of State. The Government are taxing not just the defence industry but the education of defence people’s children and death-in-service payments. The fact is that the Defence Secretary is under “a tax” from all sides. The question is: is that how the Government will pay for their Chagos deal?

[John Healey]

We stepped up and accelerated the negotiations to conclude the Rolls-Royce contract, and I was able to announce it the other week to apprentices and management at Rolls-Royce. We are putting nearly £3 billion extra into defence this year. We recognise, as everyone does, that we must increase defence spending. We will return UK defence spending to a level that we have not seen since Labour was last in government in 2010, directing it first and foremost to British industry.

Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing an excellent and very timely debate. If I may say so, as someone who ran an SME, was involved in public procurement, and was Minister for Defence Procurement, this is a subject that gets my pulse racing. Perhaps I am an anorak, but it certainly does—particularly considering the changing nature of warfare and its extraordinary impact on procurement, which he rightly mentioned. Of course, we are talking about Ukraine.

There has been much criticism of procurement in recent years, and the Minister for the Armed Forces was pretty damning yesterday, but I am incredibly proud of what we did in government, uniquely in the world, in standing by Ukraine. That was one of the greatest procurement achievements in our country’s recent history. We shipped out there the NLAW—made in Belfast, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned —despite legal advice to the Government that we should not. Ben Wallace took the risk, with the full support of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and we stood by Ukraine. If we had not, it may have capitulated, which would have been terrible for world peace.

That reminds us of the ethical importance of supporting the defence sector. Peace is the No. 1 ethical goal of the UN, but to have peace we need defence, and for that we need a thriving defence sector. Too often, we hear an ESG—environmental, social and governance—narrative that we should not invest in defence. As I understand it—it was in The Times—20 defence companies have either been advised against attending careers fairs because of safety fears or decided to cancel under pressure, which is shocking.

I have two specific questions for the Minister on ESG. Can she confirm that, in reviving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, the Government will seek to strengthen how protest against defence companies is dealt with on campus? The Chancellor mentioned in a speech yesterday the importance of opening up investment in the UK from our pension funds. She is 100% correct about that, but can the Minister confirm that we will be clear to those pension funds that investing in defence is ethically positive because it helps support the security of our country and the wider world?

Let me make a couple of economic points. When we talk about investment, we must understand the importance of laying out the pathway to 2.5% quickly. ADS, the trade body for SMEs in defence, is worried about the procurement freeze, tightening—whatever we want to call it—in the MOD, which is undoubtedly happening, and its impact on cash flow and confidence among defence SMEs, at a time when they are facing higher tax costs, regulations and so on. I hope that the Government can bring forward the pathway to give businesses the confidence to keep investing in the defence sector.

Equally, there is much to be positive about. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was absolutely right to say that because war is changing, procurement needs to change, and SMEs must play a huge part in that. There are some features of the integrated procurement model I announced that I think are particularly important. One is export. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned the Jackal, and he mentioned the Czech Republic, where I made my first ever trade visit. The Jackal was proudly on display, and I sincerely hope that that deal is successfully concluded. That underlines how, to support the defence sector, we need international market success, because our market is not big enough to support our defence sector.

Perhaps the most important point, which several colleagues referred to, is accessibility for SMEs. They can feel that it is difficult to penetrate the defence procurement system. As Minister, I spoke many times about the most uplifting experience I had in procurement, which was visiting an SME that had developed a drone that was being used in Ukraine. That is obviously very sensitive, but I can say that it had cutting-edge capability. When I was there, that SMEs was getting feedback within hours. To get that, there has to be access, at a secure level, to frontline data, so we wanted to develop far more engagement with defence SMEs at “Secret”. I strongly recommend to the Minister continuing to create that feedback loop between industry and Government, so that SMEs know what is happening.

Finally, on dual use, I was determined to recognise—if I had had more time in government, perhaps I would have got further with this—that there are so many brilliant companies in our economy that probably do not think about getting involved in defence. We need to fire up that talent base and get them involved in defence procurement, particularly in areas such as software, because that is what will drive procurement going forward. If we get the funding in place, back our defence companies and send the signal that investing in defence is morally right because of the threats we face, then we can look forward to a bright future for our defence companies.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will certainly do that, Mr Stringer. This debate has been excellent, and it is good to see so many colleagues in the Chamber to participate, even if they could not make the length of speech that perhaps they had hoped. None the less, everybody was able to get the nub of what they wanted to say into the debate. For that we have my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) to thank, because it is he who secured the debate; I congratulate him on it. I welcome this debate on the involvement of SMEs in defence procurement because this is an issue, as my hon. Friend and many others have said, that is of critical importance to the future of our military and to our capacity to deter potential adversaries.

We all know that Britain faces acute and growing dangers—conflict in the middle east, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Indo-Pacific—and we also know that our armed forces have been underfunded and hollowed out over the last number of years, which is why we are having a root-and-branch strategic defence review to assess these threats and develop the capabilities we need to counter them. It is why we are boosting spending this year by just under £3 billion in real terms, and why we are going to set out a pathway to 2.5% of GDP on defence. I am not going to repeat everything that was said in the House yesterday on this, but I realise that it is a matter that everybody across the House is concerned about.

Our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and procurement system that supports and equips them. The procurement system itself was described during the last Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee as “broken”. It is clear that changes need to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor set out some of what he wants to see, including the ability to respond more swiftly to the changing face of warfare. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have set out some of what they have seen, during their time in this place, of that effort being achieved, particularly in respect of the support we have been giving over the past few years to Ukraine. There is nothing like an emergency situation like that to ensure that we innovate. It is important that we learn the lessons of that innovation for our procurement more generally.

I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, to get SMEs more involved in our procurement processes. He made a number of suggestions, as did other Members around Westminster Hall, of how we might be able to do that. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned Supacat, which I saw last week at the international armoured vehicles conference. Everything he said about Supacat is correct. It is an excellent example, and the hon. Gentleman was able to provide the Chamber with numbers in relation to jobs and the improved economic growth in his area that it is able to provide. That is precisely the kind of thing that we want the new defence industrial strategy, when it is published, to be able to pursue and do better with.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said rightly that MOD spend in Northern Ireland is less than in some regions of England, and he quoted some numbers. He is quite right, but there is no indication that SMEs over there have less ability to innovate or to provide services of the type that the MOD needs. I hope to be able to do precisely what he asks and increase that number. I will be visiting in due course, not too far in the future, and I hope to hear from some of the SMEs that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who is, unusually, no longer in his place—talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about the Teesside defence and innovation cluster and some of the companies in his constituency. He is right: I promised him a visit—I think we are trying to organise it now. When I am considering which proposals to take forward in the defence industrial strategy, before it is published, it is tremendously helpful to hear directly from SMEs about their experience. I have already done some of that and, between now and the end of the consultation, I will be doing as much, in as many regions, as I possibly can, in all of our nations around the UK. I hope to be in a position to get a good sense of the big issues that smaller companies are raising with us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) was passionate in making his points about late payment; this is not the first time that he has raised that issue in parliamentary settings. The Government do recognise the importance of fair payment practices. Direct suppliers to the MOD are required to sign up to the prompt payment code to be eligible for MOD contracts. The Director General Commercial recently wrote to large suppliers to remind them of that responsibility because some are better at complying than others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) argued, “Let us not decide that all defence primes are evil”—I think that is the word he used. I thought that was going a bit far, but his point was that they are not the enemy; they can be part of the solution. There are examples of good practice, where primes have been very clear about involving small, innovative, agile companies. There are some examples that are not so good, and we need to improve the way in which small firms engage with MOD contracts, whether directly or through contracting with a prime on a particular programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) asked me to visit. I think I have offered to visit absolutely everybody else in Westminster Hall, so it would be churlish of me to say no to him. I cannot promise to visit before the end of February, but I can promise to come and see some of what his constituency has to offer. It obviously has a long history of engineering and of working hard in tough industries. I look forward to that visit. He mentioned that he is visiting a firm that supplies products across domains, and it sounds like he will have an interesting time.

I look forward also to dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I was glad to hear her say that she is in favour of a comprehensive industrial strategy because the defence industrial strategy that we are going to bring forward is part of a thorough, countrywide industrial strategy for all Departments. She will recall that that strategy identified defence as one of the eight growth sectors on which we ought to rely to improve economic growth and spread prosperity across the nations and regions—and that is what we want to do. In fact, the defence industrial strategy that we will bring forward will act as the sector action plan for that broader strategy, so we will be joining up.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk raised the issue of protest-related activity on university campuses and what that means for the ability of defence companies to recruit the best talent. This Government recognise the crucial importance of attracting new entrants to the defence sector. Obviously, university campuses provide a way of engaging with young people who might want to work for existing companies or set up their own and get involved in the defence sector. We do need to do that. We are working closely with the Department for Education and with Skills England to address the skills landscape in the defence sector. Part of that is about making sure that young people at educational institutions such as universities can get the full range of information, at university careers fairs and so on. I hope that between all of us we can make an improvement, to the extent that there is a problem that was identified by The Times.

[James Cartlidge]

I think what everyone wants to see from the defence sector is that we champion the ethical value of investing in defence because it delivers security, and in doing so challenge those who protest as if these companies were somehow out there to harm us.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with that and I think there would not be too much disagreement across the House of Commons about that. I think it is something we can agree on, and that we should try to get that sense out there. Increasingly, as people see the increasingly dangerous world we are living in, there is the capacity for any concerns that there might have been about defence in the past to be seen properly in context, and for it to be seen that actually, defence is a key part of our ability to continue with our way of life as we choose in a democracy.

I have a couple of minutes left before I hand over again to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. It has been an excellent debate. In many ways we have not had enough time to get through all the contributions that colleagues around Westminster Hall would have wanted to make, but as I go about trying to deal with our defence industrial strategy, it is helpful for me to hear from colleagues, just as it is helpful for me to get around the country as much as I can to listen directly to SMEs. It helps make sure that the policy prescriptions we come out with in the defence industrial strategy are the right ones; that we can change procurement in a way that will assist SMEs to have full involvement as they wish in defence procurement; and that we can spread prosperity and economic growth across all our regions in England and all the nations of the UK. That is the prize in front of us, and that is what we can do if we get this right.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 27th January 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 impact of Government fiscal policy on defence.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

The Government’s plan for change says that we will

“set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring”.

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. It gives me the opportunity to reiterate what the Prime Minister has said, what the Defence Secretary told the House on Wednesday last week, and what the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry repeated in the House on Friday, which is that this Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and that we are already delivering for defence by increasing defence spending. At our first Budget, we announced an extra £3 billion on spending on defence in the next financial year.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the specifics, I hope you will indulge me and allow me to say on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we join all colleagues today in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. May we never forget or be complacent about the lessons.

Last Wednesday, the Defence Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and laid bare the extent of the Russian grey zone threat. This is not a distant threat, but one that has been lurking in our own waters, threatening the United Kingdom and our critical infrastructure. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and responded by confirming that he had our full support in standing up to the Russians. I said that this showed why we urgently needed to increase defence spending. But there is one big problem. The rest of us were listening, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not. Despite all the evidence before our eyes of the growing threat, we learned this weekend from multiple sources that spending 2.5% will be delayed beyond 2030. Can the Minister disown such talk, and specifically confirm that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament?

The Treasury is not just failing to back more defence spending; it is hitting our armed forces with higher taxes on death in service benefits and education. The Secretary of State confirmed on Friday that the application of inheritance tax to death in service benefits for the armed forces would go ahead. We understand that to be causing deep alarm throughout the forces community.

As for the education tax, we knew that the continuity of education allowance would not be uprated to 100% of the VAT impact, leaving many service personnel thousands of pounds out of pocket, so since the summer I have called for a full exemption for children of armed forces families. However, in a written answer to me in November on the continuity of education allowance and schools VAT, the Minister for Veterans and People said that

“the new VAT policy does not offer any exemptions”.

Yet on Friday we learned that children of US armed forces families serving in this country and attending British independent schools are exempt from VAT on their UK school fees. I do not begrudge them that—US forces are based in our country to defend us—but we want the same treatment for our people.

Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will bang on the door of No. 11 to demand, first, that the tax on death in service benefits be dropped and, secondly, that British forces families be treated the same as their American colleagues and granted a full exemption from education VAT? Is it not time that Labour backed our armed forces with action, rather than just words?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s words about Holocaust Memorial Day. His Majesty the King has been in Auschwitz for the 80th anniversary, and he spoke for the nation when he said that we will remember this evil long after the survivors of the Holocaust have passed.

I have set out clearly that, in the spring, we will lay out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We will also publish a strategic defence review, setting out what we will spend the money on and how we will respond to emerging threats. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Defence Secretary’s statement last week, we will make it absolutely clear to those who threaten us that we will use the formidable capabilities available to us to defend the UK and our allies.

We inherited a situation in which, during their entire time in power, not a single Conservative Government spent 2.5% of GDP on defence. The last time that 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government. We have inherited falling morale; a retention and recruitment crisis; service personnel living in mouldy, broken homes; and a hollowed-out and underfunded military. That is what the SDR will seek to fix, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us his full support.

Having listened to last week’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that those who die on active service are exempt from the inheritance tax provisions. He will also know that the Defence Secretary has uplifted CEA support to 90% for those who privately educate their children while serving in the military. We will continue to support our armed forces, renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. We will publish the defence review in the spring, when we will also set out our path to spending 2.5%.

Unity Contract

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady not only for early sight of her statement, but for her kind words in recognising my contribution to delivering this deal—Unity by name and by nature. As with the Annington deal and the UK-Germany barrel-making deal, I can safely say that this deal is profoundly to the benefit of our country. While I would have dearly loved to conclude those deals while in office, it is better that such deals are delivered under any Government than not at all, and I am delighted to be responding to the statement today.

While it is unusual to have statements on a sitting Friday, I thank the Government for announcing this deal to the House today, because it speaks to its huge importance to our national interest. Before explaining why the deal is so important, may I first thank all those involved in bringing it forward: those at the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, and in particular the commercial teams, who have worked so hard to iron out all the complex details needed to get it over the line, and of course Rolls-Royce itself? On that note, I thank everyone in the defence nuclear enterprise, and, as the right hon. Lady said, we give particular thanks, as we always should, to those who crew our nuclear submarines, and in particular the 24/7 continuous at-sea deterrent.

My personal experience—I am sure the right hon. Lady will have discovered this in the many international engagements in the export role that is so important to any Ministry of Defence procurement—was that Rolls-Royce was the single UK defence company, possibly only matched by BAE, that seemed to have greater success in penetrating major export markets. Visiting Raynesway last April to keep this project moving forward, I saw the sheer scale of Rolls-Royce’s commitment to apprenticeships and manufacturing excellence. That underlined how it is a domestic and international industrial success story for UK plc, and we should do everything possible to support it. The deal is economically crucial, helping sustain our sovereign defence nuclear industry, as the right hon. Lady said, and in turn sustaining thousands of skilled jobs.

I was struck, while speaking to apprentices at both Barrow and Raynesway, that of particular appeal to them was the assurance of a long-term career pathway. Today’s announcement will underwrite not just a major corporate investment, but the life plans of thousands of young people, and I wish them all well. Skills remain a challenge, given the sheer scale of the nuclear undertaking, so will the right hon. Lady update us on how she is taking forward the work of the pan-civil and defence nuclear skills taskforce, which I launched together with the then civil nuclear Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in August 2023?

This deal clearly builds on the good work done by the previous Conservative Government, who always backed our armed forces, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our defence industrial base, and who brought the mighty AUKUS partnership to life with the US and Australia. Can the right hon. Lady provide further detail on her very welcome confirmation that this deal will underpin AUKUS?

In talking about the economic importance of this announcement, we should also be clear about its military significance. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the Secretary of State’s statement on Wednesday regarding the Russian spy ship Yantar and its grey zone activities in our waters and economic zone. I said in response that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government not just on Ukraine but in standing up to the Russian threat, which I still regard as by far the most immediate and serious in terms of the UK homeland. I urged him to lean into being more open with the country about the Russian threat, while of course protecting operational security, so that the country can understand the nature of the treat and what it will inevitably mean for defence expenditure.

The strategic defence review is expected in the spring, and I hope that it will be published as early as possible—ideally in March—but whenever it is, it appears likely that there will be a particular focus on homeland security and missile defence. That is entirely right, but we must all understand a fact of military reality: there is one UK capability that matters above all in the Kremlin, and that is our continuous at-sea deterrent. There is a strong argument for reinforcing our conventional missile defence capability for the UK homeland, but that is not what deters Putin from striking our cities; rather, it is our potential to retaliate. For that reason, we must continue to give absolute priority to the deterrent in our defence budget, and that budget must be urgently increased. Whatever else is announced in the SDR, I hope the right hon. Lady will confirm both that investment in our deterrent will remain central to all future plans and that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament.

While the deterrent is inevitably a multibillion-pound undertaking, it remains a way to guarantee our security for a fraction of overall public expenditure. Today has shown that it also offers a huge economic return to the country, underpinning manufacturing excellence. As such, and given the threats that we face, it has never been more vital that we continue to strengthen our defence nuclear enterprise.

[Maria Eagle]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Defence Secretary said—unity, indeed. He asked about 2.5%. I think we all agree that defence spending needs to increase, and he knows well that we have just increased it by 5.9% in real terms this coming year—it is up by £2.9 billion—as a step on the way to getting to 2.5%, which is a cast-iron guarantee.

The hon. Member referred to the strategic defence review, which as he knows we said will be coming in the spring, and that is still the plan. He will have to wait a little longer to see the precise details of the threats that that identifies and, therefore, the capabilities we need to develop.

I think there is general agreement across the House about the dangers of things like the Yantar incident, which the Secretary of State spoke about on Wednesday, and we will all have noted that it was dealt with by one of our nuclear submarines. That reinforces the point that the hon. Member made about the importance of our deterrent.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence.

I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today.

I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents.

A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO?

Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom?

I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities?

In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place.

To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.

[John Healey]

I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for welcoming the statement and the Government’s greater transparency. He, like me, has confirmed that he sees Russia as the most critical threat to the UK. He has been a Defence Minister and he understands, as he acknowledges, the importance of sending the strongest possible signals to our adversaries. That is the underlying reason for the decision I have taken to make this statement today.

The shadow Secretary of State argues that our response provides the UK with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership within NATO. I think we have already done that, not by asserting our argument but by our actions: launching and leading through the JEF 10 nations the Nordic Warden response to the attack on EstLink 2 and now by confirming that we will play a leading role in the new NATO deployment in the Baltic, which is linked to the work that we are doing through Nordic Warden.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about the priority for our undersea cables for our homeland infrastructure. These cables are not simply a technical network. They are the infrastructure for the things on which we depend for our daily lives: the operation of the internet; the supply of energy; and communications with other parts of the world. He will therefore have seen and noted in the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, launched by the Prime Minister within two weeks of the Government being elected in July, that defending and reinforcing the homeland defence of Britain is foremost in those terms of reference. We will, as I have said, report on the strategic defence review in the spring.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Member will recall from his time on the Bill Committee that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referred to us as fulfilling the role of critical friend.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Exactly.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I offer these comments as a critical friend. I think it important for people listening to this debate and referring to our proceedings at a later time to realise that, utterly untrammelled, these measures will generate a bureaucracy all of their own. We do not wish this to be a good idea that we have in peacetime that becomes a massive hindrance as we approach a period of conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I congratulate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the passage of the Bill and served on the Bill Committee. As I said on Second Reading, we recognise that the Government have a clear mandate for this piece of legislation, which has the worthy goal of improving day-to-day service life in our armed forces. We strongly share that goal and want the Bill to succeed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said, we also have performed the role of a critical friend of the Bill and have raised a number of specific issues. The shadow Veterans and Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised important points, which we have put forward in amendments. In fact, both relate to tax measures that have come forward under this tax-raising Government on death in service and continuity of education allowance, known as CEA.

The key thing I would say on death in service, in response to what the Minister said on Report, is that of course we understand that a consultation is happening on inheritance tax, which expires tomorrow. What we want to know is that the Ministry of Defence has communicated to the Treasury that it opposes the measure and hopes that it will not be imposed on those who serve in our armed forces, because it would be a disproportionate and significant increase in inheritance tax. As my right hon. Friend put it in a moving speech about the impact it would have, I am sure none of us in the Chamber would want to see that, so we hope that the Minister has written to the Treasury and that it listens to his advice and cancels the proposal.

There is a very simple reason why we moved amendment 10 on the continuity of education allowance. We want the Department to continue monitoring the impact of the new tax on those who serve in the military and choose to send their children to independent schools, not least because of the stability that those schools provide in a life that is subject to the opposite, particularly for those who are deployed abroad. The allowance gives them stability through access to schools at which their children can board, and of course most of that capacity is in the independent sector, which is now subject to a huge 20% tax imposition. We want that monitored by the Armed Forces Commissioner. If anyone doubts the reason for that, our office has received many emails from serving personnel—people in the Army, Navy and Air Force today—who are extremely concerned about the impact on them, and are having to weigh up their future. I will read an extract from one email that I received from the wife of an Army officer with two children in boarding school—one in junior school, and one in senior school. She says:

“With the sudden introduction of VAT on school fees—something that was not foreseen when we made our decision—we will face an additional £14,500 per year in costs. This is simply not sustainable for our family, and my husband is now considering leaving the Army as a result.”

This is not a minor matter. If we are worried about retention, surely the last thing any of us wants is for people like that to consider leaving. We are disappointed that the amendment was defeated, but the parliamentary arithmetic speaks for itself.

Finally, on accommodation, which is an incredibly important issue, I remind the House of what I said on Second Reading. I said that, in my time as Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the defence estate,

“I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 78.]

I am delighted that since I said that, the Government have concluded that deal. I started the negotiations on the deal when I was a Minister, following the successful legal challenges initiated by the preceding Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, and the deal was brought forward with huge effort in the Department—particularly, I must say, from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO has come in for criticism in some reports—in response to the winter problems that we had two years ago, for example—but my experience was that its leadership was as passionate as I was about getting that deal through, and we are now in a far better position.

Why does that matter? Well, there are many welfare issues that the commissioner will have to think about, but as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, accommodation will surely feature prominently, and we now have the means to address that issue strategically, rather than through year-to-year sticking-plasters. I assure the House and Ministers that, given my role in driving that deal forward, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, who shares my passion for housing and armed forces accommodation, will seek to contribute to the plan to move forward to a better defence estate. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to engage on these matters as the Armed Forces Commissioner becomes a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

UK Submarine Fleet

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is very appropriate that we do so for this debate, given that you are both a former ministerial colleague in the Ministry of Defence and a former surgeon commander in the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate; it is important and timely, as well as incredibly interesting. Having been the Minister responsible for the nuclear portfolio and the chair of the Defence Nuclear Board, which is a great privilege in the Ministry of Defence, I know that one of the issues with the nuclear enterprise is that there are very few opportunities to talk about it publicly. I see this debate as an opportunity to join others—the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) put it very well—in thanking all those who serve on our submarines, particularly those who have maintained our continuous at-sea deterrent 24/7 since 1969. Theirs is an incredible achievement.

It is also an opportunity to thank all those involved in the whole defence nuclear enterprise, from the First Sea Lord, down to the apprentices who work in maintenance in Devonport and manufacturing in Barrow, along with contractors in Faslane and elsewhere. It is a huge national endeavour, which I am pleased all parties here now support.

As I said in the previous debate on missile defence, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), there is a key point about the deterrent. In the strategic defence review, we must never underestimate the role of the nuclear deterrent. I do not think anyone here does, but there is perhaps a tendency to take it for granted and therefore talk about all the other incredibly important areas, such as missile defence, the Army, the Navy and so on. To me, nuclear is the most important part of our defence, because no matter what missile defence we have, that is not the reason the Russians will not launch at us. The reason is our ability to retaliate. That is the fundamental fact of our defence. I hope it never comes to it, but it is an extraordinary weapon which we must maintain, especially with the threats that we face today, so it is brilliant to hear so many colleagues showing their support for the nuclear enterprise.

Of course, it does have its challenges. Colleagues have mentioned people and personnel, but I think it is not just about those who serve in the Navy. When I was a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who was the civil nuclear Minister, and I set up the nuclear skills task force to really inculcate growth in skills in the whole supply chain, whether at AWE or Rolls-Royce, the manufacturer of the nuclear turbines.

There is also the issue of infrastructure. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made a very good point: £1.8 billion has been invested in Faslane since 2015, so there has been significant investment in infrastructure, but when it comes to the nuclear enterprise, the need to invest in infrastructure is huge. It has been a significant factor in some of the issues we have experienced in terms of maintenance and so on. It is vital that the Government bring forward their promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. The Minister and I both agree on that; we both had it in our manifestos. The Daily Mail splashed that the target will not be reached well into the 2030s. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks about that speculation. I hope she will refute it 100%, and if not, perhaps she will tell us when we will reach 2.5% or when exactly we will be told the timeline for that.

Finally, on the point of the economic benefit, of course the nuclear deterrent is expensive, but as a percentage of Government spending it is tiny given the ultimate insurance it provides, and it brings a huge economic return. Some have spoken about the importance of AUKUS in terms of jobs and investment. It is going to be one of our biggest ever defence exports. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned Rosyth, which I believe is in his constituency, and the manufacture there by Babcock of the missile tubes. I had the privilege to visit that manufacturing operation. It is one of the best UK examples of extraordinarily skilful manufacturing. The ability to manufacture nuclear submarines, with all their technology, is quite extraordinary and we should be very proud of it. Militarily and economically, it is vital to our country. It is good to see that we are maintaining a consensus today in support of the nuclear enterprise and our submarine fleet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am going to have to go back to my officials and interrogate them about what the possibilities are in Belfast. It is not a place where submarine work or nuclear work has previously been done. There will be criteria that any potential place would have to meet in order to do that, but I will certainly go back and challenge my officials about the extent to which Belfast—

[James Cartlidge]

The Minister makes an important point, because, as she knows, there is essentially a blockage in the infrastructure caused by having all these submarines awaiting dismantling. Will she confirm that she will be looking all over the country for potential places to add capacity? I am sure she agrees it could be immensely valuable economically to those areas that get involved.

[Maria Eagle]

I can, of course, confirm that. We are more than willing to look at any suggestions that any hon. Member might have.

I would like now to try to answer some of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—it is his debate. He asked specifically about the well-being of submariners, and about what is being done and what more can be done to support them and their families. We are aware of the pressure put on submariners and their families during their long periods of absence. They are given extensive training prior to deployment to try and help to them prepare for life underwater and for life away from their families for such a long time. They have access while at sea to a weekly short message from their nominated loved one, which should help, although it is, of course, not quite like being in the same place at the same time.

When returning from deployment, submariners have access to the Royal Navy family and people support services, which can offer a range of specialist, tailored welfare services if they are needed. Recognising the impact on families, the Royal Navy has also worked to enhance support for families of those deployed, backed by service charities, so there is work there. We are conscious of the extra pressure that exists, and we take steps to try to make sure that there is support and help.

My hon. Friend also asked what assessment I can make of the Astute fleet, and whether it is able to carry out its intended role. The fleet is perfectly capable of carrying out all of the roles that are required of it. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two more Astutes that are not currently commissioned yet—HMS Agamemnon and Astute Boat 7. We will continue to build those, and we expect that the new class to replace Vanguard will also be fully built—certainly, the first boat is currently on target in terms of timing—so we are confident that the fleet can do what it is intended to do.

My hon. Friend also asked what steps have been taken in regards to the NAO findings to ensure that the defence nuclear enterprise is delivering effectively and efficiently. The organisations that make up the defence nuclear enterprise are working more closely than ever before, operating effectively as an integrated team to ensure the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent posture. We are harnessing expertise and experience of multidisciplinary teams to deliver this mission and are committed to sustainment and renewal of the nuclear capabilities for as long as is required. The NAO’s work is tremendously valuable to us. It shines a very positive light and focuses minds in the Department and the defence nuclear enterprise on making sure that we do the best we can to get value for money and deliver on time and to budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked me about the budgets. He discerned from a parliamentary question the £9 million per year cost of maintaining submarines that are awaiting disposal, and he asks whether that reduces the £298 million budget for the major project portfolio data, which he got from a parliamentary answer. Obviously we do not release particular spending profiles for individual programmes, but I can tell him that the latest whole-life cost for the submarine dismantling project is £298 million, and that figure includes costs associated with dismantling work in Rosyth and maintenance costs for decommissioned submarines in Devonport.

My hon. Friend asks if I will work with Babcock, Fife council, Fife College and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into a world-leading centre for submarine dismantling. He wants a quick announcement on the next stage of the programme. We are currently learning lessons from the dismantling of Swiftsure, which he already knows is on target to be completed by the end of next year. It will pave the way for future dismantling—my hon. Friend knows that there are already four submarines there and that the first stages of the process have already been undertaken for them. Once that work is done and we have finished with Swiftsure, we will look to accelerate the programme in Rosyth, drawing on the lessons we will have learned. That will sustain high-skilled jobs and support sustainability. My hon. Friend will see that we will have made more progress by then on the future of submarine disposal capability.

I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and his local council and other organisations—indeed, we already do. There is a partnership between the MOD, the Royal Navy, and local authorities and nearby universities and colleges called the Arrol Gibb Innovation Campus. Three projects that relate to Rosyth are currently earmarked there for funding. We are more than happy to try to assist in making sure that the local area and his constituents get best value for the money being spent in Rosyth. I hope that answers some of my hon. Friend’s questions.

Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Defence Questions on 6 January 2025.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on receiving a distinguished service order—we are all proud of him.

The Government have tied the announcement of their timetable for 2.5% to the publication of the strategic defence review, so we need it to be published as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify why he has pushed back the SDR’s publication in Parliament from the spring to the summer?

[John Healey]

I have not done that. The work of the reviewers leading the strategic defence review is thorough and flat out. The review has been widely contributed to and is the first of its kind in this country, allowing fresh thinking in defence planning. On the 2.5% commitment, as we said in the plan for change, we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. The Government are delivering on defence and defence reform; we will deliver on defence funding, too.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State says that publication has not been pushed back, but I remind the House that at the previous Defence questions on 18 November last year, the Secretary of State was asked specifically about SDR timing and said:

“The reviewers will report in the spring.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 4.]

However, in a written answer to me on 17 December—just before the House rose—a Defence Minister said:

“The Reviewers will make their final report to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Defence Secretary in the first half of 2025. The Secretary of State for Defence will subsequently report the Strategic Defence Review to Parliament.”

If the first part is in the first six months of the year, even I can see that the second part, which is subsequent to that, will happen in the second half of the year. That is not the spring, is it?

[John Healey]

We are dancing on the head of a pin here—the spring is in the first half of the year. I think the hon. Gentleman should take my words to this House and to him, which have been consistent that the strategic defence review will report in the spring. It will report directly to the Prime Minister, to the Chancellor and to me, and I will update the House directly. We will also set out our clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

[John Healey]

I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Security Council—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.

[James Cartlidge]

Correct, because it is a terrible deal.

[Mr Speaker]

What if I said: I call James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge]

My apologies. I am, like you are Mr Speaker, very passionate on this subject. We see this as a terrible deal. That is why we would have never signed it. The incoming US President opposes the deal, the Mauritians are seeking to renegotiate it, and by any measure it is terrible value for money for the over-taxed British public. Does the Secretary of State really think that it is in our national interest to spend hundreds of millions of pounds leasing back a military base that we currently own, instead of spending every penny of that money on our armed forces in the UK?

[John Healey]

The agreement means that the base will be undisputed and legally secure for the first time in 50 years. The US Defence Secretary described it as an “historic agreement” and said:

“it will safeguard the strategic security interests of our two nations and our partners in the Indo-Pacific region”.