Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 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 the Government’s Chagos negotiations on the UK-US defence relationship.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.

On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.

This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:

“It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.

Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.

For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.

Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

At a time when we face the most challenging military threats for years, surely our top priority should be to preserve the strongest possible US-UK relations, given that this is so vital to our national security, yet it appears that the Government are seeking to agree a deal surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands before President Trump is formally in post. We know that the new US Administration are concerned about the Government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal

“poses a serious threat to our national security interests”.

He has also suggested that

“it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.

Let us be clear: our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital strategic asset for the UK in the Indian ocean, and it is critical to our presence and posture in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, it is an especially important base for the United States, and we believe that anything that damages its defence posture, particularly in relation to China, also undermines our national security. We understand that the new Mauritius Government have now launched a review of the deal.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government’s policy really is to try to rush through their Chagos deal before President Trump’s inauguration? Does he not see how that would be hugely disrespectful to the new Administration and President Trump’s democratic mandate? Given that we now know it is common for the MOD to state the cost of overseas bases, will he be transparent and finally tell the House how much we will have to pay to rent back the vital military base that we currently own?

Finally, although we would prefer the Government to cancel the whole deal, at the very least will the Minister pause any further ratification until the new US Administration are in place and the Mauritius Government have concluded their review?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his strong focus on this matter. I think he has a bit of amnesia from when the Government he was a part of started these negotiations. They held 11 rounds of negotiations, and it took a Labour Government to conclude them. We have done so in the best interests of our national security, and the national security concerns of our closest allies. It would not have been possible to secure a deal and the support of the United States if all parts of the US security apparatus were not in support of it, and as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that to be true, regardless of the politics he must play today.

The hon. Gentleman asked two quick questions. We intend to continue our dialogue with the new Mauritian Government and our friends in the United States. He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new Administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.

I am surprised that as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman is asking about costs. He will know that it is usual for us to declare the operating and running costs of overseas bases, but it would compromise our operational security and long-term relationships if we were to declare the Government-to-Government payment for overseas bases. We have declared the operational running costs of our overseas bases, and we will continue to do so in response to parliamentary questions. Detailing the security payments for Government-to-Government interactions is not something that this Government do, and was not something that his Government did either.

UK Air and Missile Defences

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. My strong congratulations to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an extremely timely debate. He spoke very well—in fact, all colleagues have contributed very thoughtful speeches on this important subject. Because of what is happening in Ukraine and what we have seen in the Red sea and Israel, many now say we should adopt some form of Iron Dome. This debate is very timely and I am grateful for it.

I echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and the hon. Member for North Durham in asking the Minister to update us on the overnight story of drones flying over United States Visiting Forces bases in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the apparent deployment of the negation of improvised non-state joint aerial, or NINJA, and ORCUS systems—which is different from the AUKUS defence pact with our partners. It would be good to have an update on how that was used.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a key point. I launched the integrated procurement model in February, and he is right that one should not look at missile defence in silos—no pun—because there has to be a joined-up multi-domain approach, particularly for space. I strongly agree with him that that will be a decisive factor in the early stages of something we hope will never happen: existential war. We need to be interoperable with allies, and the systems we procure need to be integrated across all the domains of our defence posture.

We do still need to consider these issues at domain level. My last visit to an army base, a week before the election was called, was to Thorney Island on the south coast to the 7th Air Defence Group. It used to be regarded as quite obscure but, because it is a ground-based air defence unit, it found itself at the heart of the debate on future defence. When I visited, I was clear that we would be ordering significant new levels of GBAD, including lightweight multi-role missiles for short-range, but also Land Ceptor units. I hope the Minister can confirm that those orders are continuing under the new Government and will be scaled up. As colleagues have said, we need more scale than we currently have because of the changing threat.

In the air domain, we currently rely on the Typhoon as our backbone. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) made a good point that GCAP, which I support, is way off in the future, in the 2030s. What is going to happen to boost lethality in the near term? It would be good if the Minister could update us on E-Scan radar with Typhoon, which will significantly increase its capability. It has been intercepting drones and missiles in the middle east and remains the backbone of our air defence. We must ensure that it is operating at the most capable level it can achieve.

I am particularly concerned about the maritime threat. We are supporting Ukraine, not in the theatre, but through the supply of ordnance. In the naval situation, our own ships were threatened, along with our own British sailors. It is in the public domain that the Houthis have obtained ballistic missiles from Iran and possibly other actors. That is a very serious threat. They may not yet have the fullest capability, but there was a worrying report this week that they are sending troops to support Russia in exchange for targeting information. That is a very serious development.

Given the ballistic threat, and given that Sea Ceptor cannot currently intercept in the terminal phase, we need rapidly to accelerate the Evolution upgrade, as far as we are able. That would give us an anti-ballistic capability. We may have to consider an urgent operational requirement for the standard missile 3—a US missile on the USS Arleigh Burke—that can intercept ballistic threats. I believe that could go in our Mark 41 launchers when our Type 26 and Type 31 start entering the sea. We will have to think like that because the threat is evolving so fast.

I strongly feel that technology is where we can enhance our forces. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, spoke about laser. When I was presented with DragonFire, I thought, “Wow!” If we can get this capability into service as fast as possible, crucially—although is obviously experimental up to a point—there may be a way to intercept drones without denuding our missile stockpile. That is incredibly significant. The other directed-energy weapon we looked at was the radio frequency one, which I saw at Thorney Island. That is not an electronic warfare system; it is a kinetic strike from sound waves that can take out multiple drones at once, for something like 10p a shot. At the moment, it has a relatively limited range.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will be pursuing those directed-energy weapons. If we go at them hard and fast, and deliver them into the arms of our forces quicker than other nations, we will boost not only our lethality and capability, but our defence industry. It is not just the link with industry, but the link with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and our brilliant scientists that matters, as well as creating the integrated procurement system that I wanted. I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham talked about that system, which enables us to develop really quickly and remain at the cutting edge.

Obviously, as I think all colleagues have said, there is one key issue: procuring these weapons, systems and capabilities costs money. We need to commit to 2.5%, and the Conservative position was to achieve that by 2030. Now, we can go back to the 2010s, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did. He knows that I am a great fan of his; he showed me around the cockpit of an A400 and I was very grateful. He has huge expertise from his time in service, but I have to be clear that the Labour party would have cut defence spending by 25% in 2010 had they won the election. The financial position then was incredibly bleak. We now have to put the past behind us. It was a long-term decline—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, but the fact is that defence spending fell under both the Conservatives and Labour, as it had around the world since the end of the cold war, because we all thought peace was upon us. In defence, we all have to adjust to the threat picture as we see it.

This is the crucial point: when we announced our funding pathway to 2.5% in April, which the Prime Minister announced in Germany, it would have included reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size to pay for it. That is not a particularly ambitious target, but the No. 1 priority of that extra spending would have been replenishment and rearmament. By replenishment, we mean replacing the arms we have given to Ukraine, and by rearmament, we mean replacing our technological warfighting capabilities—for example, making the evolution system for Sea Viper an absolute priority.

If we have a multi-year funding path in the MOD, we can procure at scale and at pace. If we have one-off, one-year adjustments—even if it is £2.9 billion—they will not enable procurement at the scale and pace that we require, and that is a fact. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) actually made the very good point that, if we go back to the Select Committee appearance by the Secretary of State, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan of military capability said that we need “always on” production. That is what a multi-year settlement gives us. Ultimately, wars are fought on industrial capability.

I will make two more points. On our allies, an excellent point was made about DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences, an initiative that I launched—which is about having tests for missile defence, like those we have in the Outer Hebrides for cruise missiles with the Navy. We need to train to be interoperable as NATO in Europe in those capabilities. We also have to look at multilateral procurement so that we as a continent are buying together to leverage economies of scale.

My final point, which I think is absolutely crucial, is about the deterrent. The hon. Member for North Durham said at the beginning that this is about conventional air defence. We have to be absolutely clear that, when Putin starts talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile being used, he is not going to not use it because we have missile defence; the thing that will stop him using it is fear of second strike from our ballistic missiles. We hope that would never happen—it is the extreme response to the extreme threat—but, while people talk about neglecting homeland security, we have had a submarine continuously at sea since 1969 with the most extraordinary lethality aboard. The scale of what it can do is quite unimaginable, and it is still absolutely at the technological cutting edge.

My point is this: we must not take that for granted. It must still be the cornerstone of the SDR; it is our No. 1 defence and it is ultimately the reason why countries will not, I believe, be tempted to launch conventional missile attacks. After all, if they attacked London with conventional missiles, that is a declaration of war under article 5, and a country doing that would ultimately have to be prepared to risk a nuclear response—that is what would be at stake.

That is not to say for one moment that we should not be considering how we upgrade our air defence— I totally agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of that—but in the SDR, the nuclear deterrent should still be the No. 1 priority because it is the fundamental way in which we defend ourselves. Again, that means a multi-year funding settlement so that we can invest in infrastructure and the expensive capabilities that come with it.

We have heard some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the need to get to 2.5% as soon as possible. The Conservatives strongly agree with him, and we hope the Minister will still be pushing for that.

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

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be.

Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there.

We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—

[James Cartlidge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will just say this: last week the Government announced very significant cuts to defence capability without waiting for the SDR, so why do they have to wait for the SDR to realise that we need to go to 2.5% to replenish our munitions as a matter of urgency? They must know that, no matter how many SDRs they undertake.

[Maria Eagle]

Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%.

This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging.

Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use.

This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it.

The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies.

Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do.

That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces.

Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need.

We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression.

We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans.

One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—

Defence Programmes Developments

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half ago, Prime Minister’s questions was taken by a Deputy Prime Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the renewal of Trident.

The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5% as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that Labour’s union paymasters will not allow them to do.

The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about Ben Wallace, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2. If he is talking about Grant Shapps, he gave me his 100% backing in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation, and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers.

Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in 2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention bonus? If not, why not?

The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received assurances from the Navy’s leadership that in the event of a full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the crews could have been found. That is what the Navy’s leadership confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure?

Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus? As for the Conservatives’ record on rotary, the Secretary of State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service before those Pumas are retired?

On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD’s first ever drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas, especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR before making today’s decisions?

To conclude, whatever the Chancellor’s true grasp of economics, she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it has undertaken the Department’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil, undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off the family farm and threatening our food security, and today, they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security. The Government have made their choices, and they own the consequences.

Points of Order

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are now widespread reports in the media of Storm Shadow missiles being used in Russian territory for the first time. To be clear, I entirely sympathise with the Secretary of State in his reluctance to provide an operational running commentary, but equally he will appreciate that once these matters are being reported in the media there may be an expectation among colleagues that we will hear more in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any representations about a possible statement on these matters by the Ministry of Defence?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he will, I believe, be aware, I have been given no indication that the Secretary of State will be making such a statement, but the Secretary of State is obviously here and taking note of what is being said, and if he wishes to comment either now or later, he has the opportunity to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the subject of improving service life for service personnel and their families, thousands of families will be getting the unwelcome Christmas present this year of a 20% tax on the school fees that they pay to fund an independent boarding school or, otherwise, will have to allow their children’s education to be constantly destabilised. Given that this new tax is 100% the responsibility of the Government, will the Secretary of State confirm that the continuity of education allowance will be uplifted to fund 100% of the new tax on those fees?

[John Healey]

We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January. We will do that so that the allowance continues to maintain the schooling of the many children of personnel that are deployed. Our mission as a Government is to lift the morale of our services. That is why we are investing in our servicemen and women, supporting their families and starting to fix the problems of the last 14 years that we have inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I say again that I will not compromise operational security and comment on the details of long-range systems today. The Prime Minister has been clear—as I am being to the House—that we must double down on the support to Ukraine, give it the support it needs and do so for as long as it takes. In doing so, we will continue our close co-operation with the US and allies in providing that support to Ukraine.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I join the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), in strongly welcoming the decision by the United States to permit Ukraine to use long-range missiles in Kursk. I know the Secretary of State does not want to go into operational detail—I understand that—but I assure him of our support if he follows through in relation to Storm Shadow, as we believe he should. There will be those who talk about escalation, but does he agree that the only escalation that matters here is 10,000 North Korean troops on the ground supporting Russia in its illegal war?

[John Healey]

The shadow Secretary of State is right that the one person responsible for escalation in this conflict is President Putin, and the one side that has been escalating in recent months is Russia. In recognising that he has escalated his illegal war against Ukraine by intensifying the use of glide bombs, destroying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and deploying thousands of North Korean troops into combat positions in Kursk, I am discussing this very serious development with the US Defence Secretary and will be discussing it with the Ukrainian Defence Secretary this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In relation to the cost of renting back our own military base on the Chagos islands, last week the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said that the reason the Government refused to tell us what the cost will be is that

“it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases anywhere across the globe”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 793.]

Is that correct?

[John Healey]

That is correct, but it is also true to say that the treaty is in the legal and national security interests of the UK and US. That is why the US Defence Secretary welcomed the agreement, which he said would

“safeguard the strategic security interests of the United Kingdom…and the United States…into the next century”.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State says it is true that it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases, but there have actually been several written answers, under this Government and previous ones, giving the costs of overseas bases. For example, in November 2015 the then Minister for the Armed Forces—Penny Mordaunt, no less—revealed in a written answer the cost of 10 overseas bases, including Diego Garcia and the cost of leases. The reason for withholding the cost does not stack up. What does the Secretary of State have to hide from Parliament?

[John Healey]

Absolutely nothing, nor will we. It is a matter of course to confirm running costs for bases. What we are talking about here is an agreement leading to a treaty that will be put before this House. I have said to the House and to the shadow Secretary of State that we will set out the costs and the details of that treaty in due course when the House comes to consider it.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

At all times, and on both sides of the House, we should want to ensure that our armed forces have our back and that their morale and the offer from the MOD is as strong as possible. The Opposition recognise that the Bill introduces a manifesto commitment for which the Government have a clear mandate and, moreover, that it creates a new mechanism by which the MOD intends to boost the day-to-day experience of our armed forces personnel. No one could disagree with that goal. While it remains to be seen exactly how the Bill will deliver in practice, we will not oppose it but will be a constructive, critical friend, because the least that those who bravely put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve is proper scrutiny from Parliament in matters of legislation and the armed forces.

Of course, there are areas of welfare not directly affected by the Bill where we want to see further progress, but, in terms of the Bill’s provisions, we wish to probe a number of matters. At face value, there is clearly merit in seeking to ensure extra accountability for how welfare matters are conducted in the forces. I note in particular, as the Secretary of State just stressed, that the commissioner will explicitly not be drawn from the ranks of either the military or the civil service, precisely in order to deliver genuine independence.

In many ways, that provision is not dissimilar to the principle that I wanted to see in the integrated procurement model back in February, with the idea of a second opinion in procurement, not least from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the science base—the point being to ensure that major procurement programmes and the requirement request from the single services could similarly be subject to genuine challenge and transparency. After all, the Sheldon inquiry focused on transparency and openness as key tools to guarding against the bad culture that can pertain without confidence for military personnel and officials to come forward and air their concerns—what we call being “psychologically confident”.

Therefore, in principle, the proposal appears to be consistent with the push for a more transparent culture in defence that makes it harder to hide embedded problems. The most serious such examples could include the issues raised by the Lyons Review and the Defence Committee’s “Women in the Armed Forces” report, as referred to at oral questions earlier by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). As such, if the new office of the commissioner genuinely exposes cultural weaknesses and hidden systemic problems that would otherwise not have been disclosed or would take longer to emerge, it should be welcomed.

That said, such extra transparency cannot be at the expense of operational effectiveness. That is why one of the most significant issues that we will want to probe further is the interaction between the commissioner and the chain of command, especially in sensitive operational settings. The Bill states that visits will not be permitted on national security grounds, but what if the commissioner and the chain of command disagree on whether those grounds apply? Will the Secretary of State adjudicate? If so, how will that work in practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) alluded to in his earlier oral question, how will such visits work in practice without disrupting live operations? We must have clarity.

Off the back of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, the previous Government did much work to reduce bureaucracy, shorten the complaints process and strengthen oversight. It is important that that is not undermined through the organisational upheaval that the Bill will inevitably generate. What steps will the Government take to ensure a smooth handover, especially in relation to existing casework? A few of our colleagues have experienced that recently.

On the territorial application of the Bill, as things stand there is a permissive extent clause that enables an Order in Council to provide for relevant sections of the legislation to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories except Gibraltar. First, what is the rationale for apparently excluding Gibraltar? Secondly, what of the US visiting forces?

As Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the estate, I visited both Lakenheath and Mildenhall in my county of Suffolk, where there is a significant presence of US forces, F-35s and F-15s. I had the pleasure of meeting the then commanding officer, Major General Campo. There were a significant number of infrastructure, planning and other matters where, inevitably, the USVF needed clearance and input from the UK MOD. What will the Commissioner’s responsibilities be in relation to USVF, particularly where British personnel are stationed alongside them? Similarly, what about the personnel of the many nations assisting with training Ukrainians for Operation Interflex on the UK bases? My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a very good intervention. We agree that we want to question the point about veterans, and we will probe that in Committee.

Finally, on costs, we note that the Department expects the annual cost of the commissioner to be higher than that of the current ombudsman, and overall in the region of £5 million. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that the cost will grow further and above that estimation in the years ahead, as the commissioner becomes more established? More broadly, we know that many issues affect morale, recruitment and retention in the armed forces. We want the Bill to succeed, but there remain a number of areas of concern where delivering a better offer to our service personnel is critical.

On recruitment and retention, hopefully all hon. Members understand the critical importance of boarding school to service families, and that there are very few places not in the independent sector. Boarding school provides stability for their children in a career that does not automatically lend itself to such. Yet families affected by VAT on school fees will not find out until December exactly how they will be hit by a tax that commences the very next month. Let us remember that many such families do not receive continuity of education allowance, and will have to cover a 20% hike in fees from their taxed income. That is why the Opposition wanted the type of VAT exemption for all children of service families that is offered to children with special educational needs and disabilities with an education, health and care plan.

[Dr Murrison]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just not fair on the small businesses that are independent schools, such as Warminster School in my constituency, which traditionally have taken a significant number of service pupils, to have that level of uncertainty about what the school roll will look like in January?

[James Cartlidge]

That is an excellent point. I pay tribute to those sorts of schools and how they share in society’s commitment to our armed forces. It has been Labour policy since the 2017 general election—seven and a half years ago—to introduce VAT on school fees. Families who have personnel serving abroad this Christmas will have just December to deal with whatever those new fees mean for them. That is a shockingly short amount of notice.

On pay, we agree that those who serve their country must be appropriately rewarded, which is why in 2023 we announced a core armed forces pay rise of 5%, plus a further consolidated increase of £1,000, equating to a rise of approximately 9.7% for the most junior ranks, and including a freeze in food charges. Alongside pay, accommodation is an important part of the offer from the MOD. We all accept that much more needs to be done, and presumably that will form a key focus for the commissioner. I stand by what I said in the Remembrance debate: the problem is the underlying structural nature of so much of the accommodation in the defence estate. For that reason, as a Minister 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—the long-term solution that I think the Veterans Minister referred to earlier. I hope the Government will take that work forward, but I appreciate that it is highly legally and commercially sensitive, and there is a limit to what they can say on that.

As for the short term, the lesson from our winter plan last year is that investment and a plan for the defence estate can still yield results. Early on as the Minister responsible for the estate, in 2023, I accepted that the previous winter we had let down service families, and with the backing of Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, we secured £400 million in the defence Command Paper refresh, and delivered a winter plan that saw thousands of homes treated for issues such as damp and mould. Complaints to contractors fell sharply between 2022 and winter 2023.

That brings me to the final critical point—funding. The new commissioner will almost certainly be assailed with accommodation cases, but any reports that he produces will inevitably form one conclusion: there is a need for more investment in the estate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities. The £400 million that we announced required us to make choices about spending, and to prioritise accommodation and the welfare of personnel over other pulls on funding. It is incredibly important that the Government commit to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Secretary of State will inevitably say that the last time we reached 2.5% was in 2010. I could as easily say that the last time we reached 3% was in 1996. They were two points on a pathway of consistently falling spending since the cold war, because successive Governments believed, like many around the world, that we were in a more peaceful era. That is a statement of fact.

The point is that welfare in the military is about us as a nation and a Government saying to those who serve, “We have your back.” That is impossible without more funding, and that means setting a definitive date for getting to 2.5%. The Conservative party will always support the welfare of service personnel. That is why we will try to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We will not be dividing the House this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I congratulate the shadow Defence Secretary on securing the first Defence urgent question of the new Parliament. Previous Defence Secretaries answered just two urgent questions in the whole of the last five years. Although I cannot promise to answer every future UQ, I wanted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s first one today to underline just how seriously I take our Department’s responsibility to report to this House.

The Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We promised it in our manifesto at the election, the Prime Minister promised it at NATO in Washington in July, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised it in the Budget two weeks ago, as well as announcing a £3 billion boost for defence spending next year to start to fix the foundations for our armed forces. That, of course, is on top of £3 billion each year for Ukraine. I remind the House that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, with the last Labour Government—a level not matched in any of the 14 Tory years since.

Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase to match and deal with the threats we face. One of our very first acts as a Government was to launch the strategic defence review, which is working at pace to look at the threats we face, the capabilities we need and the resources we have available. It is not just about how much we spend, but about how we spend it. The Prime Minister said at NATO that our plan in the SDR will come first, and then we will set out the pathway to spending 2.5%; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday that this will come in the spring.

Today is Armistice Day. At the eleventh hour, I had the honour of laying a wreath at the Cenotaph. Today is a reminder of what is at stake in this new era of insecurity; a reminder that our dedicated servicemen and women, around the clock, around the world, work to keep us safe; and a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice that so many have made in the past so that we may live in freedom today. We will remember them.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, especially on Armistice Day. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, but he keeps going back to 2010 when we spent 2.5%. That is true, but he says it without adding the fact that his Government had bankrupted the country. In fact, I asked the House of Commons Library about this. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that if Labour had returned to government, it was planning cuts to the defence budget of 20% to 25%.

But this question is about today. The threat picture is far graver than it has been for many generations, as the Chief of the Defence Staff confirmed at the weekend. As the Secretary of State says, the Labour party committed in its general election manifesto to a

“path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence.”

The Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that it was “cast iron”, which the Secretary of State has repeated today.

With President Trump’s election victory, there will inevitably be a greater focus on what more European NATO members can do to boost Europe’s own defence, but yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and this morning the Secretary of State himself were unable to say whether the Government would deliver on 2.5% in the current Parliament. In addition, yesterday The Sunday Times reported that Defence Equipment and Support in Abbey Wood has effectively been instructed to avoid any new procurement at all for the rest of this financial year.

Spending 2.5% is not an end in itself. The key reason that in April we set out a fully funded multi-year pathway to 2.5% was to enable the Ministry of Defence to procure, at pace and at scale, the munitions that we need to urgently replenish our stocks to warfighting levels. With the whole world wanting to buy more munitions, we cannot afford to delay any further.

I have key questions for the Secretary of State, because at the same time we are having this debate, there are a whole load of new burdens coming for the MOD which it will have to cover. In which financial year does he expect the share of GDP spent on defence to start rising significantly, and will he guarantee to hit 2.5% in this Parliament—yes or no? Not including existing programmes, is it true that there is a freeze on new procurement of defence equipment and support for the rest of this financial year? Will the MOD be 100% compensated by the Treasury for higher employer national insurance contributions and for the cost of increasing continuity of education allowance, and will service families be 100% compensated for the extra VAT on school fees? Penultimately, on Armistice Day can the Secretary of State absolutely rule out surviving spouses of service personnel being taxed on death in service benefits? Finally, on the Chagos islands, in the Department’s written answer to me it refused to say how much the MOD will contribute to renting back our own military base, so this is a very simple question: the Secretary of State will not tell us how much it is going to cost, but does he know how much it is going to cost?

[Mr Speaker]

Please remember that when I grant urgent questions, the time each person has is limited. It is two minutes for the main Opposition party and one minute for the other Opposition party.

Remembrance and Veterans

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our brilliant Royal Marines on their 360th anniversary.

This timely and important debate coincides with Mr Speaker’s official opening of the constituency garden of remembrance earlier today. It marks the point where, as a House, we pay tribute to all those who serve and have served our country, particularly those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

As we approach Remembrance Day, I thank the Royal British Legion and charities across the UK that ensure that our collective memory of the fallen never fades, while providing invaluable services and support to today’s veterans. I am also proud of the previous Government’s record on veterans, which my colleague, the shadow Veterans Minister, will cover in his closing speech. The focus of my speech is primarily on the remembrance part of this debate.

I believe that politicians best honour the fallen by never forgetting the lessons of the wars in which they fought. This means never being complacent about the threats we face and doing everything possible to strengthen our deterrence, so that this country is never again embroiled in the senseless slaughter of existential war. It must be obvious to all of us that the threat of such a war looms larger over our continent than it has for many years. To that end, and I say this with respect to the Secretary of State, it was profoundly ill-judged of him to suggest, at a time when deterrence is of paramount importance, that Britain is not ready to fight a war. I reassure the British public, millions of whom will soon wear their poppies with pride, that our armed forces remain among the best in the world. After all, it would be wholly unrealistic to expect this nation to fight Russia single-handedly. The challenge is to be ready to fight and deter as part of NATO, and no one should be in any doubt of the outsized scale of our contribution to the alliance.

First and foremost, we unambiguously and unflinchingly offer our 24/7 nuclear deterrent for the defence of all European NATO allies, and we are incredibly proud to have delivered a continuous at-sea deterrent every day since 1969. Moreover, during NATO’s Steadfast Defender exercise earlier this year—its largest such exercise since the end of the cold war—we led the way with 20,000 service personnel, eight warships and submarines and an aircraft carrier, plus tanks, artillery, helicopters and Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft. That is not the contribution of a nation unable to fight.

As we prepare to look back and remember past conflicts, the most important example of our readiness is not an exercise but a real-world war that is happening on our continent today. When it comes to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the UK, under the previous Government, played a singular leadership role, which started before the Russian tanks rolled in. Since 2014, we have trained thousands of Ukrainians to fight and we provided crucial anti-tank weaponry before the invasion commenced. That helped the Ukrainians to defy expectations and stay in the fight. Surely we can all see that, had Ukraine fallen early, the world would have been an even more dangerous place, with our adversaries emboldened and with NATO’s borders potentially threatened.

As the previous Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, revealed, President Zelensky has said that the UK, more than any other nation, has been responsible for helping to ensure that the majority of Ukraine remains free, more than two years after Russia’s main attack. Far from talking down our armed forces, we should be extremely proud of the role we have played in supporting Ukraine’s fight for freedom.

That said, of course we have our challenges. First and foremost is the need to replenish munitions, not least after gifting so many to Ukraine. That is why, in April, we set out a fully funded plan to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, paid for by reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size and prioritising £10 billion of additional funding for replenishment.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the shadow Minister think that the Conservative party is missing the point of this debate by seeking to score political points?

[James Cartlidge]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman misses the point of my speech. As I said at the beginning, I am here to talk about remembrance, and I sincerely believe that the best way to honour the fallen is by learning the lessons of the past. That means always standing up for our country and ensuring that we have the strongest possible deterrent. That is why, with a Budget on Wednesday, it really matters that we talk about defence spending in this debate. This is a matter of supreme national interest.

As we prepare to remember all those lives lost serving in our Navy and merchant fleet, this replenishment would have addressed key emerging threats to our naval ships that have been exposed in the Red sea, such as by funding DragonFire laser procurement to tackle drones and upgrading our Sea Viper system to combat ballistic missiles. People may think that that is not relevant, but after all the tragedy we saw when we lost those ships in the Falklands we should be doing everything possible urgently to procure systems that can help to defend our ships against these emerging threats.

Another key challenge is retention. We know that we need to do everything possible to support those who serve in our armed forces today. Two days from the Budget, I hope that the Secretary of State has read today’s warning in The Times online that hundreds may leave the armed forces because of the Government’s education tax. The article quotes the many service personnel who have emailed me with their concerns, such as the wife of an Army major who writes:

“The extra 20% will make things extremely difficult, and we fear we will have to choose between my husband’s career or our daughter’s education.”

Labour should not be forcing thousands of military families to make so stark a choice when we cannot afford to lose such experienced personnel, and when it costs almost £48,000 a head to train just one much less experienced replacement.

Finally, there is the key issue of accommodation. I am proud of the additional £400 million that the Conservative Government injected to help address damp, mould and the many other problems that routinely affect our military homes. However, as someone with a background in housing before entering Parliament, it was clear to me from day one as the Minister responsible for the defence estate that we had to do something far more radical, given the inherent structural problems with so much of our service accommodation.

That is why I built on my predecessor Jeremy Quin’s work to put the wheels in motion so that, subject to negotiation, we could buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes. If we really want homes fit for heroes, as I am sure we all do, I strongly believe that we need a complete rebuild of the defence estate, rather than year-to-year sticking plaster solutions. It could be one of the country’s most exciting regeneration projects, but it requires ownership to be fully restored, and that means Annington. Of course, Annington is an area of considerable legal and commercial sensitivity, so I do not expect a direct answer, but I hope the Government will continue to build on my considerable work in that area.

If we are truly to honour the fallen, we must do everything to avoid future conflict by having the strongest possible deterrence. I have huge respect for the Secretary of State, but I believe it was a mistake to say that we are not ready to fight. We now need to see whether he is ready to fight for our armed forces. We need two things in Wednesday’s Budget: a VAT exemption on school fees for forces families, and a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence so that we can urgently replenish our munition stocks to war-fighting levels. Those who serve our country deserve no less.

Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I offer my condolences and those of Opposition Members to the family and friends of Corporal Christopher Gill, who we understand tragically lost his life during a training exercise recently. We understand that he served his country for 13 years, including in Afghanistan, and more recently volunteered to train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK.

Having visited Salisbury plain last May to see Operation Interflex, I know that we should be grateful to all our service personnel, including Corporal Gill, who have played such a huge role in training the Ukrainian armed forces so that they can continue to fight and defend their homeland. That fight goes on, and we continue to offer all support to the Government for that, as well as standing by the Government, people and armed forces of Ukraine.

We therefore warmly welcome the G7 joint declaration and funding announcement, but we share the Government’s concerns in relation to North Korea. I have lost count of the many times that Vladimir Putin has accused us and our allies of so-called escalatory action in our support for Ukraine, but today we are considering the very real threat of North Korean combat troops being sent to support Russia’s illegal invasion. Let us be in no doubt: any potential agreement between Putin and Kim Jong-un to have North Korean boots on the ground in Ukraine at all—let alone in the numbers that have been reported—would be a major escalatory ratchet by Putin himself.

After all, as the Secretary of State confirmed, Russia has already procured munitions and ballistic missiles from North Korea. The transfer of those weapons in the first place was not only completely unacceptable, but a blatant violation of the UN sanctions that Russia itself voted for. The transfer of North Korean weapons and now the threat of combat troops show weakness and desperation, not strength, on Putin’s part, as the Secretary of State said. Above all, this raises the question of what Putin is offering North Korea in return, but we should not be deterred and must respond.

We took decisive countermeasures to help constrain the transfer of weapons between North Korea and Russia. The Conservative Government imposed sanctions on the arms-for-oil trade between Russia and North Korea, including asset freezes, travel bans and transport sanctions. The new Government, in turn, must now respond to this latest threat of combat troops. Can I press the Secretary of State to look at how the UK should respond in the round? Yes, we need to look at the diplomatic tools we can use to disrupt co-operation between North Korea and Russia, but we also need to urgently look again both at our military aid to Ukraine and at the freedom we offer it to use the munitions that we supply, particularly long-range missiles.

Given the need to continue providing further capability to Ukraine, we welcome yesterday’s announcement that the UK will contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme for Ukraine. The Conservative Government were a vocal advocate for mobilising frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. We strongly welcome the additional funding. When will the money be made available to Ukraine, and over what term? The sooner those funds are mobilised, the better. When exactly will Ukraine receive the funding?

Finally, we have spoken many times of the reality that we are facing not just Russian aggression, but a broader authoritarian axis that ultimately threatens the UK. We have seen that explicitly with Iran and the Red sea, and now we see it coming ever closer to home with the prospect of North Korean troops deploying in a European theatre of war. Surely that strengthens even further the argument that the Government need to deliver on their supposed cast-iron guarantee to spend 2.5% on defence. As the Secretary of State failed to answer me at Defence orals, can I once again press him to confirm that he is fighting hard, with the Treasury, to deliver a clear pathway to 2.5% in the Budget at the end of this month?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Corporal Gill. I will pass them on to his widow and make sure that his family are aware of them and of the sentiments of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman is right about the enormous contribution that Corporal Gill made, including to the Interflex training programme, which I was proud to be able to commit to extending throughout 2025. The Chancellor and I visited the programme together on Sunday; we met Colonel Boardman, the commander of Operation Interflex, and the officers and soldiers of 3 Scots, together with instructors from Kosovo, Australia and Sweden, illustrating the way the UK is leading a multinational effort to support Ukrainian soldiers.

The hon. Gentleman is right and I suspect that there is unanimity in the House on concern about the developments in Russia and the growing alliance with North Korea, and that it is united in its determination to take the action required to respond and united in recognising that we must do so alongside NATO and other G7 allies.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the new loan funds available for Ukraine through the proceeds of the interest on frozen Russian assets. We expect those to be available and in Ukraine’s hands from early in the new year, which will put the UK ahead of many other nations participating in the scheme.

On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we remain totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We must do this to meet the threats that this country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed the commitment to set out a clear path to 2.5% in our first week in Government at the NATO summit in Washington. I gently say again to the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under a Labour Government, and that that level was never matched in any of the 14 Conservative years since.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I associate all of us in my party with your comments about the late Alex Salmond.

The most important point about the SDR is that it must not be used as an excuse to delay increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP. In September, in answers to written questions, the Department said that it would set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence “as soon as possible”, but last week, at the Dispatch Box, in his middle east statement, the Prime Minister said that the Government would go to 2.5% “in due course”. We all know that there is a massive difference between the two, so which is it?

[John Healey]

The Government are totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence to meet the increasing threat the country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed that in his first week in office, when he and I were together at the NATO summit in Washington. Of course, the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that level was not matched in any one of the 14 years in which the hon. Gentleman’s party was in power.

[James Cartlidge]

That is a concern. In 2010, just to remind the House, the black hole in the defence budget was bigger than the defence budget, and we were left a note saying that there was no money left. It is significant if the wording is no longer “as soon as possible” and is now “in due course”. It is in the national interest to go to 2.5% because of the threats we face as a country. If the Secretary of State told us now that he was fighting hard with the Treasury to go to 2.5% in the Budget at the end of this month, he would have our full support. Is that what he is doing?

[John Healey]

Fourteen years, Mr Speaker, yet the Conservatives produced their unfunded plan for 2.5% on defence only four weeks before they called the election. It was the hon. Gentleman’s former boss, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who told the truth about their record in government when he said to the House:

“we have hollowed out and underfunded”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 18.]

our armed forces since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thousands of children of armed forces personnel face unaffordable increases to their school fees because of this Government’s ideological decision to charge VAT on education. That could have the perverse effect of forcing experienced personnel to quit the service of their country just when we should be seeking to maximise retention. Will the Minister therefore confirm that children of armed forces families will be exempt from the new VAT rise, and furthermore that that exemption will apply from January when the new tax kicks in?

[John Healey]

We recognise the extraordinary strain that is sometimes placed on the family of armed forces personnel, including their children. That is why the continuity of education allowance—an important part of the package that reflects and respects the service—is in place, and it is why we are looking very closely at options to ensure we continue with that.