Armed Forces Bill

James MacCleary Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Our British armed forces represent the very best of us—courage, selflessness, and an unwavering commitment to protect our freedoms and our way of life—and they deserve nothing less than our unwavering commitment in return.

The Liberal Democrats welcome significant elements of the Bill. The full enshrinement of the armed forces covenant in law, extending it across central Government, devolved Administrations and local authorities, aligns with our long-standing policy to strengthen the covenant by placing a legal duty on Government Departments. For too long, the covenant has been a promise without proper teeth. The Bill gives it the force of law that it has always deserved, and we look forward to supporting that as the legislation progresses.

We welcome the establishment of the Defence Housing Service and the £9 billion defence housing strategy. Our service personnel and their families should not have to endure substandard accommodation while serving their country. The commitment to upgrade nine in 10 military homes is progress, although I must stress that it is the bare minimum that we owe those people who put themselves in harm’s way for us.

That said, what will matter is pace, transparency and accountability. Given the Ministry of Defence’s long and unhappy track record of wasting public money on failed programmes, the House deserves clarity on how this strategy will be delivered in practice. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the debate, will respond to the following questions. Who precisely will oversee the new body, what will be its relationship with the Department, and where will ultimate accountability lie if targets are missed or standards slip? Without clear governance and rigorous scrutiny, there is a real risk that warm words and large sums of money will once again fail to translate into decent homes for service families.

The reforms of the service justice system are long overdue, particularly the strengthened protections for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and harassment. Every person who serves in uniform deserves to do so in safety and dignity. However, the Bill comes against a backdrop of multiple deeply troubling scandals involving abuse within our armed forces, particularly the treatment of women. I do not doubt the commitment of any of the Ministers to combating it, but it is striking that the Bill contains no specific or targeted measures to address the systemic cultural failures that have allowed such abuse to persist. Without a clear attempt to confront these issues head-on, there is a risk that structural reform will fall short of meaningful change.

[Helen Maguire]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill requires the provision of further clarification and detail in regard to service justice? If an offence is committed overseas on a base or during an operation, will a person have a choice between a civilian and a military court hearing? If an offence is discovered after six months, will it still be possible to investigate it, and if so, will it be investigated by military police or not?

[James MacCleary]

Those are important details, which I hope the Minister will take up in his closing remarks. Justice must be seen to be served wherever our service personnel are in the world.

The measures in the Bill to support victims and strengthen protective orders are steps in the right direction, but they must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to accountability and cultural reform in our services.

We must also be honest about what the Government are not doing. This is a technical renewal Bill, whereas what our armed forces need is a comprehensive fair deal; that matters profoundly for Britain’s security and our place in the world. The Bill is silent on the recruitment and retention crisis facing our armed forces. It says nothing about reversing the devastating troop cuts that have hollowed out the Army. It offers no plan to rebuild regular troop numbers back to above 100,000—a goal that the Liberal Democrats are committed to achieving.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Following that pledge, will the hon. Gentleman outline what the additional 30,000 troops would be roled as?

[James MacCleary]

I think the question here is more about mass in the armed forces, and deployability.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Mass for what?

[James MacCleary]

For deployment overseas, so that we can achieve the objectives that we want to achieve. The Conservatives cut troop numbers during the last Government. It is understandable that you are embarrassed —that they are embarrassed—about that, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have heard two uses of the word “you”. It is not about me.

[James MacCleary]

It is understandable that the Opposition are embarrassed about that. We need to get our troop numbers back up to a critical mass that will allow us to carry out our duties overseas.

The Government’s decision to increase the upper age limit for reserves and cadets to 65 warrants serious scrutiny. Ministers must explain whether the change will genuinely enhance operational effectiveness, skills and readiness, or whether it is simply a mechanism to inflate headline recruitment numbers without addressing the underlying retention and capability challenges facing our reserve forces.

That brings me to the important issue of defence spending, which, of course, underlies all of this. The Liberal Democrats support increasing defence spending in every year of this Parliament, and we will explain how to do it. We are calling for a clear, credible pathway to reaching 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, backed by cross-party talks to secure long-term consensus. As part of that plan, we have proposed the introduction of time-limited defence bonds—capped, fixed-term, and legally tied to capital investment—to raise up to £20 billion over the next two years. That would allow the Government to accelerate investment in the capabilities set out in the strategic defence review, strengthen deterrence now rather than later, and send a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike that Britain is serious about its security.

[James Cartlidge]

I heard the announcement made by the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party about the bonds. Of course, that would still be borrowing the money. It would be added to the national debt, and it would have to be repaid. The question is, where exactly would the money come from? Would it mean cutting spending or putting up taxes?

[James MacCleary]

These are bonds issued to the public and to funds in the normal way, as all these vehicles are. They would be for people to invest in, so this would not involve cutting anything. It would be short-term borrowing that would fall within the Government’s existing fiscal rules, as we explained at the weekend. This is a serious proposal to increase defence spending in the short term, unlike the proposals from the Opposition, which, I understand, are for welfare cuts—a long-term measure that would fall on the most vulnerable in society.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. It is very generous of him. Is he saying that those bonds would not have to be repaid?

[James MacCleary]

Of course they would have to be repaid, and we have laid out this policy very clearly.

[James Cartlidge]

Where would the money come from?

[James MacCleary]

I am happy to send the hon. Member a briefing if that would be helpful to his deliberations, but of course the money would have to be repaid. These are two-to-three-year bonds that would generate an immediate injection of cash to buy the kit that our armed forces need.

In an increasingly dangerous world, standing still is not a neutral act, and warm words without funding will not keep our country safe. That is why I was relieved to see reports over the weekend that the Government are seeking to restart negotiations over UK access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund, which I hope speaks to a belated and dawning realisation that President Trump is increasingly posing a threat to Britain’s security and values. At the same time, I urge the European Union to approach these discussions with pragmatism, to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and to recognise that the UK is an essential security partner. This is not the moment for political point scoring, for putting domestic protectionism ahead of continental safety, or for setting the bar so high that shared European security is the casualty.

A fair deal for our armed forces community means more than just equipment and strategy; it means treating service personnel and their families with the dignity and respect that they deserve in every aspect of their lives. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal commission for service personnel, veterans and families to review conditions comprehensively and recommend improvements in pay, housing, diversity and transition services. We would allow families of armed forces personnel access to military medical and dental facilities, and improve mental health support for the whole armed forces community. We would waive visa application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge and their families, and we would ensure that military compensation for illness or injury did not count towards means-testing for benefits.

These are not fringe issues; they go to the heart of the covenant between the nation and those who serve. If we ask people to be ready to give their lives for this country, we owe them more than warm words. We owe them action. In respect of housing specifically, while we welcome the Defence Housing Service, we need to go further. We would require the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above minimum standards, and to give service personnel stronger legal rights to repair and maintenance. Our recent campaigning secured a Government commitment to assess family military homes according to the decent homes standard. That is progress, but it must be implemented properly and swiftly.

We also support the recommendations of the Atherton report on women in the armed forces, and will work to establish better structures to guard against discrimination and harassment. The armed forces must be places where talent thrives, regardless of gender, and where everyone can serve with dignity.

We owe it to our armed forces to provide certainty, which makes the continued delay of the long-promised defence investment plan all the more concerning. That plan must be brought forward without further delay. We cannot continue a boom-and-bust cycle of defence reviews that leaves industry in limbo, undermines long-term investment, and allows vital skills and supply chains to wither away through uncertainty.

The Liberal Democrats look forward to engaging constructively with this Bill, and to scrutinising its provisions carefully as it proceeds through its remaining stages. We will not stand in the way of improvements that matter to service personnel and their families, but we will continue to press for more, because our armed forces deserve more and Britain’s security demands more. We will continue to call for reversing troop cuts, increasing defence spending to at least 3% of GDP, tackling the recruitment crisis and ensuring a comprehensive, fair deal for the armed forces community.

Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. They represent our values, defend our interests, and stand ready to protect us and our allies. They deserve a Government who back them with resources, strategy and unwavering support. The Liberal Democrats will always champion that cause, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those who serve.

Ajax Programme

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this timely and important debate.

Ajax takes its name from the “Iliad”. In that great epic, there are in fact two Ajaxes—Ajax the Great, the famous hero of Greek mythology, and Ajax the Lesser. I think it is pretty clear, from what we have heard today, which of them this project most resembles. Ajax stands as perhaps the starkest illustration of everything that has gone wrong with defence procurement in this country.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

The new medium helicopter contract has reportedly been delayed. We now risk losing the site at Yeovil if the contract is not awarded by March. Does my hon. Friend agree that such delays to contracting are undermining our national and economic security, and that the new medium helicopter contract must be awarded as soon as possible?

[James MacCleary]

My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents in Yeovil and has raised this on a number of occasions. I absolutely agree: we run a real risk of not only losing the ability to build our own—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. We will stay focused Ajax, notwithstanding the intervention.

[James MacCleary]

Indeed.

Let me be clear from the outset: the possible collapse of this multi-decade, £6.2 billion programme is deeply alarming. It demands answers, it demands accountability and, most importantly, it demands urgent action. The facts are stark and troubling. Just weeks ago on Salisbury plain, during what should have been a routine training exercise, more than 30 of our soldiers fell ill. They were not injured in combat or facing down an enemy on some distant battlefield; they were training on British soil in British vehicles built with British taxpayers’ money. They were vomiting, and they were shaking uncontrollably. Some spent 10 to 15 hours in these vehicles and emerged requiring urgent medical care.

That is not the first time we have heard such reports. Indeed, the Ajax programme has been plagued by issues of noise and vibration since mid-2020. A stop notice was issued in June 2021 and all dynamic movement was halted. The programme underwent what was termed “a significant reset”. Training resumed in 2023, only to be paused again in 2025. Astonishingly, this programme has been on pause for 20% of its entire life—20%.

What was the response from those in charge? In November, just before the latest incident, we were told that Ajax had achieved “Initial Operating Capability”. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry visited the General Dynamics factory in south Wales and declared that the issues were “firmly in the past.” He told us that he had been

“reassured from the top of the Army”

that the vehicle was safe. Indeed, the programme was apparently so successful that the MOD announced in November that it had just won an international award for mega-project of the year.

Three weeks later, the Minister had to return to the House to confess that he had been misled—misled by the Chief of the General Staff and the then acting National Armaments Director. These are not junior officials; they are the most senior figures in our defence establishment providing assurances about safety that have proven to be utterly unfounded.

I must ask, what kind of system allows this to happen? What kind of institutional culture permits such a fundamental failure of honesty and accountability? What does it say about the state of our armed forces that senior officials and officers declared initial operating capability when long-standing problems had merely been mitigated with new seats and earplugs in some cases, rather than actually fixed?

The Minister must now be absolutely clear about what the Government’s contingency plans are if Ajax is deemed unsafe. Moreover, he must explain what the impact will be on our NATO commitments if Ajax is further delayed due to required upgrades or scrapped altogether. Our allies are watching, and our adversaries are watching, and what they see is chaos.

This is not simply about one troubled programme, catastrophic though Ajax’s failures have been; this programme illustrates the deep-seated problems with defence procurement that have plagued our armed forces for years. They deserve better than the endless delays, cost overruns and capability gaps that have become the hallmark of how we equip those who defend us.

Let us consider the litany of failures. Ajax was ordered in 2014. It was supposed to be fully in service by 2019. Here we are in 2026, and not only is it not in service, but we are now investigating whether it is fundamentally unsafe. The vehicle was originally designed for weights of up to 26 tonnes. Through what defence analysts politely call “scope creep”—the Army loading the programme with 1,200 separate capability requirements—the weight ballooned to over 43 tonnes.

A single vehicle can now cost well over £10 million in its most expensive form, and what have we got for this money? We have vehicles that make our soldiers sick. We have a programme that has consumed vast resources and delivered nothing but embarrassment. We have General Dynamics winning awards for project controls while producing vehicles that cannot be safely operated. I note with interest that when asked whether performance bonuses relating to Ajax had been paid to officials over the last three years, the Ministry responded:

“This information is not held centrally and therefore can not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.”

[Mr Francois]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry could tell us the bonuses of the head of Defence Equipment and Support, so the idea that it does not know who else got a bonus is totally and utterly laughable?

[James MacCleary]

I do; it is an extraordinary response. All we can conclude is that the Ministry means, “Yes, bonuses have been awarded—some of them quite substantial—but we would rather not tell you exactly how much people have been rewarded for presiding over this disaster.” The senior responsible officer for Ajax earns a salary in excess of £160,000—nearly as much as the Prime Minister—with the potential for bonuses of 25% to 30% on top, so we have people earning £200,000 or more while delivering a programme that has been stopped for a fifth of its existence and is now under multiple safety investigations.

This is not merely incompetence; it is systemic failure. The 2023 review of the programme exposed precisely that—systemic and institutional problems. We need to know what progress has been made in fixing these issues, and we need to know what safeguards are in place to prevent further delays, cost overruns and, most importantly, threats to our soldiers’ safety. I ask the Minister directly: is the Ministry of Defence considering an internal investigation into how the programme could have progressed so far without those major issues being identified? Someone, somewhere, has been signing off on milestones and accepting deliverables when the fundamental problems are still unresolved.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a fundamental reform of defence procurement, and Ajax demonstrates precisely why such reform is so desperately needed. We would tackle these long-standing problems by replacing the current system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous review of security threats and evolution of defence plans. As has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks, the world does not wait for our periodic review cycles, and neither should our procurement system.

We would ensure that defence procurement is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy, securing a reliable long-term pipeline of equipment procurement. Industry needs certainty, as do our armed forces, but the current approach provides certainty for neither, especially with the continued delay in releasing the defence investment plan. We would collaborate properly with our European and NATO partners on the development of new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training. We would make capital spending allocations more flexible to reduce what is called annuality, and focus instead on meeting the required in-service dates. We would invest properly in recruiting, retaining and training staff with specialist skills at the Ministry of Defence, reducing its dependency and expenditure on external consultants.

The concerns about Ajax should raise alarm bells about the continuing poor state of procurement at a time when Britian must be rearming rapidly. The geopolitical situation demands that we get this right, and Ukraine has shown us what modern warfare requires. Our adversaries are not standing still, and we simply cannot afford these failures.

The fact that the Army has paused the use of Ajax vehicles raises serious questions about the operational readiness of the units that rely on them. How does this disruption affect deployment plans at a time when our armed forces need to be fully prepared? What is the impact on training schedules? What message does it send to our personnel about how we value their safety?

The Ministry of Defence has launched a safety investigation, citing an “abundance of caution”, but the public and this House deserve clarity. What exactly is being investigated, who is involved, and when will the inquiry conclude? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said:

“It will be conducted at pace, but it will not be rushed.”

Which is it? The armed forces deserve transparency and reassurance, and they deserve it now. This all sends a worrying signal to our adversaries, which is why it is vital that the Government outline how they will move quickly to resolve the issues and adopt our proposals for a wider overhaul of the procurement system. We cannot afford to lumber on with a broken system while the world around us becomes more dangerous.

Difficult decisions lie ahead. The Defence Secretary has indicated that scrapping the programme in its entirety is possible. Given what we know—given the years of delays and billions spent, and given that soldiers are still falling ill in these vehicles—it is right to seriously consider that option. The mythological Ajax died of shame; one hopes that those responsible for this modern Ajax programme might feel at least some measure of that emotion. More than shame, we need action. The Ajax programme must not be allowed to fail in silence—too much is at stake. The most important thing of all is the safety and wellbeing of those who serve and being able to depend on them absolutely.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents.

The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. They are, I am afraid, the same questions that his hon. Friend asked, so I will have to give him the same answers. All decisions on the new medium helicopter contract will be made as part of the defence investment plan. We continue those conversations with Leonardo. I recognise the importance of the skilled workforce. I will continue speaking to the company, as well as to the trade unions, about that—I am meeting Unite later in the week to have further conversations. I want to see more of the increase in the defence budget spent with UK companies, as we set out clearly in the defence industrial strategy and as the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said we will continue to do. I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman’s passion about renewing our armed forces. We will make those decisions as part of the DIP, which will come shortly.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary.

We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume?

Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?

[John Healey]

I think my statement made it clear that I took the decision to allow US forces to base themselves in the UK after we made an assessment of the legal basis for and the purpose of the planned US operation. That was a responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concerns on that front.

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening co-ordination with allies. In many ways, he is also right to say that the Ukrainians are fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values, and for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine its own future.

On the circumstances of any deployment, the Prime Minister has been clear—as have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planning—that the decision to deploy, and the military plans that are prepared, will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed. That is one of the reasons that I stressed in my statement that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as the long-term peace that we all hope will follow.

The hon. Gentleman urges me to support his argument on the imperative of increasing defence funding to 2.5% and beyond—I support it entirely. He will welcome the fact that this Government have made the difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid and into defence. We have done so because we recognise this new era of threat that we face—an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.

Finally, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment to move beyond that to 3%, and we have made the solemn commitment, alongside all other 31 nations in the NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, and a total of 5% on general defence and national security by 2035. That is a sign of the strength and unity of the NATO alliance, and its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.

Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

[Al Carns]

I have been really clear: I have been working with veterans across the whole UK, with Northern Ireland and with the commissioners to ensure that the protections that we put in place are written into legislation and are well thought-through, so that the process does not become the punishment. People have said in Northern Ireland that the prospects of prosecution are vanishingly small. We must also ensure that other groups, such as families who lost loved ones in the troubles, get truth, reconciliation and justice, but in doing so, we must absolutely protect our veterans. We will put six protections in place; we will get five of them straight into the Bill, and written into law. We are working through the sixth one, a protocol to ensure no cold calling. It will ensure that anybody who is required to give evidence remotely, rather than by going to Northern Ireland, is engaged with by either the MOD or a regimental association. The main aim of involving our veterans was for them to help me articulate how we can stop this process from being wielded as a punishment against those who served our country so valiantly and honourably in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?

[John Healey]

We signed the European Union security and defence partnership in May. We committed ourselves to negotiating with the European Union for access to the SAFE funding arrangements. From the start, we recognised that there would need to be a financial contribution from the UK, but we also said from the start that SAFE needed to be good value for money for British taxpayers and British industry. It did not meet those tests. We were unable to reach a deal with the European Union, but we will continue to back Great British defence industrial firms as they sell into Europe, and we will strike bilateral deals that allow us to do a great deal more beyond the SAFE programme in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the service personnel injured in the recent training incident involving the Ajax vehicles.

The recent revelations about the Ajax programme raise questions that go far beyond this single family of vehicles—they go to the heart of how the Ministry of Defence manages major defence projects, our ability to meet our NATO obligations, and the safety of the men and women who serve so bravely. Meant to enter service in 2017, the Ajax is now getting on for nine years behind schedule, and after more than £6 billion has been spent, the Minister still cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that Ajax is safe to operate. Will he confirm whether the Department has prepared any contingency plan should the Ajax ultimately be deemed unsafe or unviable? If further delays or design overhauls are needed, what assessment has been made of the impact on our NATO commitments, particularly our contribution to the UK’s armoured capability? Our allies will be watching closely, as will our enemies.

Finally, given that this programme has been allowed to drift for so many years at eye-watering cost, is the MOD considering an internal investigation into how these failings were able to progress this far without detection? If that investigation were to be undertaken, could it be expanded further to touch on the issues already raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), about the Boxer tank, the Boeing E-7 reconnaissance plane, and other MOD acquisition failures over recent years? Taxpayers deserve answers and value for money, and our armed forces deserve equipment they can trust.

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

James MacCleary Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Remembrance Day is when our nation pauses to honour those who have served, those who continue to serve and, most especially, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedoms. Indeed, just this morning I was in Polegate, in my constituency, to lay a wreath alongside representatives of the local Royal British Legion, councillors, and local clubs and societies, and I had the honour of laying wreaths in Ringmer and Lewes on Sunday. We MPs have the unique honour of standing alongside people from across our communities—particularly young people; there was a huge turnout of young people at all our remembrance events—as we lay wreaths to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us.

During the second world war, our corner of Sussex saw convoy after convoy of troops and provisions pass through our small villages and country lanes. Indeed, some of those country lanes still bear the scars of tank tracks that damaged kerbs and other infrastructure. In 1942, Operation Jubilee, otherwise known as the Dieppe raid, was launched from Newhaven in my constituency, to test plans for the full-scale invasion of the Normandy coast. The cost was high: in the operation, nearly 4,000 Canadian and British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Every year, we remember those brave soldiers in ceremonies in Newhaven and Dieppe.

Today, in my constituency of Lewes, more than 3,600 households contain at least one veteran. Remembrance Day is an event that brings us together. It is a time of unity and pride, as well as solemnity and reflection. Yet remembrance without action is merely sentiment. True remembrance demands that we translate our gratitude into tangible support for those who have served. It demands that we look honestly at how we treat our veterans and serving personnel today, not just how we commemorate those of yesterday. When we do so with clear eyes, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: that we can do better. That is why I really welcome the publication of the Government’s new veterans strategy this week.

Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. Our servicemen and servicewomen possess unparalleled skill, courage and dedication, and that is the legacy we must uphold. The men and women who wear our uniform today stand in an unbroken line stretching back through centuries, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). They carry forward the same spirit that saw their predecessors stand firm against wannabe despots, from Napoleon to Hitler. But excellence requires investment. Defence is not simply another Department competing for resources but the fundamental obligation of the state—the bedrock on which all our other freedoms depend. Without security, there can be no prosperity, and without defence, there can be no democracy.

The world today is more dangerous than at any time since the end of the cold war. Modern warfare is no longer confined to tanks, ships and planes; it is also fought with drones, in cyber-space and in our data networks. That is why we must be able to move quickly, adapt rapidly, and learn from our Ukrainian allies, who are innovating on the battlefield every day. Britain must be ready to absorb and integrate these lessons and ensure that our own armed forces are ready. This is not the time for retreat or for isolationism; this is the time for Britain to lead in Europe, to stand firm alongside our allies, and to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to defend our nation and our values.

The Government’s commitment to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is welcome, but it is not enough. We need cross-party talks to agree on a rapid path towards 3%, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can work together to achieve just that. Let us be under no illusion: we have the most capable military in Europe, so as the US continues to withdraw forces from across our continent—it recently withdrew a division from Romania—it will be the UK that will be looked to, to step up and lead. We need sustained, long-term investment in our armed forces, not reactive gestures driven by electoral cycles. As we have seen in the strategic defence review, investment will need to be sustained over a long period.

On this Remembrance Day, as we honour those who served before, we must also stand beside those serving today. Recruitment and retention are in crisis; more people leave our armed forces than join. The Haythornthwaite report identified family impact as the most common reason for departure, and one third of military spouses say that they would be happier if their partner left the service. We have failed to provide decent housing and failed to support military families adequately. Three quarters of all personnel live in service accommodation, yet barely half remain satisfied with service accommodation conditions. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £9 billion for military housing, but we must be clear that that is not generosity; it is catching up on the years of neglect.

The housing crisis for veterans extends beyond their time in the service. Thousands of households containing someone who served in our armed forces are assessed as being homeless each year, and, shamefully, that figure is rising. Having veterans on our streets in 2025 is a profound dereliction of duty.

I was pleased to hear the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mention the treatment of women in our armed forces, which I am sure is a major concern for us all. We are all familiar with the terrible case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who took her own life at Larkhill in Wiltshire, and the bungled handling of that case by the Army, which has subsequently come to light. They did not listen to her —nobody listened to her—and the inquest found that the failure to take appropriate action was a direct contributor to her death.

The Atherton report revealed the scale of the crisis: the majority of women who responded to its survey reported experiencing bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. The Ministry of Defence has introduced reforms, but they are not having the impact on the ground that was hoped for. We must implement every recommendation of the Atherton report. We must ensure that the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner has responsibility for handling serious complaints. We must do more to improve conviction rates for sexual assaults within the armed forces. How can we expect women to put their lives on the line to keep us safe when their voices are still not being heard within their own ranks?

Mental health is another critical area in which we have fallen short. More than half our veterans report having experienced mental health problems, yet when veterans seek help, they face long waiting times, inadequate provision and services that fail to understand their specific needs. We must provide comprehensive, easy-to-access, professional mental health support. We must offer regular mental health assessments at key transition points. We must fight the stigma surrounding mental ill health, so that asking for help is seen not as a weakness, but as a strength.

The global security landscape is more volatile and unpredictable than it has been in a generation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered the relative peace that we have enjoyed on our continent for decades. An emboldened Kremlin seeks to undermine western democracies through disinformation, cyber-attacks and attempts to influence our political processes. We have seen evidence of Russian interference in elections across Europe, attempts to sow discord through social media manipulation, and sustained efforts to weaken NATO from within. China expands its military capabilities and asserts increasingly aggressive territorial claims. Instability spreads across the middle east, Africa and beyond. Authoritarian regimes grow bolder, while democracies appear hesitant and, at times, divided.

Our commitment to NATO must therefore remain the cornerstone of our security. Only a few weeks ago, Portsmouth-based HMS Duncan was deployed under NATO command to shadow the Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov through the channel. It was a striking image of an alliance in action: British, French and Dutch forces working together to protect our shared waters. The ageing Russian vessel, limping westward, stood in stark contrast to the cutting-edge capability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer. It is proof that our strength lies not in isolation, but in standing together with our allies, at sea and beyond.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on European co-operation. Does he agree that it would be more than helpful—particularly in the face of Russian aggression, and of the American retraction from European defence that he mentions—if the French Government took another look at how the United Kingdom could be involved in a shared European defence approach? Instead, they are trying to blackmail His Majesty’s Government, for a large pay-off, as we seek to participate in something that is designed to protect all European citizens.

[James MacCleary]

Yes, that is an important point, because European countries working together will be critical in future. We can look at past examples of joint projects; for example, the Sea Viper system used on our ships was developed jointly with other European countries and has been very successful. Europe would be missing a trick if we were in any way excluded from a scheme, given the size of the British military-industrial complex, and the contribution that we can make through not just our primes but our start-ups and our medium-sized businesses, and the expertise that our military brings. It would be quite short-sighted of the French Government, or indeed any other Government, to put obstacles in the way of future collaboration, particularly at a time of such threat from the east.

To truly honour our armed forces personnel, we must uphold the principles they serve by protecting our country with the same dedication and resolve that they have shown in its defence. There are 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, plus 150,000 full-time serving personnel and their families. They are our neighbours, our colleagues, our friends and our family members. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world, but they need to be given the capabilities to meet the threats we face. They need decent housing, comprehensive healthcare, proper mental health support, fair compensation and genuine respect.

Defence is not an optional extra, but the foundation of everything else we hold dear. On this Remembrance Day, let us do more than remember. Let us resolve to act. Let us commit to providing everything that our armed forces community deserves, and let us prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice made by those who gave everything so that we can live in freedom and security. They stood for us; now we must stand for them. That is the essence of remembrance. That is the measure of our patriotism. That is our duty, and that is our obligation to those who serve. Lest we forget.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

On the latter point, I will engage with my colleagues across Government and look into the detail. Putting pressure on Russia is absolutely our priority to bring it to the peace table in due course, and we are working exceptionally hard to deliver that.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Minister was quite right to describe this violation of Polish airspace as unprecedented, but I am sure he would agree that it is not isolated; in fact, it represents the latest escalation in Russia’s campaign of attacks on central and eastern European NATO allies. Just last year, shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw were set on fire, and the leaders of those countries pointed the finger firmly at Russian military intelligence. Just last week, a jet carrying the President of the European Commission suffered a cyber-attack that was initiated by Russia. Russia is clearly not deterred by the current measures in place. Will the Minister outline what we can do as a leading military power in Europe and in NATO to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of our NATO allies who are on the frontline of the confrontation with Russia?

[Al Carns]

We are doing that right now. The defence industrial strategy, the strategic defence review and the industrial rebuild will ensure that we have the right arms—and enough of them—to reinforce the deterrence and, if called to, to fight and win.

Diego Garcia Military Base

James MacCleary Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.

It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?

As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?

[John Healey]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that from this point, this House has the full opportunity to scrutinise the deal. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed the full text of the treaty before this House, together with the financial arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiators have not been giving a running commentary, but he also says that he does not want a running commentary because he respects the fact that in any negotiation, there has to be a private space in which discussions can take place. I have said consistently that when the treaty is ready and put before the House, the full financial information will come alongside it. That has happened today. The proper scrutiny by this House begins today, and when the Bill is published soon, the hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise that, too. On the question of the Chagossians, we will provide £40 million so that the Mauritians can set up a new trust fund for those communities.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the US. This treaty has been negotiated between and signed today by our Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister. It secures a vital defence and intelligence base for Britain, but, as I said in my statement, almost everything we do on this base is done jointly with the US, so of course we have kept the Americans informed and consulted them. At no point has the US had a veto—this is our deal and our decision. I bring it to the House this afternoon because it is in our best national interest and our best security interest.