Oral Answers to Questions

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?

[John Healey]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the issue. He will recognise that, as was pointed out in the strategic defence review, this is a question for the whole of society and the whole of Government. Preparation for greater defence readiness, and greater societal and economic readiness, is going on at present, alongside the work that we are doing in defence with other parts of Government to ensure that we can deliver the defence investment plan. We will then be able to deliver, in due course, a defence readiness Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he posed that question. What happened on Exercise Titan Storm was of serious concern to all Members of this House. It was for that reason that we paused use of Ajax and initiated a number of safety investigations into what happened and the impact on our people, and put in place measures to ensure that we could learn lessons. We have now received those reports and are analysing them, and I hope to be able to make further announcements in due course. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the workers and not just the soldiers in uniform. That is why we are continuing a strong dialogue with General Dynamics and the local Members of Parliament on this issue.

Middle East: Defence

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces in putting their lives on the line for us all.

The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump’s illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. Given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US navy ships, including aircraft carriers such as those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide an assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the middle east?

Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war.

Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are. I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.

[John Healey]

As I said to the House in my statement, all the decisions we have taken and all actions in the face of the current conflict have been defensive in nature and legally well based. That gives a sound foundation for Ministers’ decisions and it gives forces personnel the fullest confidence in the actions they are taking. That is true of those we have deployed in the region and it will be true of those we have embedded, I am proud to say, in the US forces around the world. I am proud that our US-UK relationship remains deep and close, and that we continue to do things together that no other nations will do.

Ministry of Defence

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this topic and the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this debate.

The UK spent £62.2 billion on defence this year. The Government plan to raise that to £73.5 billion by 2028-29. It is a significant sum. But let us be honest about what that actually shows because some of the detail deserves a great deal more explanation than the Government have so far provided. Take the day-to-day spending figures. Investment spending has increased by £10.8 billion, a rise of nearly 23%. That sounds like a lot, but the single largest driver of that increase is a £9 billion jump in depreciation and impairment costs, described only as a “non-routine accounting adjustment.” That £9 billion is the largest single movement in the MOD budget, and the Government have provided no detail whatever on what that really is. I am afraid that is not good enough. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will shed some light on what that adjustment actually represents, because the public, and this House, deserve to know.

On capital spending, the increase is a more modest 0.3%, just £63.7 million. Yet within that is a reduction in funding for single-use military equipment. At a time when Ukraine has taught us the vital importance of munitions stockpiles and consumable kit, cutting that line is a curious choice, so I would again welcome a clarification from the Minister.

We also keep hearing, as we have several times today, about the defence investment plan—the document that was meant to be published last autumn. Autumn came and went. We are now in March 2026, and it is still nowhere to be seen. The Government have made the plan the centrepiece of their defence modernisation narrative, and every time we ask hard questions about procurement, capability gaps or industrial strategy, we are told to wait for the DIP. But the DIP never arrives. I sometimes wonder if the DIP was part of some mass hallucination that we all had last year.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I am getting frustrated about the defence investment plan. Could the Minister, when he sums up, confirm whether it is stuck in the Treasury, and the two Departments are arguing about what it can and cannot include? What is the hold-up between the MOD and the Treasury?

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it is important that that question is answered. It is starting to look less like a plan and more like a convenient excuse for delay. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government today to commit to a firm publication date, not a vague promise but an actual date. Parliament and industry cannot plan without it.

My party has put forward concrete proposals to accelerate defence investment, in particular through defence bonds. We have called on the Government to issue publicly available defence bonds, raising up to £20 billion for capital investment over two years, giving members of the public the direct opportunity to invest in Britain’s security, fixed- term, legally ringfenced to capital defence spending and capped at £20 billion. It is a tried and tested mechanism for mobilising public capital behind a national purpose. We keep hearing how urgent it is to invest, but there is no action.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is always generous in giving way on this point. I hope he has done his homework because I pointed out the last time I asked him that he would have to repay those bonds to the bondholders two years later. Where would that £20 billion come from?

[James MacCleary]

As the hon. Member says, he has asked me that question before. I have done my homework, and we have published the full background. This sits within the Government’s fiscal rules, and is actually a relatively small cost to the Government. Let me now ask the hon. Member—he may wish to answer during his own speech—how his party would invest quickly in defence spending. This is a credible proposal, and I should like to hear credible proposals from others too. We should like the Minister to announce defence bonds, with no further delay.

With conflict in the middle east, it is easy to lose focus on the war much closer to home, in Ukraine. The United Kingdom has so far committed £10.8 billion in military support between February 2022 and March 2026, drawn from the Treasury reserve. The £3 billion annual pledge and the G7 loan facility are welcome commitments, but we can and should go further. The UK holds an estimated £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. My party has tabled the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill to direct those funds to Ukraine’s military, reconstruction, and humanitarian defence, and we are calling for that today.

National security is the first duty of any Government. The spring statement contains real increases in defence spending, and I do not dismiss that, but it also contains a £9 billion accounting adjustment with no explanation, a defence investment plan that remains unpublished, and a 3% target that is still under vague consideration.

British forces are currently engaged in defensive combat operations to protect our bases and citizens in the middle east and eastern Mediterranean. We must focus on not just new kit but existing kit, and it is conspicuous that so many of our vessels are not currently available to the Navy.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear about what is needed. We have proposed pragmatic, realistic steps to make our nation safer now and in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?

[John Healey]

I remember when the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor stood in this House after the election to argue, like the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did, for this country to invest 2.5% of GDP by 2030—the hon. Member for South Suffolk called for it 13 times before the Prime Minister said, a year ago, we would do it three years earlier.

We will look at any way of raising the level of investment going into defence, but the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) could start by recognising that this Government have made a commitment to record investment in defence—the largest increase since the end of the cold war. I note in passing that he seems to be against how we will fund this to reach 2.5% and 2.6% next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?

[Luke Pollard]

I, too, want a closer defence partnership with Europe. That is why we set that out in the Prime Minister’s announcement on the EU reset. We will continue working closely with not just the European Union, but European Union member states, the majority of which are NATO members. That will support their security. We are an important player on the international defence scene, and it is important that UK businesses are able to access markets, not just for the purposes of economic growth, but because that keeps European Union member states safe.

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?