NATO and the High Arctic

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for leading the debate in such a helpful way. He set the scene, the focus and the strategy, and he asked questions that I was going to ask—great minds think alike. He has a greater mind than me, by the way. I thank him for all that he does in this House. In the year and six months or thereabouts that he has been here, he has made a name for himself in canvassing the Chamber and in the way that he presents his case. He has done his constituents proud today, and he should be congratulated on that.

The High Arctic may lie far away from our coastline, but the sea lanes, the airspace and the critical undersea infrastructure are fundamental to the United Kingdom’s security and economic wellbeing. Defence is obviously about protecting our people and our assets, whether they be around the United Kingdom or further afield, but it is also about economic wellbeing. I am very impressed by the Government’s commitment to the defence industry on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. The Minister has always told us about the Government’s commitment.

We have seen the financial commitment to weapons and cyber-activity through Thales and SPIRiT, and the Government have been keen to build on that. After the south-east of England, Northern Ireland is the most credible part of the United Kingdom when it comes to cyber-security, and I welcome that very much. That is down not only to the companies that we have but to the Government’s commitment to that, and we thank them for that.

Complacency must never be an option. I am pleased to be here to discuss this issue and see what more we can do to support the High Arctic. I am a fair weather person who likes sunshine and heat. It is highly unlikely that I would be seen in Norway and I have no interest in skiing because it looks too cold for me. I enjoyed watching the winter Olympics on TV and it was good to see our team doing well. Five times we came within 0.2 seconds of winning another medal. That tells us about the achievements of this wee country and makes us proud to be British.

Over the past few days we have heard all too well the importance of national security and infrastructure. My goodness—not a day goes by when we know what will happen next. I am a man of faith, so I trust in someone better in control who is in heaven looking down at us. I am quite clear in my mind where my faith and trust lie. In the world, there are 67 wars: think of that. It is almost a world at war, and we have seen that reflected in the middle east in the past few days.

The High Arctic has proven central to Atlantic security and maritime trade routes and the importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Sometimes that is forgotten about. Some hon. Members have travelled to Greenland, but President Trump’s focus on the country has made us think about its importance. Maybe we did not see it in the way we should. I thank those hon. Members who have been instrumental in that. I understand that the hon. Member for Halesowen is going there shortly.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Of course, we are at risk in our democracy of looking at things in the very short term. With climate change, 30 years from now the access to key rare earth minerals, and possibly shipping lanes, in the far north may have changed considerably.

[Jim Shannon]

That is the focus we need to have. Climate change is affecting the world. We might find ourselves in a slightly different geographical position in a short time. The right hon. Lady has illustrated that to our advantage.

The Greenland-Iceland-UK gap remains vital for monitoring submarine activity. I can never understand how anybody can get into a submarine; it is too claustrophobic for me, but I admire those who do, as they play a vital role in the defence of this great nation. It is no secret that Russia has expanded its Arctic military footprint, which may be what Trump is looking towards. We need to be aware of Russia’s input, especially its submarine operations, air bases and missile systems. The Arctic region is a key domain for undersea infrastructure. Protecting the integrity of UK security is a major priority. NATO allies must remain as a cornerstone of support in doing that.

When we focus on the importance of where we are, we support the policies that strengthen deterrence rather than encourage confrontation. I cannot remember which one, but a US President said:

“Speak softly but carry a big stick.”

That reminds us that we must have a deterrent—the nuclear power and the submarines and the strength of the Army—to persuade others not to go to war. That is the ultimate goal we all try to achieve. We must also maintain readiness to respond to threats and ensure that military deployments to Norway and the north Atlantic are exercised and fully trained. Again, we see commitment from the British Army and NATO, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Poland. Those troops are the best.

The hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned the Marines, and there are none better. When I was a wee boy, I was always saying, “I am going to be a Royal Marine.” As an eight-year-old, that was my big ambition. It obviously never happened, but I did serve part time in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the Royal Artillery. It was a slightly different role and not as exciting as the Marines—it never could be—but it was an incredible role.

We often have discussions around defence spending. A proper budget is needed to perfect intelligence and surveillance of the High Arctic. In strategic terms, sea lanes and undersea cables are vital. I asked the Minister a question over recess, and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy came to the main Chamber maybe six or eight weeks ago and referred to undersea cables. In my question to the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), I asked about the undersea cables that come across the North sea, down to England and across to Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a soft belly. Do we have a role to play in securing the undersea cables that go from there across the Atlantic as well? Of course, the Republic of Ireland does not have the Royal Navy, the Army or the personnel that we have. Are there discussions, or is there a relationship or a defensive agreement, between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the undersea cables that go across the Atlantic are protected? The Chair of the Select Committee was unable to confirm that. That is not a criticism; I am just saying that I asked a question and the answer could not be given.

The undersea cables and the Arctic’s stability affect trade, energy and global security. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and the United States have shared interests in terms of the Arctic region. Of course, President Trump has made his opinions clear in relation to Greenland, but close co-operation ensures that NATO can respond rapidly to threats, particularly from Russia. The United States, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned, has bases in Greenland. It has feet on the ground and it is building up to using that footprint as a protection or a launchpad. It is important that we have that relationship with the United States.

To conclude, I stand firmly for a united NATO, a credible deterrent to aggression and robust investment in our armed forces to ensure they are equipped for operations in the High Arctic. We have an enduring partnership with the United States of America and we must strengthen our ability to defend vital waters and airspace. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of ships being built for the Royal Navy to enhance its position. I know the Government are giving everything to enhance investment—that is never in doubt—but maybe the Minister could tell us about their commitment to the Royal Navy, which is clearly needed.

I say this with incredible respect. For 10 days our base in Cyprus was potentially under attack. My comment is not an attack on anybody, but why on earth did we not send a ship to protect Cyprus 10 days ago? It niggles me whenever we see the French and the Germans giving us protection.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am sure the Minister will respond, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are allies of ours in the Mediterranean as well, including a large American flotilla. It is appropriate for us to work closely with other air defence assets. The single ship that we have sent would not have changed the situation entirely; there are other assets out there as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The point I am trying to make is that there is a perception across the world that the United Kingdom, who ruled the waves 300 years ago or whenever it was, has not got a ship that it can send. That sends a message. The hon. Gentleman is right about working with our allies. We cannot fight a war on our own any more; we have to do it collectively, but there is something that niggles me whenever I recognise that. It is not meant to be an attack on anybody; I am just making the point that we need to be seen to be proactive.

Army Reservists: Employment Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop.

I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades.

Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015. But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts.

As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.

Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I met the Forces Pension Society guys on Monday. I did not know that he had actually secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, but when I showed them what he wanted to say, they were incredibly interested, and wanted to put on record their thanks to him.

My right hon. Friend understands, much better than I do, that Northern Ireland has identical legislation that provides the same protections for part-time workers, and that consequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s reserves. I should declare an interest, as one who served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this process must be handled quickly, and that urgency is of the utmost importance to ensure that we right this wrong and stand with our ex-service personnel who should never have had to fight their Government—their Minister—for what should rightfully have been theirs?

[Gavin Robinson]

I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.

Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.

Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.

The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

New Medium Helicopter Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the New Medium Helicopter programme.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Minister for coming to answer pressing questions. I recognise how hard he and his team work and the headache that we must be giving him by going on about the new medium helicopter.

After retiring the Puma from service last year, the UK currently has a capability gap. We have no medium-lift helicopter ability for our armed forces, which means there is a clear requirement for helicopters to transport troops, equipment and supplies over long distances and difficult terrain on a wide range of missions. Although we hear a lot about the future of warfare, in the age of drones and even greater technology development, crewed helicopters are still key to a joint force that will allow our military to respond effectively to the ever-growing threats we face.

We have a gap that needs to be filled. That is what the new medium helicopter programme is for. As the last remaining bidder for the £1 billion contract, Leonardo is ready to fill that gap by offering the AW149 helicopter, built at the home of British helicopters in my constituency of Yeovil. The Minister will tell us that it is far more complex than many people outside defence may realise, but I think he can appreciate that it does seem quite simple. There is one bidder in a contract; that is a win, win, win. It fulfils a capability requirement, will help to boost defence spending and modernise our armed forces. It will provide investment in the British jobs and apprenticeships in Yeovil, which is what the Prime Minister told me he is determined to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to highlight jobs in his constituency and further afield, because many other companies depend on this work. Does he agree that this contract is crucial for replacing the RAF Puma HC2 fleet, and is critical to national security? The Minister and Government must prioritise and fund the replacement accordingly. The dithering must come to an end and action must be taken.

[Adam Dance]

I agree that we need action. We need to ensure that we arm our forces with the correct equipment now. By contrast, not awarding the contract is lose, lose, lose, particularly for my constituency.

The future of the new medium helicopter is the future of Yeovil. Leonardo has been clear that if the programme does not go ahead, it will need to seriously consider the future of the Yeovil site. That puts more than 3,000 skilled jobs at the Yeovil site directly at risk, alongside 12,000 in the regional supply chain and the £320 million contribution to local GDP. It would also lead to a huge loss of investment in my community—starting with £1.2 million to Yeovil college, which does fantastic work training the skilled people we need in our defence sector—and the loss of the Westlands entertainment centre, and would leave a new solar farm unfinished, and so much more. It will be the death of my town. Local businesses have told me that they will shut overnight if Leonardo goes. House prices will fall and young people trained in Yeovil will leave.

Not awarding the new medium helicopter also has a knock-on effect for our country’s defence. That point gets a little lost in jargon of sovereign capability. If the site in Yeovil closes, we risk losing our country’s ability to build our own helicopters from start to finish, at the exact time that the world is becoming unstable and insecure. Put like that, as people back home tell me, it sounds insane not to get on with the programme and secure the future of the Yeovil site.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the inadvertent promotion he has given me. He is right to talk about the necessity of ensuring that political donations are transparent and in order. That is an area in which the Government have already set out some changes, and I want our politics to learn lessons from the experiences of the past to make sure that donations are clear and transparent, which was not always the case under the last Government. However, I take seriously the issue that he has raised, and if he writes to me with the detail of that particular donation, I would be happy to look into it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He is well known for his decency; he is a good Minister, and always tries to answer well. As he knows, I have been a firm supporter of the need to enhance defence—both physically and in the cyber world—so I welcome the defence contract. However, public confidence is at an all-time low due to the Mandelson debacle, and his connection to Palantir naturally raises questions, which is why this UQ has been tabled today. How can the Government assure us that this firm was awarded the contract not due to any connection, but because it can provide the best program and the best defence for our nation?

[Luke Pollard]

I am a big fan of the hon. Member, too. I have been clear in my answers today that the decision to extend the 2022 contract signed under the previous Government was made by the Secretary of State alone. It was his decision to do so. We are procuring new AI capabilities to speed up our delivery of outcomes within defence. We know that our adversaries are using AI in how they position themselves, and it is necessary that we do so, too. He is right that as we deploy more artificial intelligence, not just in defence, but across our wider economy, we need to secure a level of confidence in the contracts and in the technology itself. That is a bigger debate than this one, but I understand precisely where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the previous Government, forces families were severely let down on housing. Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will, as he rightly notes, be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is massive improvement in forces housing, but there is a site at Ballykinler that has been lying vacant for, I understand, five years. It is heated, and it has new windows. There has been lots of work done. I have written to the MOD, asking whether it is possible for properties that are not being used to be used for another purpose. For instance, they could be used for youth camps, for youth groups or for social housing, because this site in Ballykinler is secure. The Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but I would very much appreciate an answer on that.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot provide an update on that specific instance now, but I will get an answer for him. We are exploring how we can make best use of the existing estate.

Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on setting the scene and the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on his excellent contribution; both had plenty of knowledge and information. It is always nice to see the Minister in her place, and I wish her well in her role. I remind her gently of the invitation to come to Beyond the Battlefield in Portavogie in my constituency; maybe she will be able to confirm that shortly—it is nothing to do with this debate, but I wanted to take that opportunity to remind her.

Our armed forces protect our freedoms and deter aggression in a world that has become increasingly volatile. The defence sector employs tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while sustaining thousands more in supply chains, and underpins our sovereign capability. In today’s climate, where threats have become much more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war, the 2025 strategic defence review highlights the importance of private investment, stating that the sector must make a

“concerted effort to unlock private capital and expertise”,

and outlines the environmental, social and governance role in this sector. I am reminded that the pastor of my church, the Baptist church in Newtownards, said last year that there are 67 wars in the world. It is a world at war, in the truest sense.

From June 2028, ESG ratings providers will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, with new rules on transparency, governance, conflicts of interest and stakeholder engagement. There has been a significant shift towards identifying those factors since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is always in our minds; the pictures and stories from Kyiv in the paper today remind us of the pressure the Ukrainians are under. Morningstar data shows that exposure to aerospace and defence has increased across European funds, including those with ESG labels. That reflects a growing recognition that a strong defence industrial base is essential for security. This Government’s defence industrial strategy sector plan must emphasise the importance of making the defence sector more attractive to private investment, as the Government continue to support and increase it, which I congratulate them and the Minister on. The money they have allocated for Northern Ireland is very welcome, and I appreciate it.

I want to highlight two important examples in Northern Ireland that demonstrate both the challenges and the opportunities. Thales UK, located in east Belfast, is a key player in defence innovation. I have visited Thales on several occasions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I remind the House of the £1.6 billion deal announced in March 2024 for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles, which are one of the reasons why Ukraine has been so successful in holding her own. Production of those missiles is currently supporting approximately 700 jobs at Thales, while also supporting Ukraine’s defence efforts in the current conflict.

The work done at Thales highlights Northern Ireland’s key position in, and contribution to, the UK defence industry. As I said to one of the Minister’s colleagues in the Chamber, I am very keen to ensure that Northern Ireland’s defence sector can see more of the contracts and opportunities. I know the Government want to do that—I am not saying they are not doing it—but I emphasise that again.

Thales has been proactive in engaging with ESG principles by contributing to the drafting of the UK defence ESG charter in 2024 through ADS Group, integrating ESG criteria into supplier selection and supporting the UK’s low-carbon transition through energy-efficient technologies and cyber-resilience. Far from being restricted by ESG, Thales continues to demonstrate that responsible, ethical practices do strengthen capacity to compete, while attracting local talent and building investor confidence in a sector that is vital to our national security. I am very encouraged by Thales’s introduction of apprenticeships this year, which it is committed to. Thales pays some of the apprentices’ fees, and they get a good wage. That is really constructive and positive, and it comes through the business that the Government here do with Thales and what Thales does as a company.

I am proud to raise another example of Northern Ireland’s contribution to our defence industry: the historic Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast, which is one of only three naval shipyards in the UK equipped to carry out major Ministry of Defence work. We are very pleased that it is central to Government policy once again. In 2023, Harland & Wolff became part of the Team Resolute consortium with Navantia UK and BMT, after having been awarded a £1.6 billion contract by the MOD to build three fleet support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service.

The impact on the shipyard will be significant. It will include upgrades such as new automated panel lines and advanced robotics, and the technology will move forward to meet the ESG criteria. Harland & Wolff is committed to long-term, ethical production and sustainability while providing jobs in Northern Ireland, and it is really proactive in meeting those criteria. If we want to move forward with a policy, we have to bring companies with us, and that is clearly happening in Northern Ireland. To be fair, I think it is happening across the whole of the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to commit to issuing joint guidance with the Treasury and the FCA to financial institutions to clarify that responsible investment in UK defence companies, which is vital for national security and jobs in places such as Belfast, can be fully compatible with ESG principles.

I will conclude with this comment. I very much welcome the fact that the Government are prioritising private investment in defence, but we must build on that by providing clearer policy guidance. It is in the national interest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that our defence industry continues to be supported by Belfast-based firms such as Thales and Harland & Wolff. I ask the Minister to identify and support measures that unlock investment, increase contractual opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland, in particular, and maintain our defence sovereignty.

Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

On the local connection test, as with a lot of things, the previous Government talked a lot but we have got on and done a lot of those things, and the Bill takes that intent and determination several steps further.

Let me move on to housing, because behind many of the men and women who serve our country are husbands, wives, partners and children, who support them in their service, and who bear the weight of their absence during deployments. For those families, the nation has a moral duty to provide safe and decent housing. As recent Governments failed, satisfaction with military family homes fell in 2023 to its lowest level on record. I, and many other Members of the House have seen why: damp, mould, broken boilers, ill-fitting doors and windows, even a hole in the wall of a children’s bedroom. None of us would tolerate our families living in such conditions, and neither should those in our armed forces. It is a betrayal of service, and the crisis in defence housing tracks back directly to perhaps one of the worst ever privatisation deals.

Under the terms of the Annington sale in 1996, the taxpayer picked up all costs for maintenance, repairs and rent, but all the benefits of development opportunities or increases in property value were surrendered to a private equity fund. When I was appointed Defence Secretary 18 months ago, that deal was costing the taxpayer over £600,000 a day. Just six months after the election, our Government reversed that, bringing more than 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can now plan and invest in the future. Twelve months after the election, we delivered our consumer charter, guaranteeing what should never have been in question: higher move-in standards, quicker repairs, a named housing officer for every family, and renovations of the very worst homes, 1,000 of which were completed ahead of schedule before Christmas. Our charter also tore up rules that should never have been written, so that forces families now have freedom to decorate their own homes, and keep pets without seeking permission.

In November we published our defence housing strategy, and our plan for the wholesale renewal of service family estate, backed by a landmark 10-year investment programme, totalling over £9 billion. All told, nine in 10 of all forces family homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. Less than three months after the defence housing strategy was published, the Bill delivers a central recommendation of that strategy: the creation of a specialist arm’s length organisation, the Defence Housing Service. With the plan, the investment and now the Defence Housing Service, we will end the scandal of service families living in substandard housing, and we will deliver the homes the country needs. When Labour said at the election that we would stand on the side of our armed forces, this is what we meant.

All those who serve our country rightly expect to be able to do so with the fullest respect, and they must certainly be able to do so free from any fear or abuse. Last year we commissioned and published the UK’s first military-wide survey into sexual harassment. We did that to provide for the first time a no-holds-barred baseline to confront the problem fully. The results were sobering, concluding that two thirds of our servicewomen and one third of our servicemen experience some form of sexualised behaviour. Let me be clear: such behaviour has no place in our armed forces, just as it has no place in any workplace—not now, not ever.

The previous Government took steps to improve victim and witness care. We can see some of the benefits of those steps, but it is also clear that more must be done. We have established a new, single tri-service complaints team to take the most serious complaints out of the single-service chain of command for the first time. We have launched a pioneering new prevention programme in Catterick and Plymouth, working directly with young recruits on our bases, to prevent unacceptable behaviours. Through the Bill we go further to strengthen protections for our service personnel, and ensure that perpetrators have nowhere to hide.

Together, provisions in the Bill will make available in the service justice system a comprehensive range of protection orders, including for sexual harm, domestic abuse and stalking. It will strengthen supervision of offenders on release from prison, and ensure that service restraining orders are enforceable in the criminal justice system once a defendant has left the armed forces. It will place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice, setting out the services that victims can expect to receive in the service justice system, and it will allow victims to choose whether they wish to have their case heard in a civil or military court, although the formal decision will be taken by the prosecutor.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am greatly encouraged—I think we all are—by what the Secretary of State has said about victims. I am conscious that sometimes we have young people—perhaps aged 16, 17 or 18—joining the forces and finding themselves under pressure, away from home and from their parents, and they might be vulnerable to start with. It is important that a structure is in place where they can make a complaint, and that that complaint will be heard, not lost somewhere in the system of those above them, whether they are officers, sergeants or corporals. Is looking after those vulnerable people who need help at the beginning, and access to people who understand their circumstances, part of this process?

[John Healey]

Like the hon. Gentleman I am deeply proud that our armed forces will take 16-year-olds and give them skills and discipline, and change the course of their career and future life. If they suffer any of the abuse and harassment that I am talking about, the tri-service complaints team will take that out of the single chain of command. Cross-party support has allowed us to legislate as a House for an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who has the power to deal with complaints and to launch inquiries if they pick up a pattern of problems, so safeguards and protections are in place. I hope that will give more confidence to young people who are looking at a future career in the armed forces, as well as to their families, who want to see them launched well in their lives.

Make no mistake: these are substantial reforms, reflecting both the seriousness of the problem and our resolve to root it out. These measures are a result of the Ministry of Defence being part of a cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy for the first time ever, and Ministers and chiefs being united and determined for the first time to play a part in this Government’s central mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman says. I pay tribute to his constituent and to all those who sacrificed so much in that campaign.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for what he has said, but let us be honest that President Trump should never have made that statement, no matter what. My constituent Channing Day gave her life in Helmand province, and I think of Colin Thompson, who was invalided out of the Army because of an injury on the frontline in Helmand. They are just two out of many. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel, as I feel for my families, hurt by what President Trump said? President Trump has apologised, but he should never have said it in the first place.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head, and I need add nothing further. We all agree and we pay tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan.

Moving on to the Bill, given its necessity to ensure that we have functioning armed forces, we will not seek to divide the House. Indeed, on national security, we should always strive for consensus where possible, as has particularly been the case on Ukraine. We have presented a united Parliament to our adversaries, which should be a source of national pride. However, as with any major piece of legislation, there will be many issues of detail that we will want to tease out in detailed scrutiny in Committee.

While we inevitably have concerns about the underlying issue of defence funding, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support in principle. In particular, I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the armed forces covenant. Having been the party that first introduced the covenant, it will be of no surprise that we support moves to strengthen both its purpose and delivery. That said, when it comes to our veterans, we remain resolute in our total opposition to the Government’s policy in respect of those who served in Operation Banner to protect all of us from terrorism. The House surely cannot ignore the fact that as we debate this Bill, which is designed to strengthen our armed forces, Labour continues in parallel with its plan to repeal our legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—and threaten a new era of vexatious claims against former soldiers. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will say more about that in his winding-up speech.

On the Bill’s proposals relating to the service justice system, there is recognition on both sides of the House that we have massive lessons to learn. Work to improve the system began under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State recognised. After publication of the Atherton report, which identified cultural failings in the forces, the then Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, took steps to enforce changes so that we could better protect women in the armed forces. In 2022 we introduced a series of new policies—for example, clamping down on unacceptable sexual behaviour by introducing a zero-tolerance approach and banning instructor-trainee relationships of any sort. We also established the defence serious crimes unit. As a result of the changes we made, more people have been empowered to come forward, and service personnel who have breached those policies have been discharged or convicted as a direct result.

I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to ensure that the service justice system protects victims of the most serious offences from further harm. The reality is that implementing cultural change in any large organisation does not happen overnight, but we will work with the Government in the forthcoming sittings on the detail of their proposals to ensure that we find a better way to deliver justice in the armed forces.

Let me move on to the proposed changes to the reserve forces. I pay tribute to all those serving as reservists, including, as was pointed out, those on Operation Interflex—they are a critical part of our fighting strength. That said, given the heightened threat level that we face today, we can surely all recognise that nations geographically closer to the Russian threat, such as Finland, draw a major part of their overall military strength and, thereby, conventional deterrence from possessing a large and active reserve.

As such, it is important that we understand more of the detail about the Government’s plans to increase the number of active reservists by 20%. That is stated in the strategic defence review, but with a vague timeline—

“most likely in the 2030s”.

We can all see that there is a big difference between 2031 and 2039, and that the threat we face is nearer. In his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us if that will be in the next Parliament or the one after that?

We also welcome proposals to make reservist life more flexible, particularly incentivising regulars to stay in the reserves as they explore new careers. In fact, that is exactly what was suggested in the Haythornthwaite review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It made the important recommendation for so-called zig-zag careers, enabling far greater flexibility between reserve and regular service. We welcome that and will look at it further.

Let me move on to the Bill’s proposals for armed forces accommodation. Buying back the defence estate was my top strategic priority as Minister for Defence Procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank the Minister and the Government for all they do. I mean that genuinely, because the Bill before us has lots of good things on which we should be encouraged to support the Minister. I am also pleased to see the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), in his place. I look forward to his comments at the end.

I want to declare an interest as a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years and a member of the Territorial Army for the Royal Artillery for 11 and a half years. As a former serviceman, I know very well the impact of being well funded, because that means being well supported, emotionally and practically, and that applies never more so than this week when our brave troops have been disparaged as they have been. It is imperative that this House refutes and repudiates that smear on the brave young men and women who gave their all. I mentioned that in an intervention, and I say it again for the record.

I think of Corporal Channing Day from 3 Medical Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday 24 October 2012 while on patrol in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province. She was a 25-year-old Comber girl, my constituent, who paid the ultimate sacrifice and gave her life while helping others. She was not somewhere in the background, to quote President Trump. She was on the frontline, and her mum and dad, Rosemary and Leslie, still grieve for her today. She and others in the armed forces were the best in the world, and their brothers and sisters in arms continue to uphold their legacy and sacrifice and the motto that she served under in the Medical Corps: “Faithful in adversity”. We need to be faithful in adversity for her and for all the others who have served. The Bill before us today reminds us of our duty to be faithful to them and I therefore support it.

I work closely with the veterans champion for Ards and North Down borough council, Alderman Trevor Cummings, who over the years has highlighted the disparity in the application of this duty in certain areas. It is my desire, and indeed that of the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, that this disparity is stamped out and that the application of obligations is accepted and implemented UK-wide, so my ask of the Minister will be in my next comment. As we all know, in Northern Ireland the treatment of our armed forces greatly varies across the Province. This was demonstrated in the abuse received by British Legion supporters at a Tesco store in Newry just last year. It is little wonder that veterans feel unsupported in certain areas when local charity fundraisers are treated in this manner.

There is a real requirement for this legislation to apply foundationally across the United Kingdom. As Help for Heroes has stated, this Bill has the potential to strengthen legal protections where public bodies fail to consider properly the needs of the armed forces community in policy, funding and service decisions. My ask of the Minister is for improved consistency and fairness across the United Kingdom, so that when things happen in Northern Ireland that should not be happening, recognition will be for all. We also need to reinforce accountability and delivery at national and local levels, and it is our job to ensure that the Bill does just that.

I am aware that our Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone—the Secretary of State referred to him earlier—is working on models to improve the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans at governmental level, acknowledging the unique position that Northern Ireland finds herself in. I believe that the Bill will aid him in trying to ensure that every governmental Department abides by our obligations from this House and not by its own personal desires.

That also leads me to ask the Minister to outline whether the Bill will ensure that the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner is on an equal footing with the rest of the United Kingdom Commissioners. It is currently a non-statutory appointment, which means that the post lacks the formal legal powers and duties that statutory commissioners in other parts of the United Kingdom may possess. I hope the Minister does not mind my asking that question directly, and I would like to have an answer, please.

I further support Help for Heroes in its three asks of the Bill. The first is that the duty should apply to all relevant public bodies. For consistency and accountability, the legislation and subsequent regulations should ensure that the duty applies across the full delivery system of all four nations. The second is that statutory guidance must be clear and enforceable by clearly setting out expectations, responsibilities and minimum standards, underpinned by formal monitoring and reporting arrangements. Thirdly, veterans should have clear routes to redress where the duty is not met, and Parliament should be able to scrutinise delivery effectively. A robust evidence and accountability framework is essential.

Time has beaten me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what a time this is to remember just how much we have to be thankful to our armed forces for. They are the best in the world, and their training, courage and fortitude are the stuff of legend. They deserve the certainty that this nation, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will do right by them and their families while they serve and when they retire, no matter where they retire to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

In the strategic defence review, we have committed to an increase of 20%. First, reserve spending went up in 2023-24 from £189.9 million to £202.4 million, so what the right hon. Gentleman says is factually incorrect. Secondly, on personnel statistics, in the last quarter our trained strength in the reserves has risen from 28,000 to 29,000. I think we need collectively to check our statistics.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that to stand here and tell the world about our ability to respond to article 3 would be slightly misguided. He mentioned the creation of quangos, but if he had read the Bill fully he would recognise that the reserve forces and cadets associations are going from 13 to one so-called quangos, with an increase of one in the Defence Housing Service, which is absolutely required to deliver an effective housing service. He will also know that Op Valour means more money for veterans than ever before. Tranche 1 of the funding has now been closed, and recruitment is fully under way. If he would like to talk through why the recruitment has been paused in the past, I am more than happy to talk about that offline, but I want to ensure that the right person is in the right job, so that the programme is a success.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for her passionate and unrelenting support, which is not lost on me—it is second to none and super impressive. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has such a resounding history in the armed forces—it really is impressive. I know that supporting everyone in that constituency is a passion of his.

Will the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) please write to me about the issue with Pauline? I would like to look at it in detail, as I know would my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) welcomed the support for Op Valour. Her support for the Bill as it progresses is useful, and she always champions our armed forces constituents.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was, as always, articulate and to the point. I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland and to the armed forces Veterans’ Commissioner, and while the covenant is applicable to the whole United Kingdom, we must consider how it is executed within the devolved Administrations. I am willing to work with the hon. Gentleman and a collective group of Northern Ireland MPs to ensure that we implement it as best as we possibly can, while accepting that there are nuances with security and how it needs to be implemented as a whole.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister—that is a superb response. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), David Johnstone, and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) are the people with whom, if possible, we would have that meeting, and constructively work together to do better for our veterans in Northern Ireland.

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member has my word that I will continue to engage with him and move that forward.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) that there is no Navy without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—it is as simple as that—so well done for pushing that ten-minute rule Bill and including in it delivering support to the RFA that is truly needed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for her support for the armed forces. It is consistent and super powerful, and I appreciate it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for his kind words and, importantly, his impressive support for veterans and the roll-out of Op Valour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has continually supported the covenant and the armed forces as a whole, and the impact on immigration is something we need to look forward to as the covenant rolls out more broadly. I agree that the removal of the C-130 was a bad thing. The continual support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for the cadet forces and the armed forces community is second to none and really impressive.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his support for the armed forces community and, in particular, for housing, which has been impressive throughout. Indeed, we saw the first few houses in the roll-out of 1,000 houses getting renewed—the Secretary of State and I were there to see the good, the bad and the ugly, and it was great to see that we had landed on the good with so many houses for armed forces personnel in his constituency. Finally, the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) for parachute battalion 16 Air Assault Brigade, and in representing serving families and veterans, is second to none.

From my perspective, it is quite simple: the Armed Forces Bill is moving forward in four key areas. First, for defence housing, we are creating the Defence Housing Service, moving it away from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, increasing capacity and upskilling professionalism as we look at defence housing as a whole. For the reserves, it is about extending service from 55 to 65 for those individuals in specific roles who can still add value to the military up to that age. It is also about making the transfer more seamless, and standardising the recall from six years to 18 years consistently across the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The Bill is about better support, with the covenant moving from three to 14 Departments and policy areas. It is about us renewing the contract with those who serve. Finally, the Bill is about better protections. It is about sexual risk orders, domestic abuse protections and orders, and stalking protection orders. Indeed, it boils down to the ability of victims to have choice. Since the Lyons review in 2018-19, we have changed defence significantly when it comes to how we look at serious crime. We created the serious crime unit under the previous Government, and it has gone from a fledgling organisation to one with a fully upskilled and up-gunned ability to deal with the most serious crimes. It is deeply impressive, so if anybody has any concerns about how we are dealing with the most serious issues across defence, they should please come and see me, the Secretary of State or the Minister for Veterans and People, and organise a visit. We will happily deliver that to ensure that hon. Members can go and visit it.

In summary, this Bill garners support from Members from all parts of the House. There are some issues that we will debate repeatedly over the next several months, but I think that we will get to a really good place that supports our serving armed forces across the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, our reservists, our service families, our veterans and our whole armed forces community, including all the charities that support them as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

(2) The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 30 April 2026.

Committee of the whole House, Consideration and Third reading

(3) On report from the Select Committee, the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.

(4) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(5) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill: Money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or the Defence Council, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Ajax Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for setting the scene incredibly well and providing lots of detailed information that is beyond my knowledge; hopefully he helped to set the scene for the Minister’s answers.

Ajax was, and is, intended to be a cornerstone of the British Army’s future capacity, providing modern awareness while protecting the soldiers who operate it. Getting it right is therefore essential, not only for military effectiveness, but to ensure the safety of those who operate it. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I know we will not be disappointed.

There have been issues surrounding Ajax, and it is of major importance that they are resolved. For example, some service personnel experienced injuries from excessive noise and vibration, which resulted in manufacturing being paused and major safety investigations being launched; those issues were put down to design integration issues rather than error. There have also been major delays, with full operational capability delayed by many years. The programme is valued at some £5.5 billion—with billions spent before vehicles are even usable—and there are major concerns regarding value for money.

The Ministry of Defence is responsible for keeping personnel safe and ensuring that the programme delivers value and capability. Ajax must meet the Army’s operational needs and fit into wider defence plans, and we should not persist with a system that cannot be safely or effectively used. Hon Members have concerns regarding the use of Ajax—the hon. Member for Huntingdon told us what they are—so I was pleased that the Minister committed after the last debate on this topic in Parliament in December to resolve the issues. That is why his reply today is important.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member may know that the previous National Armaments Director, Andy Start, was paid a performance bonus in 2023-24 of £165,000, and another one in 2024-25 of £160,000, while this was going wrong on his watch. Does the hon. Member agree that if Ajax is, unfortunately, finally scrapped, Mr Start should pay that money back?

[Jim Shannon]

If he has not done the job, there should be no bonus. That would be the same for anybody, no matter who they are—you get a bonus because you do it right. But the Minister can perhaps answer that question better.

It is important that these issues have no knock-on effects on essential supplies getting to the battle zone. These delays have left the Army without a modern tracked reconnaissance vehicle, forcing reliance on ageing platforms that are not up to speed for the modern world of today. Full operating capability is now expected for 2028-29—years later than originally planned. It is down to the MOD to ensure that our Army does not suffer as a result.

To conclude, resolving the issues with the Ajax programme is vital for the safety of personnel, the effectiveness of the British Army and the credibility of the MOD’s procurement process. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and the Government how they can address these issues and restore confidence in what should have been a successful programme for the United Kingdom.

Arctic and High North

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Arctic and High North on UK security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to introduce this debate and emphasise the importance, as we have seen in the past week, of the Arctic and the High North to UK security.

The UK’s geographic position, distance from fighting in Ukraine, and Russian airborne or drone incursions in Estonia or Poland can lead to people feeling that the threat from Vladimir Putin is someone else’s problem. However, we sit at the gateway to one of the most vital pieces of real estate on the planet: the High North and the Arctic. That gives us outsized importance, but also puts us at potential threat. The Harvard Arctic Initiative’s new report on power shifts and security in the region highlights how the rules-based order is being challenged in the Arctic, just as it is elsewhere around the world. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes and unlocking potentially vast reserves of oil, gas and minerals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of melting ice: whether it be climate change or simply that the ice is melting, it is a key issue that cannot be ignored. The melting ice makes us more accessible, but we have forewarning, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Does he agree that it is past time that we, as NATO members, took the Chinese and Russian threat in this area much more seriously, and that we must immediately enhance cold water capabilities and ensure that our strength and ability is equal to any threat that may emerge from any country?

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree. I will cover those points about the challenges that we face in the Arctic from both those powers.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of conversations about Aldergrove, and I suspect we will continue to do so. It is important that, as part of the defence investment plan, we continue to maintain lift capabilities across our armed forces. That will include a mix of crewed and uncrewed, and will lead into autonomous systems, as will be laid out in the defence investment plan when it is published shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We all know that the Minister is a very honourable man, and we like him for the answers he gives us, but today we need confirmation of the dates—everybody has asked similar questions. He will be aware that delays in UK Ministry of Defence contracts create cash flow challenges, forcing delays in the MOD’s own operations. I know that from experience; 95% of defence companies in Northern Ireland are small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less equipped to absorb the financial strain of prolonged procurement cycles. Will the Minister please agree to an overhaul of the contractual system so that it acknowledges those who are dependent on contracts and makes the right decisions in a more efficient way, and will he begin the overhaul by making the decision that we have clearly and very much demanded to hear today?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for the defence industries in Northern Ireland. He will know that this Government placed a £1.6 billion order for new missiles from Northern Ireland. Those are a key component of our efforts to keep our friends in Ukraine safe. We will continue to procure from Northern Ireland businesses. Indeed, we are looking forward to the development of the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which I hope will enable us to take a substantial step forward shortly.