Submarine Service 125th Anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for setting the scene incredibly well, to mark a truly monumental milestone in our nation’s history: the 125th anniversary of the Royal Navy submarine service.

The silent service has been the invisible shield safeguarding the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From the gruelling unsung deployments of the cold war right through to today’s continuous at-sea deterrent, our submariners have stood fast in the deep. They have operated in the most hostile, claustrophobic and demanding environments known to mankind. Winston Churchill said of them:

“Of all the branches of men in the forces there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the submariner.”

I want to use my time today to put on record the immense, proud and historic contribution that Northern Ireland has made to the 125-year legacy. Our province’s history is inextricably linked to the survival and success of the submarine fleet. During the battle of the Atlantic it was the port of Londonderry’s HMS Ferret that served as the UK’s most westerly naval base. It was from our waters that the horrendous fight against enemy U-boats was co-ordinated, keeping our nation’s vital supply lines alive. It was also on the shores of Lisahally in Northern Ireland in May 1945 that the mass surrender of the German U-boat fleet took place—a moment of triumph etched forever into our local history.

Furthermore, during the darkest days of the troubles, our maritime borders were kept safe by the brave deployments of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. We remember operations such as Op Granada where vessels such as HMS Cachalot—a traditional diesel-electric patrol submarine—carried out elite Special Boat Service kayak insertions along the rugged coast from Torr Head to Garron to intercept the IRA’s illegal arms smuggling and protect innocent lives on land.

Northern Ireland’s connection to the silent service is not just a relic of the past; it is an active and living relationship. Right now, Northern Ireland businesses and engineering firms are the ones providing the high-tech muscle and keeping our modern fleet moving. Just recently, Magherafelt-based construction firm Henry Brothers secured millions of pounds in infrastructure contracts at HMNB Clyde, delivering the critical facility upgrades to sustain the current Vanguard class and pave the way for next-generation Dreadnought nuclear deterrent submarines. Our local workers are literally building the secure facilities that allow our submariners to deploy. Let us also not forget the engineering heritage of Harland and Wolff, whose Belfast workforce has historically stood ready to repair and refit the vessels that keep our seas secure.

When a submarine slips under the waves, it disappears from public view, but it never disappears from our minds. The isolation and sacrifice of missing births, deaths and family milestones along with the heavy burden of absolute secrecy is a weight carried not just by the crew but also by the families waiting anxiously back home in Strangford and across the UK. As we mark 125 years, we remember the nearly 6,000 submariners who have gone on eternal patrol and never returned home. We owe them a debt that we can never fully repay.

What has never changed is the courage of the people. The courage, technical excellence and sheer grit of the British submariner remains exactly the same. Northern Ireland is very proud of its role in this history, proud of its industry supporting the fleet today and proud to stand with the silent service for the next 125 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion not only for our servicepeople and the submarine service, but for his constituency. In response to his question about Rosyth, HMS Swiftsure is a demonstrator of the necessary recycling capabilities. Again, I have to point to the fact that although an abundance of submarines and boats in my hon. Friend’s constituency require fixing, the party of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford chose not to address that. I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that point; I was pleased to see his appointment to the Select Committee on Defence.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the critical role that Northern Ireland played during the second world war. I also paid tribute to what the submariners and the Royal Marines did in the conflict in Northern Ireland by stopping illegal weapons coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree—I know he will—that we are not often told about that critical role for our security?

[Mr Bailey]

I agree with the hon. Member about the centrality of Northern Ireland, which I think is symbolically represented in the capturing of the German U-boat fleet during the second world war. That is why, very early on in my role, I made two visits to Northern Ireland to recognise its contribution to our services and defence industry.

This anniversary is also a moment for us to remember and honour—we are on the eve of Armistice Day, so this is particularly fitting—those submariners who did not return and the families whose lives were changed forever by their loss. We remember the nearly 6,000 submariners and 150-plus submarines that never returned. Behind those figures are lives, friendships and families. They must never become simply numbers on a page or used as political footballs. The submarine community speaks of them as being on eternal patrol—an expression of remembrance and of a bond that does not end with death.

Doing justice to that history also means looking ahead. The Dreadnought programme will provide the next generation of CASD. Advanced attack submarines from AUKUS will carry forward the service’s tradition of technological innovation. But our gratitude must be more than that.

I will stray from my script. As I was sitting next to two incredible submarine captains in the Ministry of Defence, they encouraged me to wear the tie of their service today. I will never walk past the dolphins— I understand their importance. I hope that everything I do is reflective of their service.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The advantage of this House is that the Chancellor has brought forward a Budget, albeit one that is inadequate. In Northern Ireland, we are seven months into the financial year and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has still not brought forward a budget for Departments in Northern Ireland, leaving people in the dark as to what money is available for health, education, roads and all the other issues. I welcome the fact that in today’s Budget we have got a £270 million uplift as a Barnett consequential, as well as the £750 million that was available under the review, and I hope that that will stop any further excuses for not having a budget declared in Northern Ireland.

As far as the measures in this Budget are concerned, there are some that I welcome, although I think the Chancellor should have gone further. I welcome the fact that some pensioners at least will not be dragged into paying tax. I also welcome the support for people with their energy bills—although, as for other Members representing rural areas, 60% of people in Northern Ireland will not be impacted by it. They heat their homes using oil, and therefore will not be covered by the relief that has been made available. I think small businesses will appreciate the increase in business rates relief, although it is up to the Northern Ireland Executive as to whether they pass on those changes to businesses in Northern Ireland. The freeze on fuel duty is also welcome.

However, in a place in the United Kingdom that depends greatly on road transport for both getting goods in and getting goods out, the price of fuel is prohibitive. Given that the Government have made billions from the additional VAT on fuel as a result of price increases, I believe they could have gone further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly outlined the issue for hauliers in Northern Ireland, where we have to transport everything in and everything out. Does he also recognise that farmers—for instance, with tractors—as well as the farming community and the agricultural sector, also need to be considered when it comes to such help and provision?

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, any of the big diesel and petrol users would have benefited from greater support from the Government.

On the big challenges that the Government are facing, and which they admit they are facing, there has been very little in this Budget. First, if we are going to get out of many of our economic difficulties, the main issue is to have economic growth. While much has been made today of the micro policies that will affect businesses and encourage entrepreneurs, the fact of the matter is that we are stagnating because we are taxing the life out of businesses. We have the highest tax burden ever, and businesses tell us all the time that the tax on employment stops them recruiting and that the tax on profits stops them investing. If we are going to have economic growth, we must address the issue of the overall burden of taxation, but that has been studiously avoided in this Budget. I am thinking of the farming industry in Northern Ireland. Only yesterday, I met the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which told me that 90% of farmers have now stopped investment plans because of the inheritance tax fears, and I suppose that is true in many other places. With taxation halting people’s investment decisions, that will of course have an impact on economic growth.

Secondly, we have to reduce the debt, yet the Chancellor has told us today that we will actually be borrowing more year on year over the time of this Budget. If we are borrowing more, we are adding to the debt, and if we are adding to the debt, we are adding to the interest we pay on that debt. The Chancellor has even accepted today that £14 billion extra will be required this year just to pay for the increase in the interest we have to pay on the debt. As we continue to borrow, we are not going to get that debt down, and as we do not get that down, we have to tax to pay the interest on it. Again, that has an impact on economic growth, and there does not appear to be a willingness to address it.

Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Government’s response and the support for Saudi Arabia. I understand that the operation is intended to provide defensive support only. I am reminded of the Red sea crisis from 2023 to 2025, when defensive action to protect UK shipping from Houthi attacks escalated into offensive strikes against Houthi targets. What assessment have the Government made of the risk that British forces may be directly targeted, causing further escalation and drawing the UK into a wider regional conflict?

[Mr Bailey]

I always love the opportunity to talk about my past service and commitment. As I said before, we do not discuss the assessments that are made, which could impact the safety and security of our military personnel. We know that our military commanders are comfortable with the deployment and their responsibility towards people. I thank those brave soldiers and service personnel who are deployed on our behalf in the region, delivering those missions and operations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

First, training and exercises are taking place for the remainder of this year. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that when I arrived at the Ministry of Defence, there was an in-year overspend that would have seen us over-committed by the end of the year. As I did at the Department of Health and Social Care, I have sent a very strong message, very early on, and I make absolutely no apology for that. Although this Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, I expect my Department and our armed forces to live within their means. I think that message has been received loud and clear and will help me to tackle the historical problems that we have had at the Ministry of Defence: routine overspending, and challenges with value for money and productivity. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to heckle on those points, they should explain why they under-invested in defence for more than a decade.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I have not had the chance to do that until now. I wish him well in his new role.

Northern Ireland has a reputation for being a supply chain in action; although it has only 3% of the UK’s population, it has 70% of the UK’s Supply Chains for the 21st Century, or SC21, aerospace and defence business excellence awards—gold awards, regularly. Major Northern Ireland manufacturers in my constituency rely on small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver high-quality components and engineering. Will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Northern Ireland’s highly capable SMEs have improved access to defence contracts?

[Wes Streeting]

We are determined to spend more across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the £50 million growth deal will help in that regard. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People will be visiting this Thursday. As I identified when appearing before the House of Lords Select Committee last week, we can be proud of the contribution that defence makes in every corner of the country—whether it is the north-east of England or Northern Ireland. There are some parts of the country where we can and will do more.

Iran

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. It is important to note that that regime does not respect freedom of religion. Back here at home, every one of us, regardless of our faith or religion, must stand up for others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I welcome the Minister to his place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so? I also thank him for the contribution he made in his former life, and the expertise and experience he brings to this Chamber.

I very much welcome the Government’s proscription of the IRGC. Indeed, if I had it my way, I would eliminate the IRGC in its totality so that it would not be a problem for anybody else in this world, but that is not something that the Government can do by themselves.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will go further and seize all the IRGC’s assets in this country, including its buildings, banks and accounts, and can he confirm that the IRGC will be held accountable for its actions—for the people it has murdered, the children it has killed, and the women that have been raped and violated? Are the Government collecting the evidence necessary to ensure that those people who are responsible will be accountable for their actions in this world? I know that they will be accountable in the next world, because they will be in hell burning, but before that arrives for them, I would like to see them held accountable in this world.

[Mr Bailey]

What a great privilege it is to receive my first intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It is important that he gets a full answer to those questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) will cover them adequately in his closing remarks.

Defence Spending and Readiness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am responding to that intervention, if hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I am going to take one more intervention, and then make some progress.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservatives for what they are bringing forward today. Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that. As an example of how warfare is changing, the papers today are talking about warfare that could be done by artificial intelligence, with maybe some 10,000 drones. The Minister for the Armed Forces who resigned mentioned that in his personal statement in Parliament last week. When it comes to deciding the defence strategy, does the shadow Minister agree that we must look at new technology and at how wars are going to be fought? They will be different, but we need to be on the winning side, so is it not time we did that?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Member’s interventions are always at the cutting edge, and he was spot on there. It is not just about the funding. As he says, with warfare changing so fast, we need to prioritise capability.

Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative, so it is incredibly worrying that, once he finally got to see the defence investment plan, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was

“not built for the threat we face.”

This country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting-edge drone tech produced by UK small and medium-sized enterprises. I cannot emphasise enough that we were a leader.

When we consider the progress we were making in supplying drones that were so effective on the battlefront in the spring of 2024 and in bringing forward extraordinary counter-drone capability such as DragonFire, it was another strategic blunder by Labour to put procurement on hold while we waited for the strategic defence review, and now while we are still waiting for the defence investment plan. With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

That is not something I want to be drawn on in the Chamber. I have not seen the news report, and I believe that the answer to that question would have to come from the Government.

As well as making sure that we are speaking to the public about the things that matter to them, we must broaden out the conversation. When we talk about national security and defence readiness, we are not only referring to Ministry of Defence budgets; we should also be talking about what it means for energy security, food security and everything else that makes our country safe—from economic security to delivering the skills and apprenticeships that we need for the future. We must engage the public on why this subject matters to them. If we say that we must spend more on protecting our North sea or national grid infrastructure, we must also say that if we do not, it will put up household energy bills by even more and cause blackouts—those are the consequences. When it comes to, say, energy infrastructure, we must always be clear that some things cost money. If we want a more energy-secure, resilient nation, people will be asked to pay more, in one way or another. That is the nature of defending our nation properly and effectively.

I am very proud of the steps that this Government have taken to prepare our armed forces for the future, having been left a hollowed-out armed forces when they took over. The Conservatives have talked about parties across the House not spending on defence since the end of the cold war, and to a point I agree with what they are saying, but the threats were there in 2014 and beyond, and there was no mass drive from any party in government to increase in defence spending. The warning signs were there already. It is this Government who have had to pick up the mantle, move forward and make the kind of changes that we need. We have awarded 1,400 major defence contracts since July 2024. In Scotland, we have a £10 billion frigate deal with Norway that will secure jobs on the Clyde. We have been pressing for the £8 billion Typhoon deal with Turkey, and for the upgrading of Typhoon jets.

We must look after our people as well, so I am very proud that this Government are updating recruitment policies, and making sure that we have better recruitment and retention. As the Minister mentioned, recruitment is up and pay is increasing. We are turning around the decade of decline under the Conservatives; there has been a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024—the largest on record—and new recruits are receiving a pay boost of 35%.

[Jim Shannon]

I see the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), in his place. We need to ensure that our veterans are looked after. Many have mental health issues, and I regularly come across people who are affected by what they have seen during their service. It has affected them physically, emotionally and mentally. When it comes to the spend that is necessary, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a commitment to ensuring that those veterans who have served and are suffering are looked after?

[Graeme Downie]

The hon. Gentleman always picks out the issues that really matter to our people. The Ministry of Defence’s Op Courage does exactly the kind of work that he is talking about. I am sure that Members from across the House see correspondence on that in their constituency mailbag all the time. We must make sure that we are properly protecting our veterans. Not only is it important because of our responsibility to them, but it is how we ensure that we have effective recruitment and retention in the future. We must be a nation that looks after our serving soldiers.

I have mentioned that I believe we are already in a conflict with Russia. I praise the focus of, and work done by, the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), on the joint expeditionary force in the High North. We are a frontline nation, and our frontline is in the North sea—the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. We need to tackle the threats we face there. We have a partnership with Norway on the Type 26 frigates; that is exactly the type of capability that we must focus on, as well as focusing on the other work done with joint expeditionary force nations.

I want to ensure that the debate about defence in the House, and about budgets, does not become focused solely on a number. We must not think that just because we have hit a particular number by a particular date, our country is safe. It is not. The country is safe when we have the right capabilities in each domain to fight against the threats that we face, be it in the air, on land, at sea, in cyber-space or in any other domain. In our discussions, we must focus on capability. If we have the correct capabilities to defend our nation, we will have spent the amount of money we should spend to defend our nation. I believe that amount is higher than what we are spending at the moment, but the discussion must stay on capability, and should not be about spending money for its own sake. The Government are doing a good job on defence procurement, and on turning issues over to ensure that is not the case, but I urge hon. Members from across the House to please keep that point in mind when we discuss defence spending.

When it comes to defence spending, I hope that we will continue to focus on consensus, where possible, and protecting our nation. I end by again thanking those serving in the armed forces, and all those veterans who served in the past.

Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Bill has four key themes. First, it creates the Defence Housing Service, which is a fantastic move forward; it will change for a generation how our people are looked after in service family accommodation. Secondly, it will make major improvements to our service justice system, which is another fantastic move forward. Thirdly and most importantly, it will look at how we renew our reservists. It looks at how we extend duty for our strategic reserves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On reservists, I am sure that the hon. Member will be aware that the maximum age of recall is being increased from 60 to 65, and the threshold for mobilisation is being lowered. The problem in Northern Ireland is that our reservists are overwhelmingly employed in civilian jobs in our small and medium-sized enterprises, so the changes create real problems. Can he put forward a solution that would enable our small and medium-sized businesses to employ reservists and let them do their duty?

[Al Carns]

As we progress the Bill collectively, we could, in some areas, look at giving better support to employers, but it is worth being clear that the Bill looks to extend service from anything from four to 16 years. It allows for the return to service of ex-military personnel until they are 65. That is being standardised across officers, other ranks, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. By doing that, we will increase our strategic reserve pool. If we get caught in a crisis in any way, shape or form, their skills can be harnessed to help the nation out. There is a further discussion to be had, at a later stage, about how we include civilians in that.

This Bill puts in place a whole range of important provisions—on improving the standard of living and housing for the armed forces, on reserves and on the service justice system—while, importantly, keeping us safe at home and abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend him for his intervention. As patron of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal British Legion, I too am very glad to pay tribute to the amazing work that it does in support of serving personnel, veterans and the wider armed forces family. It has also played an important part in lobbying for what is now new clause 4, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will elaborate.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister again for all his endeavours on behalf of the defence forces. He is an example to us all.

I understand that the Government have extended the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland, but there is a question mark over the responsibility of local borough and district councils in Northern Ireland that may have adverse feelings about the covenant. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is important that the Government bring forward legislation tonight to ensure that every district and borough council in Northern Ireland must adhere to the same rules as those here on the mainland?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, the armed forces covenant should apply equally throughout the four nations of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I know that some local authorities in Northern Ireland take a different view on this matter, but even in Sinn Féin-run councils the covenant should still apply. Northern Ireland has a very proud tradition of providing troops for the United Kingdom’s armed forces, and those troops are as entitled to be recognised and supported by the civilian population as those drawn from any other part of the United Kingdom. So, again, my in-principle answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I thank everybody involved in bringing the Bill to this point today, particularly Ministers and members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It has been a serious amount of work, because this is not a typical Armed Forces Bill through which we are performing our constitutional duty in this House to renew our armed forces; it goes much further than that. It pushes forward our armed forces covenant and makes it real across the country, it finally gives our armed forces the housing and justice that they deserve, and it gives our reserves a true role to play in the defence our nation. That is why we have to pass the Bill. Some really important amendments have been tabled, and I particularly want to cover Government amendment 9 on the armed forces covenant, and Government amendments 48, 51 and 54, which relate to the new defence housing service.

First, the armed forces covenant goes to the heart of this country’s commitment to our armed forces. We have talked about it so much for so many years, but in reality is it justly applied across the country? This Bill goes to the heart of that question, and tries to put the covenant into practice. When we talk about our armed forces, we are talking about a community of those who have served of 4.5 million people, including 2 million veterans who are alive today. Yet for many of them, support has depended less on the principles, and more on a postcode lottery. For too long, the covenant has been the right idea, but too often the wrong experience on the ground.

We have had the principle of no disadvantage, yet delivery has been uneven and inconsistent. Let us take my county of Hertfordshire as an example. It has 11 councils, including four in my constituency. I can tell hon. Members from my own experience that the way those councils apply the covenant varies tremendously. Amendment 9 is so important because it applies the covenant to the new combined authorities, which we will soon have in my county. By expanding that legal duty, we are recognising the simple truth that the decisions that shape people’s lives—in housing, planning, local services—are not all taken in one place, and if the covenant is going to work, it has to exist everywhere that those decisions are made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech. The Minister knows this, because he has practical experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, but we want to see the covenant in its totality there. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) is right that want it to be the same, whether in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Portadown—or Newtownards in my constituency.

There are anomalies in Northern Ireland. For instance, a veteran who has served in and has now left the forces should be getting priority housing. That does not happen, but it should happen, because conditions in Northern Ireland are different from here on the mainland. There are other shortcomings and shortfalls too. In my council area of Ards and North Down, a fellow called Councillor Trevor Cummings is responsible for veterans, and he works very hard to make the covenant happen. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be fairness everywhere. The hon. Member for Stevenage is right to say that—I support him 100%. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes back in, will give us some reassurance in that regard.

[Kevin Bonavia]

As ever, the hon. Member speaks up not just for his constituents, but for the welfare of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland, and I am sure this Government will treat them with the respect they deserve.

In my area, Stevenage borough council has signed the armed forces covenant. However, this is not just about a piece of paper; it is about working to turn that commitment into something real. We are working with the armed forces community, including with initiatives such as the Muster Point—a grassroots mutual support veterans organisation, where veterans talk to each other. The group brings cases to the council and think, “Let’s work out a solution to make sure that this person is not left behind”, making sure that council staff understand the needs of the veterans who come to them. That work in Stevenage is led locally by our armed forces champion, Councillor Claire Parris, who works with veterans at the Muster Point—like Stu Mendelson, Steve Black and many others who have visited this place, including earlier today—to ensure they are not left behind, and that places like this and others across the country are truly for them too.

The reality, though, is that such joined-up, practical delivery has not been consistent across the country. For too long, service families have been told that the covenant exists, only to find that their experience depends on the postcode in which they live. When we look at the Bill, and at amendment 9, the question is not whether we need more frameworks, new office holders or more statements; the question is whether we finally ensure the covenant works everywhere in this country of ours, not just in the places where there is strong local leadership. The duty in this Bill embeds the covenant across the system and ensures that the approach in my constituency of Stevenage is not the exception, but the standard. After years during which the covenant was talked about but not consistently delivered, this Bill will start to make that consistency real.

Secondly, I turn to amendments 48, 51 and 54 on service housing. As we have heard in this debate, for too long service families were expected to put up with conditions that simply would not be tolerated anywhere else. Two thirds of service family accommodation needs major work, repair satisfaction has collapsed to as low as 16% and tens of thousands of complaints have been made year upon year.

Let us be honest about how we got here. That is the legacy of a failed housing model, a botched privatisation that left families living in substandard homes while taxpayers continued to foot the bill. This Government are now putting that right, making a £9 billion investment in our service housing, upgrading or rebuilding tens of thousands of homes and, crucially, bringing homes back into public ownership so that we can finally take back control of standards and delivery. It is not just about comfort; it is about capability too. When only four in 10 personnel are satisfied with service life and morale has fallen to record lows, housing is not a side issue. It is central to retention, readiness and the future of the armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very important point. Other mechanisms for giving leave are available, but I would welcome a meeting with her to discuss the issue further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her question. On this issue, she is a champion—a word often used in this Chamber, but true today. I thank the Minister for her response. When it comes to how the Government promote this issue, it is important when recruiting people to let them know that life in the Army is as normal as civvy life—the same opportunities are there. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is promoted in recruitment, so that everyone knows the opportunities and benefits of joining the forces?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the quite good provision in the armed forces. I think particularly of the maternity pay, which is not always the first thing on people’s minds when they join the armed forces. We offer a range of benefits, beyond pay, to our armed forces recruits when they begin a career. He is absolutely right that we should highlight the package in the round. As someone who benefited from it, I know that there are some excellent things in there.

Defence Readiness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (o), at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret the absence of a Defence Readiness Bill from the Gracious Speech, and the 10 month delay to the publication of the Defence Investment Plan; call on the Government to bring forward both as a matter of urgency; further call on the Government to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament; further regret that the Gracious Speech commits to re-starting inquests into Northern Ireland veterans; and also call on the Government not to progress with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 to protect veterans and improve the morale of all who serve in the armed forces.”

It is an honour to open the final day of debate on the King’s Speech on behalf of the Opposition. Today’s debate is on defence readiness. May I begin by expressing how saddened I was to hear of the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan from the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery? My condolences, and those of the whole Opposition, to her family, both personal and regimental.

Before turning to the defence-related matters that were or were not included in the Government’s programme for the next legislative Session, I pay tribute to the men and women serving in our armed forces right now across the globe, whether they are on board our nuclear submarines, which provide a continuous at-sea deterrent, or deployed in the middle east to defend our overseas bases. I thank them for their service and unwavering professionalism.

I also pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian allies, who continue to defy those original expectations of an early Russian victory. When we take steps to publicly show our sympathy for Ukraine’s heroic struggle—for example, by wearing badges, as I have done every day since the invasion, or by flying the Ukraine flag from local and national Government buildings, we do so not just to show solidarity with a democratic nation under brutal attack by a dictatorship, but because it is firmly in our national interest to assist Ukraine in keeping Putin’s military in check. When newly elected councils make it their first priority, on entering office, to pull down the Ukrainian flag, we are entitled to ask if the party in question cares about the fate of its people, and understands the implications for our national security of Russia triumphing.

Finally, I pay tribute to all those who served our country in the past: our brave veterans. That brings me to Labour’s plans, as set out in the King’s Speech. Of all Britain’s military capabilities, few are more important to our defence or more widely admired, particularly by the United States, than our special forces, yet at a time of war on two fronts, Labour is ploughing on with a Bill that will reopen vexatious legal actions. That not only threatens our veterans, but would undermine the morale of all who serve today, particularly in the special forces. Those special forces include the Special Air Service, and those in the regiment that was on duty in Loughgall in 1987, and who shot IRA terrorists who were driving a digger with a bomb in its bucket towards a police station, and firing machine guns into the building as they approached. I believe that those soldiers were acting to defend our society from terrorists intent on mass murder. Whatever one’s view, surely going back almost 40 years to events that took place in a split second makes no sense.

Crucially, in October 2023, coroner Justice McAlinden declined to list a new inquest into Loughgall precisely because of the cut-off date set by our legacy Act, which therefore did its job of halting such cases and genuinely protecting our veterans from endless litigation. However, in his comments, Justice McAlinden added that preparatory work for the inquest should continue, because there would be a general election the following year, and that might affect how the legislation was implemented. He had a point, did he not?

Fast-forward three years, and with war now facing us, not just in Ukraine but in the middle east, the Government of today remain intent on repealing the protections that we put in place for veterans. It goes without saying that Labour’s plans will harm our veterans, once again keeping them awake at night with the fear that they will be hauled before our courts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister for bringing this matter forward. He is right to put it on record; it is very much part of this debate. However, this goes further than the veterans who cannot sleep at night, and the families who are worried about what will happen to their father, brother or sister. Does he agree that this is affecting recruitment? Those who want to join the Army are saying, “If we join and get involved in a battle to protect this country, we could find ourselves being persecuted for it, or taken to court.” Does he agree that, for that reason and others, the Government must be fair, when it comes to legislation, and must listen to the points that he put forward?

[James Cartlidge]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very good interventions. He has hit the nail on the head. This is not just about veterans, as important as they are; it is about the wider impact on recruitment. Indeed, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it, or his. In November last year, nine former four-star generals wrote:

“This lawfare is a direct threat to national security…The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”

I say this to Labour MPs: when considering the troubles Bill and the issue of lawfare, surely the overriding factor to consider is the threat that we face as a nation, and the impact of the legislation on our ability to defend ourselves. Do they really think, in their heart of hearts, that this is what they should be prioritising, when we need our soldiers more than ever? I put this challenge to all those who intend to stand in Labour’s leadership contest. Will those candidates seeking to become our next Prime Minister recognise that the first duty of any leader is defence of the realm, and that it is therefore in the national interest to scrap the troubles Bill and back our brave veterans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome everything that the Government are putting forward with the spend in Northern Ireland. The Minister has committed himself to that and there have been lots of visits to Northern Ireland to make it better, but the UK spend per head on the mainland is £400 and the UK spend per head in Northern Ireland is £80, which means there is a big difference in what has to be done. What steps will be taken to improve procurement and defence contracts for businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can have equality?

[Luke Pollard]

We have a brilliant defence industry in Northern Ireland. That is why this Labour Government backed it with a £50 million defence growth deal that I announced only a few weeks ago in Belfast. We will continue to support businesses large and small in Northern Ireland.

In the past week alone, this Labour Government have deployed advanced autonomous minehunting equipment, backed by £115 million of new investment for minehunting drones and counter-drone systems for the strait of Hormuz, and signed a £1 billion contract to equip the British Army with new remote controlled artillery. We have equipped our Typhoon jets with the advanced precision kill weapon system, which will make shooting down Iranian drones cheaper and easier for our RAF, and we have announced funding for 13 new defence unicorns. We are a Government that are backing UK jobs as we rebuild our armed forces, and we are also delivering for our people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that the Government need to improve and be better at is drone technology. For every one Ukrainian soldier killed, drones have killed 14 Russians. With that massive move in technology, does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is time for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to have a partnership with Ukraine? The technological advances that it is making could be part of our work.

[James MacCleary]

Learning from Ukraine has been very important. To be fair, the Government have made some steps in that direction, but we can always do more to learn from our friends who are testing this technology in the field day in, day out.

Defence takes time. Industry needs a demand signal, our allies need confidence and our adversaries need to see resolve. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. That is not a slogan or a press release, but a serious plan to make Britain safer.

We must also understand that Britain’s defence does not begin and end at our border. That is why forcing a choice between spending on defence and international development is entirely false. Just yesterday, former senior British officers wrote in The Times about the danger that cuts to development pose to our security and described aid as the “first line of defence” for the UK. The Government must urgently reverse course on the cuts, which only undermine this country’s security and soft power around the world.

Last year’s strategic defence review highlighted the need for an urgent injection of cash into our armed forces. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate launch of defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years to support immediate, capital-intensive defence investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is always a privilege to speak in this House and to represent the people of Portsmouth, a proud naval city built on service, innovation and hard work. As Portsmouth marks 100 years of city status, and as the city bids to become the next and the first ever southern city of culture, there is a real sense of pride, ambition and resilience.

Defence readiness is not just about the hard shiny stuff—it is about everything. In Portsmouth, defence is not an abstract Westminster debate but part of our identity. It is in our dockyards, our naval bases, our engineering firms, our supply chains, our communities and our homes. Generations of people in my city have helped to defend this country, and they continue to do so today, but people in Portsmouth also know what happens when Governments fail to back British industry properly. Under the Conservatives, Britain’s and Portsmouth’s shipbuilding capacity was absolutely hollowed out. Skills were lost, opportunities were missed and too many communities like Portsmouth were left behind, despite the enormous contribution that they have made and can make to our national security.

This decline did not happen overnight, and reversing it will require long-term commitment, serious investment and tangible action. That is why the second King’s Speech of this Labour Government matters. We have delivered real and lasting change for our armed forces community in our first two years, with the largest pay rise for the armed forces in 22 years and £9 billion of investment to upgrade thousands of forces homes, making them fit for service personnel and their families—changes that I have seen at first hand. These changes—alongside providing a named housing officer for every service family to improve the repairs process, and updated rules that allow families to decorate how they wish and keep pets without seeking permission—go some way towards giving back.

We have established the independent Armed Forces Commissioner, with powers to investigate general service welfare matters; we have put in place new targeted retention measures to keep those with valuable experience in the forces; we have expanded the early years childcare funding overseas to match the offer available in England; we have invested in cadets; and we continue to support specialist mental health and homelessness services for veterans. I am proud that, through my persistence, I have secured an Operation Valour centre in my city. A lot has been done, but there is so much more to do.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on being a strong spokesperson for the forces, particularly the Navy. She referred to cadets. We have a strong cadet force in Northern Ireland; all we need is a bit of extra money to ensure that thousands of extra cadets can be recruited. Most of the officers in charge work for a small fee or in a volunteer capacity. Does she agree that, when it comes to cadet forces, a lot more could be done for a lot less, but that the benefits and dividends would be incredibly great?

[Amanda Martin]

The hon. Gentleman makes some valuable points.

This second King’s Speech provides an opportunity to go further to continue to renew our contract and commitment to our armed forces, to strengthen British industry and to ensure that defence investment delivers real benefits to communities like mine.

I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) about the necessity of NATO and the threats—both visible and invisible—that we face as a country. At a time when the world feels more uncertain and dangerous, working together to strengthen our armed forces and national resilience is not optional. Our commitment to NATO and to closer working with our allies is crucial, as is the need for a public conversation about the threats and our priorities, so that, like our Nordic allies, we can have reasoned and sensible conversations in households, schools and community spaces, and do not leave the internet and the right-wing press to scaremonger.

Portsmouth has huge strengths in defence, aerospace, maritime engineering and advanced manufacturing. Companies such as Portsmouth Aviation, Accuracy International, Harwin, and Griffon Marine are already delivering world-class expertise and highly-skilled jobs. Alongside primes such as Airbus and BAE Systems, they demonstrate the depth of talent that exists in our city. I particularly welcome the new partnership between Airbus and the Solent Growth Partnership—a collaboration to create the UK’s first ever space and defence apprenticeship matching programme. This new initiative ensures talented young people who narrowly miss out on the highly competitive Airbus apprenticeships are supported into alternative, quality opportunities with local SMEs. In just two months, the partnership has already begun to support 50 young people, helping them to gain the advanced skills needed for brilliant careers in defence. This is exactly the kind of workforce development we need more of. If Britain is serious about defence readiness, then we must invest not only in equipment, but in people, skills and industry.

Portsmouth has not always received the level of investment that it deserves, and after decades of neglect, many local businesses want to see clearer signs that opportunity is coming their way. The Government have done much work to unlock defence investment and opportunities for finance, but my local businesses tell me that more needs to be done. We must have the defence investment plan, and we need other opportunities for partnership and finance so that our SMEs can be agile and innovative in their research and development, and manufacturing. I look forward to enabling and working with the Department and the Treasury to unlock this investment.

I was really disappointed to see that none of the Government’s defence manufacturing construction colleges were awarded to Portsmouth or our surrounding area. Our city has the industrial heritage, skills base and defence experts to play a leading role. I would like to explore with the Department how we can access this opportunity further and close the gap. Portsmouth businesses and Portsmouth people do not want special treatment; they just want a fair chance to survive.

As a proud naval city, Portsmouth understands the sacrifices made by our armed forces, veterans and military families better than most. We also understand the enormous contribution made every day by the workers, engineers, apprentices and small businesses that help to keep our country safe. One of the greatest strengths of Portsmouth is its people, and the way that people from all faiths and backgrounds stand together. At a time when many faiths and communities have felt under attack or targeted by division and hatred, we must continue to work together to protect tolerance, respect and community cohesion across my city and this country.

As we begin this new Session of Parliament, my focus remains solidly where it has always been: on working hard for Portsmouth North, championing local businesses, and ensuring that our city plays a full and leading role in building a fairer, stronger and more secure United Kingdom. As a Member of Parliament, I am going to pull every lever possible in this Government to ensure that these are not just words on a page, but tangible actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I extend my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who sadly died on Friday following an incident at the Royal Windsor horse show.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I thank him for his powerful speech. I am delighted to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech.

Rural Britain is home to nearly 10 million people. It produces our food and is critical to delivering net zero. It is also host to much of the infrastructure our defence depends on. From naval air stations and training estates to solar manufacturers and helicopter production lines, to the farms and energy networks that keep the country running, rural Britain is not a backdrop to national defence; it is the backbone of it. The rural economy, however, is nearly 20% less productive than the national average. That gap is not, and should not be, inevitable. It is a product of policy choices, and those choices matter for defence readiness as much as they matter for growth.

Glastonbury and Somerton sits at the heart of Britain’s defence industrial base. RNAS Yeovilton—HMS Heron—is home to the Fleet Air Arm, Wildcat and Commando Helicopter Forces. In Templecombe, Thales Group designs and manufactures the sonar systems that are the eyes and ears of the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet, and it was awarded a £1.85 billion contract two years ago to keep doing so for another 15 years.

My constituency is also home to companies that are important to the defence supply chain, such as Needles and Pins Aerospace based in Somerton, which provides precision textile engineering for aviation and defence. Just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), Leonardo helicopters employs around 3,300 people, many of whom live in my constituency.

Leonardo is the UK’s only end-to-end rotary wing manufacturer. I welcome the new medium helicopter contract that was finally awarded in March, but the path to that decision should worry every Member of this House. This is no way to run a defence industrial strategy. The defence investment plan was promised in autumn 2025; it is now May 2026, and the delay has created a credibility issue with industry and our allies.

Releasing a plan is not the same as funding or delivering one. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that this Government must commit to 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, and we have called for cross-party talks to agree the route to get there. We have also proposed a £20 billion defence bond programme to kick-start investment in the capital-intensive assets the strategic defence review identified, because, as the IFS itself suggests, borrowing to invest in defence can support economic growth, particularly when spending is investment heavy. We must also restart negotiations to rejoin the EU’s €150 billion SAFE rearmament programme so that British defence firms, including those in Somerset and the south-west, can compete for European contracts and the UK can play its full part in collective European rearmament.

Defence readiness also depends on how we treat those who serve. As chair of the APPG on women in defence, I believe it is crucial that we see at least 30% female representation across the defence enterprise by 2030. Last night we held our summer reception, which was well attended by hon. Members, members of our armed forces and the wider defence community. In conversation with the managing director of NP Aerospace, I was shocked to learn that women are 7% more vulnerable than their male counterparts on the frontline simply because they are wearing body armour that does not fit. The Ministry of Defence has said that it could deliver new armour plates from 2029, but that equipment cannot come soon enough.

We are increasingly at risk of international and geopolitical shocks, rising prices and food chain disruption. The obvious solution, one would think, is to incentivise farmers to grow enough food here at home, yet England is the only country in Europe that does not financially support farmers to produce food, stymieing food production and innovation in the food and drink sector. The omission of a good food Bill is a massive missed opportunity to back British farmers, improve public health—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, I am afraid, due to time.

A good food Bill would also give our food system the long-term framework it badly needs. A national food strategy is needed now more than ever. Ignoring the largest British business sector is short-sighted—the rural economy cannot grow while its largest sector is left without a plan.

To conclude, defence readiness is about not just the frontline, but whether the country behind the frontline is resilient. Rural England is not a backdrop to national defence; it is its backbone. If this Government are serious about defence readiness, they must be serious about backing rural Britain, backing British industry and backing the men and women who serve our country.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by paying tribute to Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan of the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery, who tragically died at the Royal Windsor horse show. She was a brilliant young soldier, and her commanding officer described her as a “fearless and gifted horsewoman.” I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with her family and comrades as they come to terms with her loss.

I also want to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel for their professionalism and dedication. Right now, we have servicemen and women keeping us safe 24/7 in the most difficult circumstances at home, under the sea and around the world in over 30 operations. I offer them our profound respect and gratitude.

It is a privilege to close this debate on the Gracious Speech on behalf of the Government and to do so at the special request of the Chief Whip. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a legislative agenda to strengthen Britain’s economic, energy and national security—a decisive break from the failed past. We are a Government who will cut bills, back workers, lift children out of poverty, reform the NHS, control borders, rebuild ties with Europe, accelerate clean energy and invest in defence.

Over the five days of this King’s Speech debate, we have had speeches from 297 Members, including 37 from Back Benchers in the debate this afternoon. I had the privilege of opening the last King’s Speech debate 22 months ago, and I quoted then what the then Chief of the Defence Staff said to me on my first day in this job: “You are taking on this role at the most extraordinary time in my 35 years of service.” Events since have only reinforced that judgment.

Putin’s aggression is growing across Europe. He is escalating his attacks in Ukraine, increasing air incursions into NATO airspace, and reopening cold war bases in the High North. Only today I revealed details of the dangerous interference with the RAF Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft—an unarmed surveillance aircraft—by two Russian jets over the Black sea. We have démarched the Russians over this totally unacceptable act.

We have war in the middle east, with Iranian airstrikes threatening British lives, British interests and British partner nations across the region. Here at home, we have defended ourselves from Russian spy ships and from subs in our wider waters; we do so daily in the face of cyber-attacks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee, said that Russia is already operating in the grey zone. The right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) both said that people do not know what threats we face, and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said that the world is more dangerous now than it was during the cold war.

At the same time, the US has rightly challenged European nations to step up and take on more responsibility for European security. We are, and we will do further. This, therefore, is undeniably a new era of threat that requires a new era for defence. In the coming years, we will ask more of our armed forces personnel. It is only right that they expect more of their Government and their nation.

We were elected on a promise to renew the nation’s commitment to and contract with those who serve and the families who support them. Through the Armed Forces Bill, we are in part delivering on that promise, extending the armed forces covenant into full legal force, delivering better defence housing, and providing better protections for those who serve through reforms to the service justice system. Through the Bill, we will bolster our readiness by introducing new legal powers to bring down unidentified drones over UK military bases.

We will also expand the pool of our British reserves. That point was made so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is reserve himself. He said that the focus must be more fully on our reserves. We have made a commitment to grow our reserves by 20%.

[Jim Shannon]

I speak as a former member of the reserves and a part-time soldier for 14 and a half years back in the ’70s through to the late ’80s. In that time, we could recruit plenty of reserves, but today there seems to be a problem with recruitment. I am reminded of that ’60s song, which I am old enough to remember, “The Times They Are A-Changin’”—and we understand that. What more can be done to ensure that reserves can get on with their role as reserve soldiers at the same time as holding jobs? It is really important to have a job and be able to do the reserve role as well.

[John Healey]

It is indeed; the hon. Gentleman is right. We should pay tribute to, support and welcome those employers who make it possible for their staff and employees to serve as reservists. We do so in the civil service, and there are many very good commercial firms that do the same. We need more to do that, we need more to serve as reservists, and we need to change the terms on which our reservists serve. That is why we are making amendments through the Armed Forces Bill.

It is fair to say that Members on both sides of the House urged on me questions about the publication of the defence investment plan. The Chair of the Defence Committee did so, as did the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who spoke from the Dispatch Box to wind up for the Opposition, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). Everybody wanted the DIP published sooner, including me. The Prime Minister knows of its importance and has been clear to the Liaison Committee that it is a personal priority. I say to those on both sides of the Chamber, and particularly to Opposition Front-Bench Members: we have to get this right.

The equipment programme and the procurement plan that we took on was over-committed, underfunded, and unsuited to our changing threats and battlefield conditions. Defence has not done a line-by-line assessment of how it spends taxpayers’ money for nearly 20 years. The last Government made commitments of tens of billions that were not funded. [Interruption.] The shadow Defence Secretary is chuntering, but let me use an example that he himself used. He announced a £10 billion munitions strategy: it was never developed, never published and never funded. It was announced, of course, just weeks before the election. Those are the problems that we have to sort out.