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.

Army Reserve

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Army Reserve.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to have the Minister in her place; she brings with her a distinguished service record and is recognised across the House as having a genuine commitment to our armed forces. I am sure that she, like me, recognises that the role of the Army Reserve has changed in recent years. When we debate this issue, we are not simply talking about training days with the reserves; they play a much more active role in supporting defence capabilities on a daily basis.

In bringing forward this debate, my purpose is not to strike a partisan tone. There is much on which both sides of the House can agree. First, the Government are right to say that the threat to our national security has increased, and increased materially. The strategic defence review is right to focus on expanding our reserves as one of the measures that we need to take. The Armed Forces Bill, despite some of the noise in the media, has a number of sensible measures on updating legislation. There are areas, as a foundation, that all sides of the House can agree on.

My principal concern is the gap between the Government’s words and their delivery. In particular, I am concerned about their delivery in the context of negotiations with the Treasury, and in the context of a No. 10 that is perhaps distracted by other issues and not as focused on responding to the national security threat with provisions such as the reserves.

I will address that point through three areas: first, the reserve numbers; secondly, a specific issue this year around the Government’s commitment to reserve service days, a material issue on which it would be helpful to hear directly from the Minister; and thirdly, funding prioritisation and to what extent—given some of the media stories regarding the Ministry of Defence and the wider context that it faces—funding, whether for equipment or estate for the reserves, will be ringfenced or secured this year.

On numbers, Members on both sides of the House recognise that boosting the number of our reserves is probably one of the best-value options for the MOD in terms of building defence capability. It is what I would regard as low-hanging fruit—something that should be done. The SDR set a modest ambition of a 20% increase, but I think we should be doubling the numbers this Parliament; other countries such as France are doing that—and from a higher base, so up to over 100,000.

Even on the Government’s more modest ambition of 20%, if we actually look at what has happened since the general election, there was an initial fall in numbers until the SDR. In that non-partisan spirit, however, let us just look at the numbers since the SDR: in that period, there has been virtually no increase. Since coming into office, the number of reservists fell by 119 personnel—not particularly consequential—but since the SDR, it has risen by just 249.

To put that in context, on the Government’s current trajectory, it is going to take 13 years to meet their own more modest target—a target that is a fifth of the French target and that starts from a lower base. In other words, it is going to take 13 years just to add 20% to our reserves, when the French are going to double theirs. The record so far does not match the Government’s words about the increased threat and the importance of the reserves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate. I declare an interest as a former reservist for 11 and a half years. I used to have hair then—that is how long ago it was. He will be aware that as of 1 January 2026, the trained strength of the UK Army Reserve was some 23,740, a decrease compared with 1 January 2025, and its total trained strength has continued to decline over the years.

I always try to be constructive and helpful to the Minister and the right hon. Member who secured this debate. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need to invest in the cadet forces, particularly those attached to schools across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and encourage our young people to train as reservists while still pursuing their career choices?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing commitment to the cadets and the military in general. The cadets is a recognised pipeline into the armed forces, and I am sure the Minister recognises its importance in giving people their first taste of military experience. Again, I think that is an area of agreement.

The first point I want to land is that in the first two years of this Government, the number of reservists has fallen overall, if we take the quarterly statistics published in April that give the numbers to January. The current record does not match the Government’s words. My second point is on reserve service days and this year’s commitment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Again, there is a lot of agreement in the House about these points. With that in mind, I will suggest a couple of potential solutions—I always think it is better to come with solutions than with problems—and ask the Minister for an update.

First, it would be great to have a clear signal to units about reserve service days. Secondly, the Minister will be familiar with the case of Major Milroy, which goes to the issue of fairness. The Government have lost twice in tribunal. There was a debate on that case a couple of months ago, so it would be helpful to have an update. Thirdly, Labour Members often talk about the perils of zero-hours contracts, but of course reservists are often in essence on zero-hours contracts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering a statutory underpinning for employers’ commitments.

[Jim Shannon]

On the comments by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I recall my time in the Royal Artillery during the Falklands war. This relates to the issue of whether a person can retain their job should they be sent to the front. We were not going to go to the Falklands, we were going to go to Germany, and the frontline troops were going to go to the Falklands—but that did not happen, because the numbers were there on the ground to make sure that it did not. I remember going to my boss—I worked at Henry Denny at the time—and saying, “Mr McCluskey, it looks like we might be called up, and I’ve been told to let you know. The reason I am telling you is because I understand that you have to retain my job, so that when I come back, I will get my job back.” In the society we live in, it is important for employers to understand that they have an obligation to their employees.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the numbers for the Army, which are considerably higher than those he suggested for the Navy and the Air Force. It is right that we distribute and allocate our forces personnel against the mission taskings they are given, but he is also right to talk about the key importance of protecting our undersea cables, including in his part of the world. It is precisely for that reason that we are seeing more investment in technologies that enable us to defend, monitor and protect those undersea cables. As he will know—we have met a number of times to talk about this—I want to see more investment in every part of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and I hope to bring him good news on that next week.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am looking forward to the good news. I thank the Minister for his answers today and for his positive TV interview this morning, which encouraged us all, but will he also announce the next stage of the defence growth fund? No one doubts his commitment or interest, and he has made regular visits to the defence sector in Northern Ireland. It is so important that Northern Ireland can gain from the defence growth fund incentive and that it completes its own specific growth deal. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, can we expect the balance of the defence growth fund to be announced officially? I think we all know what figure is. It would do no harm to announce it today, Minister.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me. The opportunity for our defence industries in Northern Ireland is considerable, not just in supporting large defence businesses like Thales, which produces the lightweight multi-role missile in Belfast, but particularly in supporting the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are based in Northern Ireland. I was with Boeing this morning, announcing the new helicopter maintenance contract, and indeed Boeing has made a large investment in Northern Ireland.

There is a huge opportunity to make the case that a career in defence—whether in uniform or in a civilian role backing our forces—is not just a good job, but a good, well-paid, decent job that can provide an entire career of opportunities. The more that we can make a positive case for investment in the core defence industries and in the industries that sit alongside defence—such as digital technologies, which could have defence applications—the more that we will be able to keep us all safe and provide young people with good opportunities. I look forward to speaking to the hon. Gentleman and Northern Ireland colleagues further about that opportunity very soon.

Bills presented

Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) (Payment of Fines) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Freddie van Mierlo, supported by Layla Moran, Charlie Maynard, Calum Miller, Olly Glover, Dr Danny Chambers, Pippa Heylings, Mr Will Forster, Vikki Slade, Martin Wrigley, Manuela Perteghella and Rachel Gilmour, presented a Bill to omit from the Water Industry Act 1991 provision enabling water companies to make an application for a change to the date by which a penalty or portion of a penalty must be paid or to appeal to the High Court in respect of such a date; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 420).

Food Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Dyke, supported by Tim Farron, presented a Bill to make provision about a national food strategy; to make provision about certain duties relating to the implementation of that strategy; to make provision about procurement of British fruit and vegetable produce by certain public bodies; to make provision about resilience of UK-farmed food supply; to place a duty on certain public authorities to promote access to healthy and affordable food; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 421).

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Northern Ireland’s essential role in our transatlantic relationship, and in the security of our great isle, is not lost on me—nor indeed is the essential role that Northern Ireland played in world war two. If I can—if it is within the operational parameter—I will write back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the details on the numbers in Northern Ireland. Any discussions taking place with another country, in the diplomatic space, usually involve bilateral benefits.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his statement—no one inside or outside this House doubts his commitment. The Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy made a statement to the House about six weeks ago. I asked him then about the very issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just mentioned. As the Minister is aware, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force protect not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland. Pipelines and undersea cables go from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland and then into the Atlantic ocean. Can the Minister confirm that Russian submarines have not been active in the soft underbelly of the Republic of Ireland, which is a back door to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Al Carns]

I will not go into specific detail on the geographical movement of submarines, but I can say that there are interdependencies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland and a multitude of other European nations in relation to undersea cables. We are working with our allies and partners, and will continue to do so, to ensure that those cables are absolutely protected and that, if any threat appears, it is mapped, tracked and deterred.

Gurkha Veterans

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed contribution. I fully agree, and I will further state that Gurkha veterans, as well as all veterans and members of our armed forces, are lucky to have him as the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and gallant Member on bringing forward this debate. In the time he has been in this House, he has made a significant contribution on Army, Navy and RAF matters, and we thank him for that.

When I was a wee boy—that was not yesterday—I used to read about the exploits of the Gurkhas in magazines or newspapers. I was always moved by their bravery. I never met a Gurkha until I was on an exercise with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They were not that big, but my goodness, they were strong and courageous. The Gurkhas have given their all for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often at great personal cost, as the hon. and gallant Member has outlined. Does he agree that it is only right that we ensure that every veteran, regardless of when they served, receives the dignity, the pension equality and the welfare support that they earned on the battlefield? Does he not agree that words of thanks are just not enough? What they need is practical support, and the Government must demonstrate that in this debate. Today is the first stage in the battle to make that happen.

[Cameron Thomas]

As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his meaningful contribution, and I fully agree with him. It gives me an opportunity to recognise that the Gurkhas’ service boosts the morale of all our armed forces. My prevailing memory of serving with the Gurkhas is that they were constantly smiling, which always lifted the morale of everybody they worked with.

In 2004, Ghanendra’s first application to return to the UK was rejected because he had retired prior to 1997, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign continued to fight for equal settlement rights for all Gurkha soldiers. On 29 April 2009, a Liberal Democrat motion to deliver equal rights to settle for all Gurkha veterans delivered Gordon Brown’s Government a shock defeat. Within one month, the then Home Secretary announced that all Gurkhas who had served for at least four years could settle, but it should never have taken such a prolonged and public campaign, with the backing of Opposition MPs and Labour rebels and only one year out from a general election, to deliver this piece of justice for our veterans.

Ghanendra was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2012, and he moved to Aldershot. He is now 66 years old, totally disabled and clearly unable to work. He survives through food bank donations and the support of Farnborough church members. Notwithstanding the fact that but for a parliamentary anomaly, this country would have kept him hidden away in Nepal, this is a shameful injustice. Ghanendra is tired, desperate and ill. He told me that he wishes he could have his time back—that he could be 22 again, with the use of both of his eyes and his body. I cannot give him that, but I am honoured to be able to speak for him today.

This week I met several other Gurkha veterans in Portcullis House, and all feel a continuing sense of injustice, which I share. A retired warrant officer class 2 of the 10th Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21154152 Phurba Sherpa, told me that he served this country for 20 years and 119 days, yet the years that he served in Asia prior to 1997 were not factored into his accrued pension. A retired infantryman in the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21167476 Bhimraj Tumbahangphe, told me that 18 years of his national insurance contributions, collected by the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas, are not recognised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His pension does not factor into those contributions, and his fellow veterans report the same anomaly. It was further reported to me that the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas sidestepped pension contributions by paying Gurkhas through local overseas allowance while they were based in Brunei and Belize.

Since 2006, Gurkha pensions have been aligned with their comparative armed forces pension schemes—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15—as they always should have been, but service prior to 2005 returned a paltry figure. Bhimraj retired after 18 years in 2003, before the alignment, and the lump sum that his pension accrued amounted to only £3,000. He receives less than £400 a month. The lump sum issued to those on armed forces pension scheme 75 for comparative service, which included Bhim’s brother, a retired staff sergeant, was £78,000. He receives £1,200 as a monthly pension payment.

My Gurkha friends recounted this week that, at the conclusion of the Borneo confrontation in 1966, thousands of Gurkhas who had fought for and served the UK’s interests found themselves superfluous and were discharged from the Brigade of Gurkhas. They were left ineligible for a pension. Those who had served over nine years at discharge were issued a single payment of £360, and those who had served for less than nine years were given £250. Today, thousands of the descendants of these warriors live in the rural regions of Nepal, because they cannot afford to live in Nepalese cities—the dependants and descendants of our veterans, who have been left with barely even a historical footnote.

I was told by my Gurkha friends that the Home Office, under this Government, almost exclusively refuses visitor visas for relatives of Gurkha veterans living in the UK. I was told that, since 2019, Department for Work and Pensions rules state that those receiving benefits may leave the UK for a maximum of only 28 days continuously. This timeline is especially prohibitive for Gurkha veterans wanting to visit their families in rural Nepal; it can take over a week to reach these regions as, having transited the airbridge to a major settlement, doing so demands journeys of hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain by road and foot.

I have some questions for the Minister, but I will put them forward at a later point, because I am conscious of time. In closing, I want to recognise the dedication of the Gurkhas, as I have observed, on behalf of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nepal, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). She apologises that she cannot be here this afternoon, otherwise she would, I know, have contributed with a genuine and heartfelt speech.

I thank the hon. Member for organising a marking of remembrance at the memorial to the Brigade of Gurkhas in November 2025. She offered me the honour of laying the wreath at that service, which I proudly accepted. When I placed the wreath, I took a moment to read the inscription beneath the feet of the Gurkha Soldier. It reads:

“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”

I want to believe that comment is genuine, and that the reasons for the injustices are that they are so numerous, so complex and so historical that they persist not through lack of will, but through lack of understanding. I want to believe that the relationship between the UK and the Gurkhas is one of friendship, not one of exploitation.

Middle East

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?

[John Healey]

We will always work closely with the US. This is a deep military and security relationship that has seen the ups and downs of politics over many decades, and that will continue to be the case. The Prime Minister spoke with the President last night.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but part of the commitment that we have made to renewing the contract with those who serve has involved the extension of wraparound childcare to those serving overseas. It is part of making sure that we raise the quality of the experience of those in uniform. We can raise the morale of those who serve and, in doing so, we can help deal with the deep-seated, 14-year-long recruitment and retention crisis that we saw at the time of the last general election.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Personnel and families from Northern Ireland face exceptional costs if they are stationed here on the mainland. If they want to meet up with their family or go home again, there are extra costs for them. What has been done to ensure that personnel from Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged because they live so far away from their family, and to ensure that families can have the family time that they need to ensure that they stay together?

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.