Defence

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I agree; it is extremely hard to derive exactly what the Conservatives would be doing were they in government right now—God forbid—but I think inconsistency would definitely be the name of the game.

Meanwhile, Putin prosecutes his barbaric war in Ukraine, harbours wider ambitions beyond it and expands his campaign of sabotage across Europe. But here is what makes Britain’s position even more precarious: at this very moment we are committed to acquiring F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but they are equipped to carry only American gravity bombs, use of which would require sign-off from the US President. At a time when we cannot trust the White House, we are deepening our dependence on it. Britain should be strengthening sovereign capability, not locking itself into systems that could be denied to us by presidential whim.

Trump and Putin want to turn world politics into a system where might is right.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for giving way. I think he is warming up to his leader’s new Dr Strangelove plot to have his own independent nuclear weapon. Could he tell us how much it is going to cost the UK?

[James MacCleary]

I was actually going to talk about something completely different, but the question is a good one. I find it very disappointing that the Conservatives have so little faith in the ingenuity and industry of this country to produce its own independent deterrent. This is a multi-decade project. We understand that the Conservatives do not grasp fiscal responsibility—we saw that from the state they left our economy in—but a multi-decade project requires a serious commitment. In the short term, we should be looking to bring servicing and maintenance of the missiles into the UK to reduce our reliance on others. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are asking where. We will develop the capability. I understand that the Conservatives do not like investing in Britain’s skills, but we can develop the skills. I have complete confidence that we can do so.

The defining challenge for our nation is how to meet the unprecedented threat posed by an imperial Kremlin and an unreliable White House. It requires thinking about defence in a new way, because to stand up for values that we cherish, we must be strong enough to defend them. That means, at its core, rearming Britain. Meeting this challenge requires more than military hardware. It means a whole-of-society approach to national resilience. It means energy security, investing in renewables so that we are not dependent on fossil fuels from the very dictators we are standing up to. The Conservatives’ plan to raid investment in renewable energy investment undermines one element of UK security for another—it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means food security too. Biodiversity underpins our ability to feed ourselves. Declining ecosystems mean declining food production, and that is a national security risk that we ignore at our peril.

It also means the defence readiness Bill, which is currently held up by the Government’s own delays on the defence investment plan. We cannot afford this drift; there can be no delay in beginning that work. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued that the defence investment plan must be accompanied by an immediate cash injection to support vital capital investment in our forces. We have detailed what this programme could look like, raising £20 billion in defence bonds over two years. [Hon. Members: “Yay!”] I am pleased that Conservative Members are so excited about the bonds idea—perhaps they have come around to it at last. [Interruption.]

It would be a fixed-term issuance, legally hypothecated to capital defence spending. The programme would be a secure way for people to invest their savings while helping to strengthen Britain’s national defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I am going to start by doing something unusual in these debates: I am going to agree with the Opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on defence, I agree that we are in a once-in-a-century moment where the safety and security of our nation are fundamentally at risk, and I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one. Now, before my Whip has a heart attack, I will set out where I disagree with the Opposition. To take their point seriously, their plan to pay for what they set out in the motion would make this nation weaker and more divided. On top of that, it is very narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, without considering how we spend it or scale up.

To put the two-child limit back in place and have children go hungry would make our nation weaker. How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today we will let them go hungry and that we would take money from them? I say to Opposition Members who spoke about this that we should remember that 60% of the children affected are from working families. Beyond that and more than that—no ifs, no buts, no exceptions—no child should be going hungry in this country. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? When we live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? It leads to fear, frustration and fury, but more than that, to division, and a divided nation cannot take and meet this moment.

On energy, the Conservatives want to make us more dependent on fossil fuels supplied by dictators such as Putin and more dependent on the middle east. That would make us weaker. In the 14 years they had, with all the licences they granted, how many days of gas were there? There were 36 days. The North sea is operating on a declining basis; it will not give us security.

[Lincoln Jopp]

With the points the hon. Member has just made, it seems he has forgotten that a year ago his own party suspended seven of its Back Benchers for voting with an SNP proposal to lift the two-child benefit cap. If he is going to be quite so forthright in his criticism of us, could he explain why his Government have done such a volte-face in the intervening 12 months?

[Dr Sandher]

I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

What I am very happy to say about defence spending is that when we last hit 2.5%, it was under a Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do so throughout their time in office. Although it has been quite entertaining in some respects watching old marital woes play out on the Opposition Benches today, it sounds like everyone agrees that bad things happened, but the two former partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—are evidently more interested in taking chunks out of each other than owning up to leaving the mess.

The motion before us today also calls for some of the Government’s legislation to not proceed on the basis that it is “a threat to morale”. The reference to morale is quite interesting, given that satisfaction with life in the services fell from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2024. When it comes to satisfaction, one key issue is housing, so I welcomed the Labour Government’s decision to insource a huge number of houses that were wrongly privatised by a previous Conservative Government back into our ownership. Some 431 of those houses are in my constituency, and I hope we will be able to radically improve their condition, particularly through the work we have done to make defence housing subject to the decent homes standard at long last, which I welcome.

Unfortunately, we have a Leader of the Opposition who appears able to shoot from the hip without thinking too much about the consequences, and who has now changed to a very unclear position that none of us seems able to grasp. In contrast, this Government have taken the right decisions at the right time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Was the hon. Member in the Chamber to hear the Prime Minister make his statement on the war in the middle east, in which he said that British sovereign bases, British troops and British people had been attacked? He said that it was therefore right that we defend ourselves, but that we cannot shoot all the drones out of the air and they have to be attacked on the ground. Does the hon. Member remember the Prime Minister coming to this House and saying that, and would he like to repeat his point that the Prime Minister has been absolutely crystal clear on his position throughout this conflict?

[Sam Carling]

I am not 100% sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has put it on the record. There is a huge amount of drone activity going on, and a lot of ways in which that needs to be dealt with.

I am heartened by what this Government have done so far, including, to name just a few achievements: the largest pay rise in two decades for armed forces personnel, many of whom are my constituents; the first veterans’ strategy in seven years; the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, including a pledge to reach 3% of spending on defence by the end of the Parliament; and a £9 billion plan to renew those 36,000 military homes. Again, that last one has been so critical for my constituents working at RAF Wittering. Life in the services has to be made rewarding—a rewarding career and a rewarding life—and I am afraid to say that for too long, that has not been the case. It is no wonder, therefore, that the number of troops plummeted on the previous Government’s watch.

Some comments were made about trying to boost the reserves, which I very much agreed with—we need to do some work in that area. We also need to sort out the ongoing issues with recruitment, which again became significantly worse under the previous Government. I have spoken to a number of people who have tried to join the military and found that the bureaucratic process is incredibly difficult, and we have heard about that on several occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope we will make some progress in tackling those issues soon, because we have a Government who are willing to invest in our forces and improve the quality of life for those serving.

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is in the Chamber, and I notice that his name is on the motion as well. I found some of his criticisms of this Government’s record on defence surprising, given that so much work is going on in our own area of Huntingdonshire around defence. The local council and the Ministry of Defence—represented by the two Ministers who are in the Chamber right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—visited RAF Wyton in December and signed a statement of intent, committing to work together to support the growth of Project Fairfax and establish Wyton as a nationally significant area for defence intelligence and innovation. With that will come the redevelopment of the North Hunts growth cluster, which will deliver new homes, jobs and investment. That will be brilliant for the local area.

Very briefly, I will respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said about investment in defence being spent on weapons and bombs. Those are not the only things that defence investment goes on—military intelligence is a huge part of the local economy in my area, and ideally it will make up more of our local economy. I think it is useful to recognise that there is a broad spectrum of things that we spend funding on, but of course I respect the points that he made.

I am very glad that the Conservative party has called this debate, as it is a great opportunity to highlight the good work we are doing and remind us all of the many ways in which the Conservatives let our armed forces down for a decade and a half. It is a good thing that they can only comment on policy rather than make it, a fact for which I am sighing in relief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When I was new to this place, I clearly did something very wrong, because the accommodation Whip allocated me an office that is geographically nearer to Trafalgar Square than to this Chamber. There is one compensating benefit, which is that when I look out of the window, I can see the statue of General Bernard Law Montgomery, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) moves his head a bit, I can see Field Marshal Alanbrooke, on whose statue is written: “Alanbrooke, Master of Strategy”. The Minister will be aware that the art of strategy is the matching of ends, ways and means. In the few short minutes that I have, I want to use that framework to reflect on the approach that the Government have taken recently.

I wish to also use the model of the three components to fighting power: the moral, the physical and the conceptual. The Minister will be fully aware of this. We know that this is a good model because Napoleon made the observation that “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.”

Let us quickly run through the physical component and some developments that we have seen. On the base at Diego Garcia, despite Conservative Members asking a thousand times for the reason why the Government asserted that our position was untenable in the long term and that they had to do this leaseback agreement with Mauritius, we have never, ever been given a definitive view on which court or jurisdiction made it untenable. It has never been delivered in this place or anywhere else, and that has undermined the Government’s position a little.

The Defence Committee heard representations from the Ukrainians we were training that, although they loved the training and were grateful for it, we were starting to lag behind. This was in November 2024. The absence of drones in the British military armoury and the environmental constraints on Salisbury plain meant that although the training was good, it was really lagging behind reality.

It is a shame that the Minister for the Armed Forces is no longer here, but he has given us a decent amount of time. He said that we cannot rewrite history and we cannot run from it, which is absolutely right. I just wanted to remind him of the reason we had only one Type 45 at six weeks’ readiness to go to sea. After the widely lauded 1998 strategic defence review, which I appreciate was before the time of the Minister for Veterans and People, the Government came to the conclusion that we needed 12 Type 45s to fulfil the strategic defence review. Subsequently, the Labour Government cut that number down; I think the first cut was to eight, and then down to the six that we have now. They also chose a home-grown propulsion system that was subsequently proven not to work, which has meant that, having cut the original fleet in half, we are now having to cut what remains in half—quite literally, in order to take the propulsion system out of the side.

We then had the strategic defence review. I sat on the Defence Committee and heard the reviewers say that the answer was 2.5%, after which they came back and said that it was actually 2.7%, and then that they had been told it would be 3% some time in the future, and then 3.5%; then, on the eve of the NATO summit, it went up to 5%. I am not surprised, therefore, that the defence investment plan has been a long time in coming.

We do not have time to rehearse the arguments about the moral component of fighting power, and the huge undermining of the Government’s actions over the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the remedial order, and, indeed, the revelation that our own Prime Minister volunteered to work for free for Phil Shiner in attacking British service personnel such as myself; I do have to declare an interest as a veteran who spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland.

Lastly, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, where I spent five years, we had a saying: “plans without resources are hallucinations”. Without the defence investment plan, the SDR is meaningless. When the Minister winds up, I would like her to acknowledge the fact that on 10 March, the Defence Committee was privy to a secret briefing in the Ministry of Defence. To a man and woman, the all-party Defence Committee came out of that briefing and took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement that, in our view, the Government should adopt Conservative party policy and go to 3% of GDP within this Parliament. That is unprecedented, and it needs to be listened to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

As the Prime Minister said this morning, in fact—my hon. Friend is right—the strait of Hormuz is vital. It is vital to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and the US. These questions are complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations taking part as possible. Without going into detailed operational options or discussions, I have already said that we have prepositioned in the region autonomous minehunting capabilities. We have counter-drone systems in action in the region, pulling down drones. Looking ahead, alongside industry, we are looking at additional innovative options, including interceptor drones for the middle east.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Ministers were all over the airwaves this weekend saying two things: first, that they would like to see a de-escalation of the conflict in the middle east; and, secondly, that they would like to see the strait of Hormuz secured for shipping. Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that those two aims are mutually exclusive? If they are mutually exclusive, how can he achieve both?

[John Healey]

Quite simply, we will do so by making a major contribution, as we are, to discussions about any multinational plans that may be put in place to safeguard for the future the commercial shipping that is the lifeline both of the international economy and of international security.

Middle East: Defence

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

There are certain things that I will not and cannot disclose publicly. The operations of our submarines fall into that category. My hon. Friend is a long-standing member of the Defence Committee. I know she will understand the sensitivity and the potency of our submarine fleet. She asks the question, but she cannot realistically and reasonably expect an answer; I know that she knows that.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. At the same Dispatch Box about half an hour ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps unwisely delved into the world of military strategy and said a couple of things that were slightly alarming. First, she upbraided the shadow Chancellor for not calling for the de-escalation of the operations against Iran, yet the Defence Secretary’s own statement mentions de-escalation only when it comes to the situation in Lebanon. Can he clarify whether he is calling on his American counterparts to de-escalate in Iran or not? Secondly, she said that to open the strait of Hormuz we would need to support something she called “cross-country” operations with France and the US, and that we were ready to do that to open the strait of Hormuz. Will he comment on that too, please?

[John Healey]

The UK Government are urging Iran to de-escalate. We are deeply concerned about regional stability. Part of the reason for our co-ordinated defensive actions—the contribution we are making in the regional co-ordination centres, but also with our jets flying in defence of middle eastern allies—is to reinforce regional security and stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement this afternoon, and included the confirmation of the commitment to approve for the Ministry of Defence access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities as they are needed to the middle east. I am sure the House will welcome that, as it will welcome the fact that she said,

“I am committed to giving our military the resources they need.”

Ministry of Defence

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I note that the House rose three hours early yesterday, yet we each get three minutes to speak about the defence estimate. Radically, I want to talk about the estimate itself; much as I would love to do some soaring Churchillian rhetoric, I will instead limit myself to the MOD’s supplementary estimate memorandum, which was reported to the House on 10 February, and I want to highlight two elements.

Paragraph 1.1 lists the departmental expenditure limits for resource, capital and annually managed expenditure. Despite all the rhetoric about leaving black holes and this, that and the other, resource was actually £39 billion in 2022, £42 billion in the next year, and £45 billion in the year after. We then have the supplementary estimate, where the resource departmental expenditure limit goes up to a whopping £58 billion, and I thought, “Happy days!” This must be the new Labour Government that we have heard about, who have come along and put loads of new money in. This will be the ammunition we have been wanting, or the pay bump for personnel that will increase morale so effectively. However, I then looked at the footnote—forgive me, it is in very small print, for obvious reasons—which states:

“2025-26 one-off increase in Resource is mainly driven by the Ringfenced RDEL increase to cover depreciation and impairments due to non-routine accounting adjustments.”

I am just a simple soldier, but that does not sound a lot like ammunition to me. If the Minister could address that point when he sums up, I would be grateful.

Equally, paragraph 2.1.3 covers annual managed expenditure. In the main estimate, which was published only a few months ago, the figure for this period was £1.7 billion. However, in the supplementary estimate, that figure has gone up to £7 billion—a 309% increase. Again, when I look at the small print, it says that these changes,

“reflect the latest in-year forecast and reflect the application of updated discount rates to provisions”.

When the Minister sums up, would he like to reassure the House that he has not been taken captive by the accountants in the Ministry of Defence, and that he is actually spending some new money on some new capability? From the estimate I have read today, that does not appear to be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On his birthday, I call Lincoln Jopp.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I wish the hon. and gallant Member a happy birthday.

Protecting the moral component of fighting power is a duty on those of us who have the huge privilege of serving as Ministers in this Government. I am sure that every officer will know that they have a role to play as well.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

He did.

Let me say that that is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people, who recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people and want to see them prevail, and above all want to see a peace that will last.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this evening? I hope it is heard widely across the world, and I hope it is heard in Moscow and Washington. I hope it is heard particularly in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. I do not wish to see peace at any price; I wish to see Ukraine prevail. I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect.

Given that context, I will ask my question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier today about the numbers that had been committed. The Prime Minister said: “Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that.” Figures are being briefed to the newspapers, but I do not know whether they are correct. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief us on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher, and some other Members of the House may wish them to be lower, but I want this House to hear what his plans are.

[John Healey]

I really welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response, his question, the way in which he speaks for the House, and his urging that this statement—and, indeed, the declaration of intent signed in Paris yesterday—will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv; I am sure that President Zelensky will ensure that. I will play my part in doing that shortly as I visit the country, and I will discuss the further work that needs to be done with Ukraine’s military and political leaders.

On the question of detailed numbers, yesterday was a political declaration—a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the nations that are participating in, and contributing to, the coalition of the willing means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. I have certainly not been briefing the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers and very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser and undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees we are developing, with them and for them.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his list. This Government have come into power and put in place a very clear, concise programme to increase recruitment and retention. There is a list: there is the armed forces discovery scheme, zig-zag careers, and the cyber direct entry scheme; the first cohort graduated in November ’25. We are scrapping a huge amount of red tape left by the last Government. If somebody had athlete’s foot as a child, they could not join the military, and people needed multiple sets of medical records. That was ridiculous. We also have financial retention incentives. [Interruption.] Individuals on the Conservative Benches can say that they know, but they did nothing about it; I lived it. We have done a single living accommodation review, and we have a Christmas travel payment. [Interruption.] There are great comments coming from the Opposition, but they did nothing about it. We have done it, and as a result we see a 13% increase in recruitment, and a reduction in outflow by 8% for the first time in 14 years.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As the shadow Defence Secretary was reading out the letter from the squadron leaders and warrant officers that was published over the Christmas break, I looked across the Chamber, and was very surprised to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and two Defence Ministers shaking their head. We have had feedback from numerous generals, squadron commanders and warrant officers, so can I just understand where the Minister is coming from? Why does he think he is right and they are wrong?

[Al Carns]

I fully respect the hon. and gallant Member; he has experience from Northern Ireland during the troubles. I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. We absolutely respect those individuals’ views; we also respect the statistics on those who are currently serving, which we have looked through in the Ministry of Defence. I would welcome a discussion with many of the individuals who the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. Since some of the articles came out in the press, I have had discussions, multiple times, with several of them. We need to work together to make sure they are comfortable with the Bill, and we are doing so. On top of that, we have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other veterans, but when we come down to the common denominator, the statistics show that there is not a recruitment and retention issue caused by the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As Members well know, the moral, physical and conceptual components are critical to fighting power, but in some cases, the conceptual and moral components are one. We must ensure that the Bill protects veterans going forward, which is what I will do. We will protect the moral component.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am disgusted by the mistreatment of our brave LGBT veterans who served between 1967 and 2000, and I am pleased that the Government have now delivered 48 of the 49 recommendations made in Lord Etherton’s independent review. One of those was the unveiling of the LGBT+ armed forces community memorial, which I was deeply honoured to be able to attend alongside LGBT veterans and service personnel. The one outstanding recommendation recognises the unique experiences of female veterans, and work is ongoing on a number of initiatives towards that, including the launch of a new women veterans forum.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. A wish a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman and the whole House.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. Taking bold decisions is the hallmark of this Government, because it would not be enough simply to tinker with some of the procurements we inherited, given the necessary increase in our capabilities to meet the threats that exist. When the defence investment plan is published, it will set out bold decisions, but it is really important in relation to Ajax that we get to the bottom of what happened during Exercise Titan Storm. The Ajax vehicle has completed 42,000 km of testing without such injuries, so we need to understand what has happened with the vehicles that have caused these injuries. Not all the vehicles on that exercise caused injuries, and that needs to be taken into account as part of the investigations. I am looking forward to those results when they come, so that we can make a clear and bold decision one way or another to bring this saga to an end.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I think the procurement Minister will know that I asked his predecessor whether the National Armaments Director would have carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to defence procurement. She answered from the Dispatch Box that not only would they have that ability but they would be held to account for so doing. Defence Committee members do not want them coming in front of us in a year’s time to say, “We wanted to change things, but they wouldn’t let us.” Now that the Minister is in his role, will he reassure us that the policy remains that the National Armaments Director, for their £600,000 a year, will be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement?

[Luke Pollard]

Rupert Pearce is already making substantial changes to how we procure and delivering a programme of change, with reform within Defence Equipment and Support and the wider national armaments director group that is essential if we are to achieve warfighting readiness. Not only does he have a clear policy steer in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, but I have witnessed quite impressive substantial change in the few weeks he has been in place. I hope that the Defence Committee will be able to hear from him shortly. There is a lot more work to do if we are to get on top of a procurement system that is too slow, too expensive and does not yield the results for our people that they need it to yield, but he is making a good start in that respect.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This morning, eight four-star generals and an air chief marshal took the unprecedented step of writing to the newspapers. Their letter deserves to be heard in full and to be entered the public record. They write:

“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces, we do not speak out lightly. Yet on Armistice Day we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.

No member of the armed forces received a “letter of comfort” after the Good Friday Agreement. What they relied upon was far stronger: the belief that if they acted within the law, under proper orders and in good faith, the nation would stand by them. This bill tears up that compact. Be clear, those who served in Northern Ireland do not seek immunity, they simply seek fairness—the recognition that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate authority and illegitimate violence. To erase that distinction weakens the moral authority of the state.

By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered in pursuit of political ends as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy. That is not reconciliation; it is abdication of responsibility. Trust between the state and the individual who serves it is the cornerstone of military effectiveness. If servicemen and women begin to doubt, when they believe that lawful actions taken in the service of the crown will one day be re-examined in the misplaced light of hindsight, then recruitment, retention and morale will suffer.

Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of “lawfare”—the use of legal processes to fight political or ideological battles—which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative. We will lose our fighting edge at exactly the moment it is most needed. And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.

The prime minister and attorney-general must recognise that an ever-broadening interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights is being used against those who act under lawful authority of the crown. The state owes its servants more than political reassurance it must ensure that those who apply necessary force on behalf of the nation are not left to face the consequences alone.

The government must restore legal clarity, reaffirm the law of armed conflict, deviate from the application of the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and relevant international conventions and ensure those who act under lawful authority are protected. A new, honest framework is required. The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”

The letter is signed by General Sir Peter Wall, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, General Sir Patrick Sanders, General Sir Richard Barrons, General Sir Chris Deverell, General Sir Richard Shirreff, General Sir Tim Radford, General Sir Nick Parker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford. I will say on the record myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these are men whose boots I am not fit to polish.

[Several hon. Members rose—]