Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a £450 million contract to Leonardo for a really important part of upgrading our Typhoon jets for the future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the supply chain to smaller and medium-sized firms is often mediated by primes such as Leonardo, which is why it is important that, since the election, we have let over 1,100 major contracts in defence, 84% of which have gone to British-based firms.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney.

Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?

[John Healey]

We are working flat out to complete the DIP, and the hon. Gentleman above all, having been responsible for defence procurement in the last Government, will appreciate just how overcommitted his own programme is. He will appreciate the truth of his former boss saying that, over 14 years, the Conservatives had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. We will deal with that overcommitment, we will deal with the underfunding and we will deal with the fact that his plans were unsuited to many of the threats we face.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We are still on Question 1, so it would be useful if Members can help me.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.

More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:

“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?

What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants

“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.

Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T8. The announcement to upgrade the radar systems of 40 Typhoons is welcome, but none of those Typhoons will be worked on by BAE at Warton, near my constituency. We cannot afford to leave our nation’s air defences in the hands of the USA, so will the Minister commit to an order of British-built Typhoons so that we can keep these vital skills in this country and ensure that the British military aircraft industry is not consigned—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.

[John Healey]

Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.

[Mr Speaker]

We would like a further order for Typhoons, but don’t worry!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State.

[John Healey]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have had enough of trying to continue this debate—it now ends.