New Medium Helicopter Contract

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents.

The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary.

We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume?

Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?

[John Healey]

I think my statement made it clear that I took the decision to allow US forces to base themselves in the UK after we made an assessment of the legal basis for and the purpose of the planned US operation. That was a responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concerns on that front.

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening co-ordination with allies. In many ways, he is also right to say that the Ukrainians are fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values, and for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine its own future.

On the circumstances of any deployment, the Prime Minister has been clear—as have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planning—that the decision to deploy, and the military plans that are prepared, will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed. That is one of the reasons that I stressed in my statement that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as the long-term peace that we all hope will follow.

The hon. Gentleman urges me to support his argument on the imperative of increasing defence funding to 2.5% and beyond—I support it entirely. He will welcome the fact that this Government have made the difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid and into defence. We have done so because we recognise this new era of threat that we face—an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.

Finally, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment to move beyond that to 3%, and we have made the solemn commitment, alongside all other 31 nations in the NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, and a total of 5% on general defence and national security by 2035. That is a sign of the strength and unity of the NATO alliance, and its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?

Diego Garcia Military Base

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.

It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?

As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats believe that the future of British industry and our national security depend on a serious and sustained commitment to renewable energy. We want to see far greater emphasis on clean energy sources, particularly solar, in order to reduce our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels, strengthen our energy security, and tackle fuel poverty by bringing down energy bills for households and businesses alike. In the face of Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and with Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs threatening fresh economic turmoil, we cannot afford to be complacent. The future of energy-intensive industries, not least our steel industry, hangs in the balance.

Steelmaking is not just an economic asset; it is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need steel in order to build the infrastructure required for a sustainable, secure future, from wind turbines and railways to hospitals and homes. Without it, our ambitions for net zero and national resilience will collapse. As such, will the Government give a clear, unequivocal commitment to their net zero plans, and will they ensure that no option is off the table when it comes to safeguarding our steel industry and the future of British manufacturing?

Ukraine War: London Talks

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Overnight, Russia launched 11 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 cruise missiles and drones at civilian targets in Kyiv. Yesterday’s talks in London should have been an opportunity to strengthen the western coalition’s support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s barbarism. Instead, they were derailed by President Trump, who, in a petulant response to President Zelensky’s refusal to countenance the recognition of Crimea as Russian, withdrew his Secretary of State and special adviser from the meeting. President Trump demonstrated that he is not interested in securing a just peace that can deter future Russian aggression and protect Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Instead, he is intent on securing a carve-up of Ukraine with Putin, as long as it is agreed before the 100th day of his presidency. Will the Minister make clear to his US counterpart that the apparent ultimatum shared with President Zelensky last week, which would deliver to Putin most of the goals of his illegal invasion, is utterly wrong and would only embolden future Russian aggression? I too yesterday found myself on a list of MPs from across the House who are being sanctioned by the Kremlin. Will the Government outline how they plan to support Members who are being targeted for speaking out?

Ukraine

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Yesterday, the leader of my party warned the Prime Minister that we might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945. The hours since have confirmed our fears. This is a moment of great peril for us all. Does the Minister agree that the US’s actions are a betrayal of our Ukrainian friends, who have fought so hard for their freedom, of the UK, and of all our European allies? Will the Government step up and show British leadership, starting by passing urgent legislation to seize frozen Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine whatever the US does? Clearly, in the light of the events of the past 24 hours, the Government need to look again at defence spending. Does she agree that the decision of the previous Government to continue with a cut to the Army of 10,000 troops at a time when war is raging on our continent now looks utterly unforgivable?

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James MacCleary

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have already put on the record our concerns about the deal that was struck with Mauritius and how it excluded the voices of Chagossians. We also have concerns about the terms of the agreement. What will happen to the individuals who have been moved to St Helena after 18 months elapse? We cannot just abandon them. Will the Minister update the House on what will happen if an agreement with Mauritius has not been reached by the end of the 18-month period?

Can the Minister also update the House on the asylum seekers who have been detained on Diego Garcia, such as the 60 Sri Lankan Tamils? They are not in the scope of the agreement. Will the Government support those individuals in claiming asylum where they need it?

Finally, it has been reported today that there is an investigation under way into a major hack of the British high commission’s phones during the Chagos islands talks. What action are the Government taking to address this potentially major security breach?