Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate, and all hon. Members on their contributions. It is quite tough to follow them and to add anything, given the quality of the speeches that we have already heard.

It is very appropriate that we are having this debate in Armed Forces Week, and it was a pleasure to speak at the Armed Forces Week flag-raising event that was held in Stanley Front street on Sunday. Such is the passion for the armed forces in North Durham that Stanley gets two bites at the cherry, as there is also a ceremony this Sunday to mark the end of Armed Forces Week. Front street will be full of gazebos from different military units, cadet forces and veterans’ organisations.

As has been flagged already in the debate, North Durham is closely associated with our historic county regiment, the Durham Light Infantry—the DLI, known as the Faithful Durhams—whose record of service in the two world wars and further back in British military history is incredible. I pay tribute to the individuals involved in that, but also to the many others who answered the call to duty across all branches and units. When I go door to door or meet people in the street, it is like a quiz: do I recognise the cap badge or know something about the history of the different units that people have been involved in?

As other hon. Members have said, the north-east has contributed immensely to the defence of the UK. At the 2021 census, there were over 100,000 veterans in the north-east, and the statistics for my constituency are similar to those for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson): one in 20 individuals in North Durham is a veteran, and one in 10 households has a veteran in it. I am so proud to represent the many veterans, serving personnel, reservists and their families in my constituency, as well as what will hopefully be the next generation. I will just name-check the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street, where the headteacher was really proud of the pupils’ involvement.

As we rightly renew our nation’s defences in the face of a much more unstable and uncertain world, we must recognise that the most important element of our defence is its people. Sadly, the number of people serving in the UK regular forces decreased significantly under the previous Government, and the headcount at the end of April 2024 was down by over 15% compared with a decade earlier. As armed forces recruitment has fallen in recent years, the impact has been particularly acute in the north-east compared with other regions, perhaps because recruitment was disproportionately high in the north-east. Between 2015 and 2024, untrained intake into the armed forces reduced by 14% across the UK as a whole, but the reduction in the north-east was 34%.

I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to tackling not just recruitment in the armed forces, but retention. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have seen the largest pay rise for personnel in over 20 years, as well as recruitment reforms to scrap outdated policies and make the process more straightforward for those who wish to join our armed forces. We also now have the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, which is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee alongside the Minister and the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

I am ever so sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but technically it is still a Bill. We are debating it in the main Chamber next Wednesday.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for correcting the record. It is indeed still a Bill, but soon to become an Act.

The introduction of a new independent armed forces commissioner is a key part of the Government’s plans for improving service life for personnel and their families. For too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling, as measured in the continuous attitude survey.

I also welcome the Government’s action on military housing, which has shamed our country for too long and has often been a factor in people leaving or being put off joining in the first place. Bringing the armed forces housing estate—more than 36,000 service family homes —back into public ownership is a decisive break with the past, reversing the privatisation made by Conservative Ministers in 1996, which failed British taxpayers, British service personnel and their families.

The members of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line for the safety and security of our country and people, give the greatest service possible. I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members, the veterans who serve on both sides of the House, whose contributions I have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) brings insights as a former member of the RAF. On that note, I will conclude and once again thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for so ably chairing the debate.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in these matters because I have to answer all his parliamentary questions, and I welcome that interest. As the Secretary of State said this morning, we hope that we can start receiving delivery of these planes before the end of the decade. The hon. Gentleman is right that any manufacturing capability has queues, but orders are subject to contractual discussions and arrangements can be made, so that is what we are aiming for. Obviously, we will keep the House informed of how we get on.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the news that our deterrence capability will be enhanced and made more flexible as we take another step on the escalatory ladder. We are talking about a US aircraft with substantial UK industrial participation, a US weapon, US-UK decision making and a NATO mission. Does the Minister agree that this is a powerful statement about the strength of the special relationship between the US and the UK, and the strength of the NATO alliance?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree very much with both points. The decision indicates the strength of our alliance with the US, as well as the growing strength of NATO.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.

Strategic Defence Review

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I can confirm that the process is under way. We are giving it our full attention, and we will make any decisions as soon as we can.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been raising concerns about the state of our air and missile defences. I welcome that air and missile defence is a key focus in the SDR, which will make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Notwithstanding previously announced initiatives to bolster collaboration on air and missile defence with our allies, can the Secretary of State give us more detail on what conclusions the SDR drew on this vital aspect of national defence?

[John Healey]

The SDR drew the conclusion that we need to take potential threats to our homeland more seriously than we have needed to do in the past. That is the reason why I have made the commitment that we will invest £1 billion in this Parliament to further strengthen in particular radar, communications and the integration of our missile and air defence. My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of the UK’s air and missile defence is provided by our NATO allies, and we have great protection in the fact that our frontline is not on the coast of the UK: our frontline with Russia is on the borders of the eastern flank.

Defence Industries: North-East

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree. The investment that is coming to Thales will mean thousands of advanced air defence missiles that will be supplied to Ukraine. That is a really important cause, and of course there will be a benefit to the entire supply chain across the United Kingdom as well.

Strong national defence starts well before the battlefield. It is about the skilled workers in our factories—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for giving way. I wanted to intervene just after his description of the excellent existing capabilities and proud defence industry history in the region, to add the caveat that nowadays, sadly, we have the fewest defence jobs directly supported by Ministry of Defence spending of any of the regions—there are 1,600 according to recent MOD figures—and the lowest amount of MOD spend by region, at £380 million. Those jobs and that spending are obviously welcome, but the figures are below those for the next lowest region, which is Yorkshire and Humber, and in some regions, such as the north-west, which obviously has a significant cluster with BAE, Barrow and things like that, spending reaches £7 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that imbalance represents something of a missed opportunity, given the region’s defence heritage and the passionate, patriotic nature of the workforce, who would probably love to work in the defence industries? Does he agree that we need to ensure that when the increased national spending is rolled out, some of that imbalance is addressed and the north-east is restored to its historical role as one of the flagship regions for defence manufacturing in the UK?

[Luke Myer]

I agree. The increase in defence spending an opportunity to uplift regional economies and tackle regional inequality. However, I do not want to talk down our region because we do have firms, large and small, that are contributing to our national security and industrial resilience, including Babcock in Newcastle, Nifco in Stockton, Merlin Flex in Hartlepool, Draken at Teesside airport, Tees Components in my constituency, and many others. I am proud to champion Tees Components, a family-run business based in the small village of North Skelton. It delivers world-leading precision engineering for projects including our Astute-class submarines. That is our region in action.

Ukraine Update

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I have already said this afternoon that the Prime Minister has made it clear to President Trump, as I have done to Secretary Hegseth in the US, that we support absolutely their bid to secure a negotiated peace and we expect there to be a role for the US in helping to secure that peace for the long term. What we are leading alongside the French is a determined effort—a coalition of the willing—that demonstrates that European nations like us and the French, with the capability to lead such a deployment, are willing to step up and do more. But, as I have said, Europe and nations like the UK stepping up does not necessarily mean the US stepping away.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The strength of unity these past few weeks in the Ukraine defence contact group and the coalition of the willing has sent an important signal at a critical time for Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is critical that we and allies express our unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to exist, its freedom and its national sovereignty?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might help me with some of my speechwriting, as he put it succinctly and much more sharply than I have done this afternoon. This is what is at stake as the Ukrainians fight for their future, fight for their country and fight for their freedom. It is down to us to provide them with the support that they need both in the fight and in the efforts to negotiate a longer-term peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the specifics, I will certainly look into that. He sets out for the House the character of some of the neglect and decline that we have seen in our forces housing for so long, and the bind that previous Governments have been in, without the power or control to make the upgrades and plan for wholesale renewal for the future. That is what our housing review will start to fix. We cannot fix these deep-seated, long-running problems overnight, but we are determined to do better than we have done in the past.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure forces families in North Durham that the Labour Government are ending the previous Conservative Government’s failed approach of papering over the cracks, and are instead taking action to deliver new, high-quality family homes for our service personnel over the years to come?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. My hon. Friend and I stood on a manifesto, on which we were elected as a Government, that committed to ending the scandal of forces family homes. The buy-back that we have put in place is the start of delivering on that promise for armed forces families and delivering, as we are doing on a number of fronts, for defence.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam]

I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes.

Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have introduced arms export licence suspensions, which target any weapons that might be of British origin that would be used in Gaza, but are attempting to balance that with the needs of the IDF to defend itself against acts of aggression—for instance, the Iranian missile attacks in other theatres in which the IDF is operating?

[Shockat Adam]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; that is something I will come on to. The question is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law or are we complicit in its erosion? Too often we speak in numbers. Tens of thousands are dead and millions displaced, but as the saying goes:

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Before we proceed, I want us all to pause not to cite figures, but to honour lives lost—two specifically. Shaban al-Dalou was a 19-year-old software engineering student who had already been displaced five times. The eldest of five siblings, he had memorised the entire Quran and was just days away from his 20th birthday when an Israeli airstrike hit the Al-Aqsa hospital compound. The world witnessed the horrific image of Shaban attached to an IV bag, his body burning alive. His mother, the woman who had nurtured his every single dream, was killed alongside him. For a crumb of solace they were buried together in an embrace.

Who can forget the face of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl who was trapped in a car with five of her dead relatives, their bodies riddled with bullets? The whole world heard her call for help—a voice scared but full of hope. Rescuers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society responded. Unfortunately, they too were killed. These are not statistics; these are human lives. Let us take time to look at their faces. The question before us again is: did we as a nation facilitate those crimes?

Following this, in September 2024, our Government acknowledged that Israel was at clear risk of not complying with international humanitarian law and admitted that there was a risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations. Yet according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, potentially £100 million-worth of military equipment has been approved for export to Israel, including spare parts for F-35 fighter jets that require continuous maintenance to remain operational, therefore constantly requiring spare parts. Furthermore, exports of F-35 parts are covered under what we call an open general licence, which allows unlimited exports to all approved partners worldwide., so we will never know the real numbers. Given that more than 15% of every F-35 is made in the UK, Israeli airstrikes would simply not be possible without British components.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024?

Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Member not accept that in the unlikely event that RAF transport aircraft had been carrying something as large as a helicopter or a military vehicle from Cyprus to Israel—it is the first time I have heard that allegation—we might have seen evidence of such helicopters or military vehicles of British provenance? The Israel Defence Forces have no need of such equipment. They have far more equipment than the British armed forces do.

[Shockat Adam]

That is the question that I wish to be answered. Were we involved, directly or indirectly, in the Israeli operation in Nuseirat in June 2024, when 276 Palestinians were killed at the rescue of four Israeli hostages? Critically, has our intelligence been used to conduct air strikes? If so, under article 25 of the Rome statute, is the UK now legally complicit in war crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this timely debate. We need to consider the potential vicarious liability of the UK state in military activities in Palestine and the middle east.

The murder of more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza last night must outrage us all. In the past fortnight, the passage of aid through Israeli checkpoints has been denied, leaving the Palestinian population in Gaza with less food, less water and fewer vital medical supplies. Israel’s rejection of the ceasefire and its extreme military action overnight has escalated the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children. It is a reasonable assumption that those airstrikes were conducted at least in part with F-35s, for which the UK continues to manufacture parts and supply maintenance parts. Will the Minister clarify whether they were used on this and previous occasions?

Despite the partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel, the Government left a deliberate loophole in place, allowing the export of F-35 parts to Israel via the global spare parts pool. In addition, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel since the original suspension—more than they originally blocked. According to new arms export licensing data published by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Government approved an open licence for components for combat aircraft. That licence appears incompatible with the Government’s supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.

From reports of the High Court case between Al-Haq and the Business and Trade Secretary, we have been made aware that the Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing that there was a clear risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is more likely that F-35s were in use to shoot down Iranian drones, cruise missiles and other projectiles that were fired at Israel? Israel needs to use that platform to defend itself, given that it has faced two of the largest barrages of weapons fired at civilian targets since world war two.

[Andy McDonald]

As my hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against Iranian attacks. It can have all the arms it wishes for, and it has the protection of other people from around the region, but the prerequisite is that it observes international humanitarian law in respect of the Palestinian people and that it vacates the illegally occupied west bank. Those are the conditions on which it should receive support.

Since the Government announced their partial suspension of arms export licences but maintained exports to the F-35 global supply pool, I have asked in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions whether they are engaging in discussions with F-35 partner nations about whether the supply of F-35s and spare parts to Israel could be suspended. They have made no effort to address that matter in the House, other than to claim that they cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. Preventing UK arms exports—specifically F-35 jets, which are dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Gaza with UK-made components—from being used in war crimes by Israel against Palestinians is in no way a threat to international security in Ukraine or elsewhere.

The US and the UK have actively constructed a false dichotomy in which the lives of Palestinians are pitted against the lives of other civilians. Continuing to transfer F-35 components to Israel is a violation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations, which include the strategic export licensing criteria, the arms trade treaty, the Geneva conventions and the genocide convention. Will the Minister say whether the F-35 joint programme office could control material movement based on part or number configuration? Will the UK consider raising with partner nations the need to temporarily suspend sales of parts to a nation that, last night, murdered several hundred civilians in Gaza? Will he state the legal implications for the Government if it is concluded that the F-35s have been used to pursue war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide against the Palestinians?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate today and for the sincerity of the remarks that he made. I know this is an issue that he cares deeply about. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Recent months have seen dramatic shifts in global geopolitics, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in defending our country’s alliances in uncertain times. These developments are a reminder of how important our country’s defence and security relationships are. In the middle east, we have deep and historical links with both Israel and much of the Arab world. The military co-operation between the UK and Israel helps to keep our country safe. Over decades, Britain and Israel have conducted joint military exercises in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security and defence technology. British troops have been kept safe thanks to co-operation with Israel’s cutting-edge defence sector, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defence and radar systems.

The UK and Israel share intelligence on counter-terrorism and security threats posed by Iran, ISIS and other malign actors, both in the middle east and at home. Indeed, it is my understanding that the surveillance flights are actually collecting intelligence relating to the hostages in Gaza, including Avinatan Or, whose mother is British and who has now been held captive for 528 days. I hope the Minister will be able to update us today on whether the UK will continue those surveillance flights and do everything we can to bring Avinatan home.

The UK and Israel’s defence co-operation strengthens our international alliances, most obviously through the F-35 programme, which some other hon. Members have rather maligned today, but which has created more than 20,000 jobs in the UK. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that there will be no change to the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme, and that British- made parts will not be withheld from any of the other participants? Disrupting collaborative programmes that have been painstakingly negotiated over decades with multiple international partners—in this case a programme where we have a unique position as the only tier 1 partner—would mean that we would not be trusted to be a reliable partner in future international collaborative programmes that are critical for our national security, our technological base and the future of our aerospace industry.

I will finish by saying that military co-operation with Israel brings benefits to civilian populations in the middle east—Israeli and Palestinian. Last year, when Iran launched unprecedented ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which could have killed Palestinians as well as Israelis, British jets and intelligence played their role in shooting them down, saving Israeli and Palestinian lives and avoiding a huge escalation that could have brought all-out war across the region. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the Government intend to strengthen our military co-operation with the middle east’s only democracy.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

Ukraine

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No matter which side of the Chamber he is sitting on, the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of supporting deterrence—whether nuclear or short of that threshold—and he makes the same point again. The US Secretary of Defence made it clear in his remarks to the contact group that deterrence is important around the world, so I think there is agreement there.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of the new £150 million package of military firepower for Ukraine., including drones, tanks and air defence systems. How will that boost Ukrainian resilience and the UK defence sector?

[Maria Eagle]

It does both. There is only one way in which we can provide the Ukrainians with increasing amounts of munitions and drones, which are developing and changing rapidly, and that is by boosting the strength of our defence industries. That has the additional importance of enabling us to boost our capacity to deter any potential aggression, so in that sense we can do both, and we are doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am familiar with the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has raised similar concerns. If the right hon. Lady writes to me about that, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it further.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.