Oral Answers to Questions
Maria Eagle Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The Government’s modern industrial strategy, launched last week, announced a 50% increase in MOD spending with small and medium-sized enterprises to £7.5 billion a year by 2028, reversing the downward trend under the previous Government. Our new SME hub will help small firms to access better opportunities, and our reform of defence procurement, along with ringfenced innovation funds, will give SMEs access to the defence dividend. This Government’s increase in defence spending will provide jobs and growth across the UK.
Luke Murphy
Basingstoke is home to some fantastic defence SMEs, including Nightball Technologies and Bertin Exensor, but one issue that has been raised with me is that Government procurement agencies cannot specify UK sovereign tech or sole-source contracts, even where UK capabilities exist. That results in lengthy competitive tenders, where there is a high risk that end users do not get the capabilities that they need and equipment is bought from foreign suppliers. Will the Minister meet with me and firms from Basingstoke to discuss how we can prioritise UK defence SMEs over foreign suppliers, especially where UK sovereign tech exists?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is some flexibility under our procurement rules to specify national security grounds upon which to make a decision. Half our spend is already through sole-source contracts. I am of course happy to meet him and his SMEs. We are delivering for defence by promoting new procurement models that are easier for small firms to access, and our SME hub will engage directly with SMEs to help them to access defence supply chains.
Sadik Al-Hassan
In my constituency of North Somerset, many small and medium-sized enterprises are springing up to support our country’s rearmament efforts. In Nailsea, one such company, 1415 Industries, was recently blocked from opening a business bank account due to blanket prohibitions and excessive delays by retail banks, hindering its ability to organise seed funding and bid for procurement contracts. Will the Minister meet with me to discuss the case of 1415 Industries and the wider problem relating to financial institutions and their interactions with defence SMEs that the case highlights?
Maria Eagle
I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, and I will of course meet with him and his SMEs. Over the last six months, the Defence Secretary and I have convened stakeholders from industry and finance to discuss this issue and make it clear that defence is an ethical sector that they should support. The strategic defence review committed us to developing a dedicated financial services sector strategy, which we will aim to publish in spring 2026. That should give us a further opportunity to make sure that the finance industries know what a good investment defence can be.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Our UK defence industry can have few better ambassadors around the world than our Red Arrows. As the Hawk aircraft comes to an end, will the Minister look closely at the British-designed modular aircraft being developed by Aeralis, because it would support SMEs right across our country, including by bringing around 600 jobs to StandardAero in Gosport and about 1,000 to the south Hampshire area? Surely that would be a much better way to support our national SMEs than opting for the Italian-Russian Yak-130 aircraft, which the MOD is rumoured to prefer.
Maria Eagle
I know Aeralis well; I visited it when I was in opposition, as I know the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has done, and I have spoken to its representatives since. Of course, an open competition will be held for the new aircraft to deliver advanced jet training and for an aircraft for the RAF aerobatics team, to ensure value for money and positive UK benefit, and I hope that Aeralis will apply for that competition. It will have a very good chance if its product is up to scratch.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. She is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and supports the SMEs there, so when it comes to the defence industrial strategy to support SMEs, could she update the House, and myself in particular, on what she and the Government are doing to help SMEs in Northern Ireland to increase jobs and also increase contracts?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have visited Northern Ireland and its defence sector on a number of occasions, and I hope to return and do so again. The increase in spend that was announced last Monday on the modern industrial strategy for our SMEs to take advantage of—an increase of 50% up to £7.5 billion a year—should give opportunities for some of the innovative companies in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the available money. When our SME hub gets up and running, it will be available to assist small firms in understanding how best to get access to some of the opportunities that that will bring.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
In order to deliver for defence and make defence manufacturing an engine for growth, we must improve our export performance. Potential customers want a consistent Government-to-Government offer, so as part of defence reform, a new national armaments director and defence exports office will support defence export campaigns, and responsibility for the promotion of defence exports will be transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
Gareth Snell
It is welcome news that MOD is committed to the establishment of a defence exports office. Will the Minister set out what this will mean at home for jobs in constituencies such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent Central, where our proud manufacturing companies stand ready to support UK defence and security?
Maria Eagle
It will mean a coherent specialist approach to Government-to-Government agreements on sales of our capabilities being based in the MOD, which has expertise in those capabilities. This is going to mean extra jobs and growth, and that jobs can continue in the UK beyond the delivery of our own domestic orders because there will be export orders to fulfil. That should reap a defence dividend across the nations and regions of the UK as our manufacturing jobs continue to deliver for defence.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Ametek, a defence manufacturer in my constituency, has reported to me that the process of getting a defence export licence has almost ground to a halt in the past 12 months. Could the Ministry of Defence send someone sufficiently threatening round to the Department for Business and Trade—perhaps the Veterans Minister—to persuade it to get a grip of its processes and speed everything up?
Maria Eagle
I am sure that we can make representations to that Department to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in applications for export being granted, where that is appropriate.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The strategic defence review recommended that the Hawk T1 and T2 be replaced with a cost-effective advanced jet trainer. The future platform of the Royal Air Force aerobatic team is being considered at the same time, and a Royal Air Force programme team is being established to deliver that capability.
John Cooper
The TSR-2 aircraft was a world beater. Unfortunately, the only thing that it could not beat in a dog fight was a Labour Government, who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Will the Minister assure me that we have learned the lessons of TSR-2, and that we will look at the replacement for the Hawk in the light of pressing a British-designed and manufactured aircraft that can sell Britain abroad?
Maria Eagle
The Conservative party set 2030 as the Hawk T1’s out-of-service date in its 2015 strategic defence and security review, and it then did precisely nothing to achieve a replacement in the nine years that followed, so I am disinclined to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman’s party on how to replace the Hawk. I assure him that the competition will welcome any bids from UK-based suppliers.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
As outlined in the strategic defence review and in the UK’s modern industrial strategy, the Government are committed to supporting an “always on” shipbuilding industry by leveraging our buying power through public procurement and seeking to export our capabilities to friendly nations.
Graeme Downie
As the Minister says, the SDR spoke of the need for an “always on” supply of shipbuilding, with the Royal Navy continuing to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet. The Minister has visited my constituency and seen the construction of the Type 31 frigates by Babcock at Rosyth, with the first ship, HMS Venturer, recently floated off. Other ships of the initial five ordered by the Royal Navy are progressing well. When can we expect to see announcements to guarantee the continued always-on supply of shipbuilding, and will she give an update on the need for more Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy to reflect the flexibility of that platform, as well as the lower cost and faster production achieved by the incredible workforce at Rosyth in my constituency?
Maria Eagle
I recognise the benefit that the construction of Type 31 frigates has brought to Rosyth, and I have personally engaged with international partners to try to secure future orders. In addition to any orders that we ourselves may have, exporting that type of capability to our allies and friends is a sensible way of ensuring that we can keep production going at Rosyth.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the vital role of ITP Aero on some of our most important defence platforms, not least Typhoon and the A400M. The strategic defence review makes it clear that we will back British-based businesses where possible, and ITP Aero is already helping to show that defence is an engine for growth in her community.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the Government raise with the F-35 joint program office or the joint executive steering board the human rights breaches and the possibility of suspending Israel’s access while maintaining supplies to other customers?
Maria Eagle
We always keep in mind our obligations under international law, and we obviously discuss matters that might pertain to it among the F-35 nations.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Secretary of State to my home town of Cleethorpes, where we witnessed the national Armed Forces Day event. Earlier, he referred to the volunteers who made this possible. My constituent Alex Baxter, whom he met on Saturday, has masterminded the Armed Forces Day event in Cleethorpes for many years. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Alex and his team on a splendid event?
Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement
Maria Eagle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s plan to procure nuclear-certified F-35A aircraft.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The UK will purchase 12 new F-35A fighter jets and join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission in a major boost for national security. The Prime Minister has announced at the NATO summit that the UK intends to buy at least a dozen of the dual capable aircraft, which can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. The Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte, said this morning:
“The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today’s announcement that the UK will now also join NATO’s nuclear mission and procure the F-35A.”
The decision will support 20,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, with 15% of the global supply chain for the jets based in Britain, supporting highly skilled jobs and opportunities for working people and delivering a defence dividend across the country. The announcement responds to two recommendations in the strategic defence review: recommendation 30, that the UK commence discussions
“on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”,
and recommendation 46, on the mix of F-35B and F-35A.
The purchase represents the biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation, and reintroduces a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the cold war. The UK’s commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance’s contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. You will recall that the Government’s plan, announced today, to procure nuclear-certified F-35As was previously covered in The Sunday Times the day before the SDR was published. You therefore granted an urgent question that day on this very subject, but we received no meaningful answers at all. I hope the Minister can be more forthcoming today.
On 25 May, I wrote in the Express that our nuclear forces needed to be “even more resilient”, including in respect of the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also,
“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”
That is because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and its ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able to do the same.
In principle, then, I welcome the announcement, but I have the following questions. What is the anticipated in-service date for the 12 F-35As? Will they already be nuclear certified, or will that occur after delivery? We note that the 12 F-35As will be ordered instead of 12 F-35Bs, but will the Government still order the remaining F-35Bs as planned? How will the F-35As be air-to-air refuelled, given that the current RAF refuelling capability is probe and drogue? On operational sovereignty, we are fully committed to our strong military partnership with the United States, but given that the announcement is about diversity of delivery, has the Department given any thought to additional tactical options for which we have greater industrial input, such as Storm Shadow and Typhoon?
Ironically, it was Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary in 1998, who removed our last air-launched nuclear capabilities. It is noteworthy that, as one of the authors of the SDR, he said to the Select Committee recently that the authors were
“not terribly enthusiastic about it.”
That is before we get to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary voted against the renewal of Trident. On this side of the House, we wholeheartedly back our nuclear deterrent. Does this situation not show why we need a robust plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament, rather than Labour’s smoke-and-mirrors and lack of a fully funded plan to properly increase defence spending in this Parliament?
Maria Eagle
On the in-service date, as the Secretary of State said this morning, we are hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade. On the tranche being ordered that will now include 12 F-35As, yes, we will still be ordering the remaining F-35Bs, so there will be 15 extra F-35Bs in the next tranche. On refuelling, this is a NATO mission, and NATO will of course be able to do the air-to-air refuelling. It is quite normal for different allies to contribute their different capabilities, whether nuclear capable or conventional, to NATO’s nuclear mission.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement and, on behalf of the Defence Committee, I welcome the additional detail that has been added to the SDR. It is imperative that we recognise and close some of the gaps in our national defence, including the size and shape of our combat air force, and this announcement does part of that. But 14 years of under-investment mean that some of the choices about basing and complementary capabilities will bring some challenges; will the Minister provide additional detail on how some of them may be addressed?
Maria Eagle
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is supportive of the announcement. As the House is aware, this Government have increased our defence spending by more than at any time since the end of the cold war. The increase is fully funded, unlike some of the fantasy plans of the previous Government.
Maria Eagle
We have shown how we will increase spending to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. That is fully funded, and we have made clear how we will get to 3% in the next Parliament, as conditions allow. The announcement was made today at NATO of a 5% target; all allies will focus on providing that funding in due course. Over the next 10 years, NATO will check every year, as it always does, whether its requirements are being met, and we fully expect to be able to meet them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is clear that we have entered a new and uncertain era. Putin’s imperialism represents a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. We must maintain the effectiveness of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent to stop Putin or anyone else launching a nuclear attack. It remains the ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security.
We support more investment in our defence capability, but we need more detail on the proposed use cases for the F-35As, and on their relation to our existing strong deterrent through Trident. We also need a clear explanation of why the Government have chosen this priority over others. There are still huge gaps in the armed forces, including as a result of 10,000 troops being cut by the Conservatives, and those gaps need filling if we are to show Putin that we are serious. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will move further, faster, in rebuilding the strength and size of the other essential guarantor of UK security and deterrence—the British Army?
Maria Eagle
I am glad that the hon. Lady supports these measures. As I have already made clear, this decision is not at the expense of buying more F-35Bs, which we will do. The extent to which we fully implement the strategic defence review, and the order in which we implement its recommendations, will be decided through our investment plan, which is being worked on now and will be fully published and available in due course. There is no doubt that, as she says, the threats we face are increasing. We need to make sure that we are capable of deterring those threats, with our allies in NATO, and this decision will assist us in that. By joining the NATO nuclear mission, we will be able to play our part. As we said in the SDR, our policy is “NATO first”, and our commitment to NATO is unshakeable.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I commend the Government on the prompt procurement of the F-35A fixed-wing, which is of huge strategic importance, but this is already creating great uncertainty in Lancashire—in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and in my constituency of South Ribble—where the workforce of the Typhoon Eurofighter live. Can the Minister please assure me that the Government will still be constant in looking to procure the Typhoon aircraft for the RAF? Also, with our NATO partners all increasing their defence spending, is there not a huge opportunity to urge them to procure the Typhoon Eurofighter as well?
Maria Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What we are talking about does not of course preclude any support for the Typhoon. We are very committed to our Typhoons, and we are committed to upgrading them, as per our existing plans. We are engaged in many efforts to export, and one would hope that some of them will come off at some point in the not-too-distant future.
We are very keen on making sure that the skills and abilities of the workforce at Warton are fully used. We of course have the future combat air system and the global combat air programme, which will use those skills in the longer term. Many people working for BAE Systems—not at Warton, but at Samlesbury—make parts for the F-35, and I think they will be pleased to hear the announcement today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I join Conservative Front Benchers in welcoming the answer to the urgent question, although maybe it should have been a statement. May I ask about autonomy and national sovereignty over the weapons system that will be deployed from this aircraft? There is considerable press reporting that it will be dual key, meaning that the Brits cannot use it without American say-so. Is that true? If so, why has the Ministry of Defence elected to take that option, rather than having full national sovereignty?
Maria Eagle
We have a fully sovereign national nuclear capability—a continuous at-sea deterrent—that is dedicated totally to NATO and to protecting the European homeland. The current decision is about joining the NATO nuclear mission. Any deployment under that mission requires the agreement of the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies, who act as a senior body on nuclear matters in the alliance. Under that governance arrangement, the UK will always retain the right to decide whether or not to participate.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
May I say how much I welcome this announcement, and the extra capability that it will bring? Will the Minister outline how this decision will support jobs across the UK, particularly for those in my constituency of North East Derbyshire who work in defence?
Maria Eagle
The procurement of the F-35As and the next tranche of F-35Bs will support 20,000 jobs across the UK, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. That demonstrates yet again that defence can be an engine for growth, because these are good jobs across all parts of the nations and regions of the UK, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I fully welcome the announcement, and I thank the Minister for making the statement. In an age of uncertainty about the reliability of our US ally, it seems an odd choice to be leaning into them, in the sense that we will be dropping dual-key, US-made munitions from these planes. It makes more sense if this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability, but that would raise questions about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister comment on whether this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability?
Maria Eagle
It is not such a step. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission. We have just published a strategic defence review that sets out that our defence posture is “NATO first”. We are trying to support our allies in NATO in deterring any threat that might come from possible adversaries; that is what this is about. It is not a stepping stone to anything else.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I also welcome this announcement of increased capability—the F-35As that will be brought to the defence of this country. This announcement, which is in line with the strategic defence review, shows that this country is once again serious about defence. What response have we had from our NATO allies to our joining NATO’s nuclear mission?
Maria Eagle
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. We have had strong support from our allies in NATO. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), I read out the response of the Secretary-General, who was full of praise.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister is well aware of my interest in the F-35 programme. Lockheed Martin manufactures around 150 jets a year, and there are nearly 600 on order by everyone from Switzerland to Singapore. On top of that, there are 1,200 still to be delivered to the US air force, so whereabouts are we in the queue? She mentioned that we would expect the first deliveries before the end of decade, but are we cutting to the front of the line? Given that the orders from some allies are not due to be fulfilled until 2032, will delivery of all 12 planes be completed within a decade? On refuelling, will she clarify that we have no sovereign air-to-air refuelling capability outside of a NATO mission?
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.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I do not understand industrially or militarily why the F-35 is the default choice. If the F-35 can be delivered only by the end of the decade, why is Tempest, which is more than capable of being delivered by the mid-2030s, not being considered? That is if we agree with the decision to be part of the nuclear sharing enterprise, and I do not agree with that, because no other nuclear-armed state takes part in nuclear sharing, no other P5 member delivers any other nation’s nuclear deterrent, and no nuclear power in the world delivers anyone else’s nuclear weapons.
Maria Eagle
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are committed to buying 138 F-35s in the next tranche of F-35s. We have substituted 12 F-35As for what would have been 12 F-35Bs, so there is that change to the mix, as recommended in the strategic defence review. One of the recommendations was that we should consider the mix, and we have considered it. Another was that we should rejoin the NATO nuclear mission; we have considered that and consulted, and we are acting. We have already implemented two of the major recommendations of the SDR. Given the welcome that the SDR had from Members around the House, we should all be glad to see the implementation of those recommendations.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the welcome announcement of the F-35A programme, which comes at a time when this Government are increasing defence spending at a rate not seen since the cold war. BAE Systems, in my constituency, is one of the companies leading on the programme to support avionics for our forces, and there is an outstanding invitation for the Minister to visit the company. Will she confirm that this announcement will mean a significant increase in jobs and opportunities, including apprenticeships for local people, young people, and constituents across my area and the country?
Maria Eagle
Yes. I have been reminded of my promise to visit; that is on the list, and the visit will move closer to the top of the list after today. I agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to deter potential aggressors and adversaries, it is key that we implement the findings of the SDR and increase our capability, and that is what we are doing.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I encourage the Government not to be at all bashful about the fact that the decision on whether one of these weapons will be used—heaven forbid—will be an American one? There is a long tradition of American nuclear weapons being based in NATO countries, not least the Cruise and Pershing missiles of the 1980s, which helped to end the cold war. Will the Minister confirm that not only does this fill a gap in our deterrence spectrum, but it reasserts the commitment of the United States to the defence of the other NATO countries?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the decision does all those things, and he has made a very good point.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I welcome the acquisition of the F-35As, not least for the impact it will have on industry and jobs in my constituency. In answer to the question about refuelling, the Minister described very well how this new capability meshes with existing NATO capability. Will she say a little more about how this capability supports the defence of not only the UK, but our NATO allies?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. In addition to the industrial benefits that we ought to glean from increasing the F-35 order, it is absolutely right that it strengthens NATO. That is what the strategic defence review said that we should focus on, and NATO first is what we are doing. Rejoining the NATO nuclear mission is a striking commitment. We accepted the recommendation to make that commitment and we are now implementing it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I also welcome this announcement, but can we talk about money? We already know that 20% of our defence budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. It is disproportionately expensive. If we are now extending the nuclear capability with these airdrop weapons, what impact will that have on the budget for the rest of our conventional armed forces?
Maria Eagle
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support. The F-35As are actually cheaper than the F-35Bs, so replacing 12 F-35B orders with 12 F-35A orders is a cheaper option and she does not have to be too concerned about the direct impact of the decision on budgets. The total cost of the next procurement tranche, including the 12 F-35A models, will be an estimated £3.2 billion, but these are plans that were there and that we are now funding.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Rugby No. 1 branch of the Royal British Legion, who I believe are in Tesco this week for a service, and the Hillmorton branch of the RBL, who will be holding a ceremony on Armed Forces Day? I was pleased to see that this commitment will support 20,000 jobs across the UK in the years to come, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. Does she agree that this demonstrates that our national security and economic security go hand in hand, and that this Government will deliver that?
Maria Eagle
I commend my hon. Friend’s Royal British Legion branches who are getting on with what many of us are doing in Armed Forces Week, which is attending events that show our appreciation for our armed forces in every part of the UK. He is correct to say that, in addition to deterring our enemy and supporting NATO and our allies more strongly, there is growth potential and economic benefit from the spending that we put into our armed forces and our capabilities.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The proposed NATO 5% target will be split into two categories: a new, broader set of defence-related items at up to 1.5% of GDP, alongside a commitment to spend at least 3.5% of GDP on traditional defence. Will the Minister confirm the UK Government’s commitment to article 2 of the NATO treaty on the development of peaceful and friendly international relations? Will she also confirm that funding for UN peacekeeping missions qualifies as defence spending to NATO and that this budget will not lose out on the increase in the MOD budget?
Maria Eagle
I would argue that defence spending is there to create peace, not to fight wars. It is cheaper to deter wars than it is to end up fighting them, so I would argue that our commitment to 2.6%, as it will be by 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament and then on to the 5% target—including the 1.5% broader definition—by 2035 shows a very strong commitment across NATO to do just that. Let’s deter these wars.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question. The purchase of 12 new F-35A aircraft will increase our nuclear capabilities and shows that our commitment to NATO is unshakeable. As the chair of the Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire all-party parliamentary group, I am always on the lookout for opportunities for growth in my region. Given that this announcement supports 20,000 jobs and places 15% of the global supply chain in the UK, will the Minister say how that will benefit my region and how she will ensure that all the investment, jobs and growth opportunities will be spread to each part of the UK?
Maria Eagle
I cannot say precisely whether any of the 100 companies that are UK-based suppliers on this programme are in my hon. Friend’s constituency or his region—I will have to go away and look it up—but I do know that these procurements spread prosperity around all regions and nations of the UK. That is one great thing about the defence industry: it provides jobs and growth across the UK.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement’s announcement. This is welcome news for our country. Given that in-service dates for key pieces of military equipment are often later than predicted, has she given any thought to training our pilots in advance of delivery, either on a simulator or by embedding them into a unit that operates these planes around the world, so that we are ready to hit the ground running as soon as they are delivered?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Anything that can bring in-service dates forward slightly by planning and training in advance is something that we will be in favour of trying to do. These days it is much more the case that such arrangements are thought of at the same time as the procurement, so I am certain that we will be on to the point that he makes.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Following on from the previous question, I have to declare that I have flown an F-35—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] It was a simulator. Dramatic pause there. There are companies in Edinburgh that are involved in the supply chain and I was keen to see what they were constructing.
I welcome the Minister’s leadership on this. It is a fantastic sign that we are absolutely committed to NATO, and it is also a fantastic advertisement for our young people who are looking for a great career. They need look no further than the RAF. Much of the discussion has focused on the nuclear capabilities of this aircraft, but can she confirm that it could have a much wider role and be put to much greater use?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. This is a dual-capability aircraft, which will not only be used to fly NATO nuclear missions but be available to do training and all the other things that our fantastic pilots in the RAF do.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I feel like a lone voice, but in an increasingly unstable world I personally find it quite harrowing that the British Air Force might be flying planes that can drop nuclear bombs and where that might lead. Can the Minister tell us whether, under this agreement, tactical nuclear weapons will be stored on UK soil; and if so, what safety and security measures the Government will be undertaking for their storage?
Maria Eagle
I am not sure I quite understood that question, Mr Speaker. What I can say, though, is that we do not normally confirm or deny where nuclear weapons might be stored. It is not something that we have ever done. I think that is what the hon. Member was asking, but I am not absolutely sure. I would be happy to speak to her afterwards if I have got that question wrong.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Have any alternative platforms been considered for the potential delivery of a tactical nuclear weapon? In particular, have the Government looked at the Astute class attack submarine as an alternative or additional platform, or at its successor, the SSN-AUKUS?
Maria Eagle
We are not seeking to widen our range of nuclear capability. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission and contributing to that. As I said earlier, this is not some kind of stepping stone to acquiring tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrent is our submarine-operated continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD—and that is how it will continue.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The prospect of UK fighter jets carrying Donald Trump’s nuclear bombs cannot be anybody’s vision of security. This decision flies in the face of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. It ties us further into a US military that cannot even keep its own classified intelligence secure. It ties us further to a Trump Administration who are the very definition of a loose cannon. Given the inescapable truth that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, and that normalising tactical weapons is incredibly reckless, how can the Minister possibly justify this decision?
Maria Eagle
First, what I have announced today is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty—
Maria Eagle
It is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission has as a governance the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies—everybody gets a say—so it is not a question of it being Donald Trump or any other US President’s nuclear bomb. This is a NATO mission to defend Europe and to do what NATO was set up to do: deter another war.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On 6 January, I raised with the Minister in this Chamber the fact that refurbishing Typhoons will not touch the sides of maintaining the 6,000-strong workforce at Warton, in my constituency, and that relying on export orders that have not been secured will not keep the workforce in work for now, before the GCAP comes online. When I asked the Minister whether she would give a delayed Christmas present of an order for 25 Typhoons, she replied:
“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]
We were awaiting an order of Typhoons for the Warton site in the strategic defence review, but it turned out to contain an empty box instead of a present. If the Minister was not simply buying time and giving false hope to the workforce then, when will we see the order of 25 Typhoon jets for the RAF?
Maria Eagle
I do not think the previous Government were committed to buying Typhoons, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so outraged by the fact that after less than a year, we have not yet ordered any more Typhoons. We are committed to the Typhoon fleet that we have. The buying of any more will have to be considered in the investment plan that is being worked on now. Other European nations are buying some Typhoons, so there is some work there, although I know they are not assembled at Warton if other nations buy them. We also have export orders that we are trying to pursue. Although I cannot advance what I said to the hon. Gentleman previously, it is something that I am very conscious of, and we will continue to see what can be done about the future of our Typhoon fleet. We are committed to the fleet that we have and to the upgrades that we need.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In response to an earlier question, I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to seeking to compress the timetable between delivery and the in-service date. I believe I heard the Minister say that the delivery date was the back end of the 2020s. Can she confirm the anticipated in-service date?
Maria Eagle
I cannot confirm the anticipated in-service date beyond saying that we are hopeful that we will get the aircraft as soon as possible and that we will be able to use them as soon as possible thereafter, subject to all the usual requirements to get something in service. That is as good as I can do for the hon. Gentleman today, I am afraid.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister just confirmed that the UK adheres to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That treaty requires the declared nuclear-armed states not to allow proliferation and to take steps towards nuclear disarmament. What the Minister has announced today is an increase in nuclear capability, with the construction of new nuclear warheads that can obviously be used anywhere in the world by airdropping them. Can she explain how it is possible to say that this announcement is in compliance with the NPT when it is so obviously and clearly the very opposite of that?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I am afraid. It is in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission would carry US nuclear weapons, which are already subject to the non-proliferation treaty. What we are announcing today is the buying of aircraft that are capable of assisting with that mission, not the purchasing of new nuclear weapons. I hope that is clear for the right hon. Gentleman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the aim is to enhance what NATO has as a defensive structure, so will the Minister confirm that this is not a substitute for any of our other NATO allies withdrawing aircraft from service, and that we are adding to the potential cover against threat in case we are attacked?
Maria Eagle
We are adding some of our capability to the NATO nuclear mission by purchasing these weapons, which has been welcomed by our allies and by the NATO Secretary-General as improving the position for the NATO nuclear mission.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Following the announcement of the purchase of these 12 F-35As, I have read concerns expressed by defence analysts this morning over the size of this fleet and whether it truly represents either a capable offensive launch or, indeed, a capable deterrent. In earlier statements, I think the Minister has said both that these F-35s are part of the current F-35 purchase envelope and, potentially, that these F-35s are in addition to those currently on order. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. Finally, could the Minister offer any reflection on the effect that this purchase will have on our commitment to GCAP?
Maria Eagle
For clarity, I did not say that this order was in addition to our already committed tranche of F-35s. I said that we were substituting what would have been 12 F-35Bs with 12 F-35As, so it is not in addition. We already have 39, and we have already purchased 48, not all of which have been delivered. This is a tranche of the next 27, 12 of which will be F-35As and 15 of which will be F-35Bs. It is part of acquiring the next tranche of F-35s that Governments of all stripes have been committed to over the time that the F-35 has been in production.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I am sure the Minister recognises that in addition to this plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, the UK must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times. Can she therefore confirm whether these aircraft will be budgeted from the ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget?
Maria Eagle
The ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget is not for purchasing aircraft; it is for dealing with our submarines. It is a fair question—I hope that that is a clear answer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers, which have been positive and strong—it is just what this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs today. I welcome the news that these jets are to be procured. Having watched the Red Arrows’ intricate manoeuvres in Newtownards on Armed Forces Day last Saturday, I know that our skilled pilots are world class, and they deserve the tools to do their vital job. I recently read that the Royal Navy has regularly failed to meet recruitment targets since 2011. What can the Minister do to get boots on planes, on boats and on land by enhancing recruitment, particularly in our Royal Navy, at this very important time?
Maria Eagle
Part of our commitment to defence reform is to try to improve our procurement and acquisition to ensure that we meet our contract aspirations more quickly and to give us more control of the budget and more direct lines of accountability so that it will be clearer, if things are going wrong, that there should be intervention. The defence reform agenda that the Department is undertaking should improve our acquisition and procurement arrangements.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the rare opportunity against the run of play to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from Strangford. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General, has recently congratulated President Trump on his “decisive action in Iran”, which he says “makes us all safer”. Will the Minister take the opportunity to do what no one in government has so far done and congratulate the Americans on taking out the Iranian nuclear programme? If not, will she explain why we are out of step not only with the Americans, but also now with NATO?
Maria Eagle
I think it has been fairly clear from proceedings in the House that the Government have said that we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but that, in this instance, we are very keen that diplomacy is the way forward.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
In Armed Forces Week, I want to thank our brave servicemen and women who do so much to keep us safe. I welcome the Minister’s response to this urgent question tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition, but can she give us a cast-iron reassurance that our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent will be supported and maintained by His Majesty’s Government, and that they will not contemplate any reduction in the submarine fleet from four to three submarines, which was alarmingly floated by the third party not so long ago?
Maria Eagle
I and the Government have been very clear about our commitment to the continuous at-sea deterrent and to procuring the new Dreadnought boats and the new warhead, so I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance on that.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The UK has 225 warheads and a number of nuclear-capable submarines that are in a position to fire at any adversary at short notice. We are now investing in aircraft that can deploy nuclear weapons. Given that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, will that not be seen as an aggravating feature by nations that are also subscribed to it?
Maria Eagle
No, our continuous at-sea deterrent has been the policy of both governing parties for many years and that has not changed. The announcement today is about our joining the NATO nuclear mission, which carries US weapons that are already accounted for under the non-proliferation treaty. This is not about increasing the number of nuclear weapons that we hold, so it is not, therefore, a breach of the non-proliferation treaty.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As a member of the RAF contingent of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Wing Commander Basco Smith, may I take this opportunity to say that the application window is open for next season? If any Member has not applied to it, they should consider doing so. Recently, we visited Marham, the current home of the F-35s. Can the Minister update us on what steps have been taken to remove the risk of attack on centralised basing, and to continue to invest in alternative dispersal bases for our aircraft? While these additional frames are welcome, will the Minister confirm that they are being matched by concurrent investment in the training of pilots and additional crews in the advanced skillsets that will be required for these operations?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is correct that one cannot just buy aircraft and not train the relevant people—whether they be pilots, engineers or ground crew—to deal with the necessity of looking after them and operating them. On the matter of security, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made a statement the day before yesterday about the review that is being conducted into the security of our bases, and I hope that that will be reported in due course.
National Armaments Director
Maria Eagle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on obtaining it, very properly in Armed Forces Week, to highlight some of the issues. I will try to answer a few of his questions. I have had an interesting read of the 32nd report of his Committee; he and I used to serve together on the Committee many moons ago, so I take PAC reports very seriously.
Although it is true that there has been no equipment plan for the last two years—during which time both Governments have been in power—because of some of the disruption around the election and the wholesale reordering of the way in which the MOD works, I recognise the fact that his Committee is not satisfied with the current state of affairs, and I agree that it cannot stay how it is.
Ministers are committed to increasing transparency, and I undertake to work closely with the National Audit Office and the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to try to work out a suitable arrangement going forward that they will be happy with. We are not seeking to undercut transparency or to fail to report properly to Parliament, so I hope that will give him some reassurance. Of course, we have only just received his report; I think we have a couple of months to ensure that we reply to its recommendations properly, and I will take an interest in ensuring that we do so.
I recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his excellent speech. He asked where all the money is coming from—one or two others have asked a similar question, with varying levels of outrage. What I can say is that in this Parliament, we have already committed an extra £5 billion this year and resources to get up to 2.5% in the core defence budget—more than £10.9 billion extra in real terms. I do not think any of the Defence Ministers have turned up at NATO today with a fully set-out plan for getting to 5% by 2035. Each country has its own way of producing budgets and will do so over different periods, and I think it is quite reasonable for us to say that during the election we had a manifesto commitment to get to 2.5%, we have set out how we are going to do that and how we will pay for it. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that he regretted the way in which that commitment is being paid for, but we have made that choice—difficult though it is—in order to make it clear where the money that we have committed to in this Parliament is coming from.
We have always met our NATO commitments. That goes for parties on both sides of the House; when the Conservatives were in government, they met our NATO commitments, and we have always met them and will continue to do so. The way that our spending commitments will be funded in the next Parliament will be set out during that Parliament, but we cannot set a path directly from this Parliament into the next one. NATO will be looking at that. [Interruption.] Well, I would say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that we do not budget for that length of time in the future, and neither did his party when it was in office. It is not how we do budgeting in this Parliament and it is not how his Government budgeted either.
Maria Eagle
I mean, the right hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. If he wants to start heckling me, I am happy to have a discussion with him in the Tea Room afterwards, but there is no point in him heckling me from a sedentary position when he has not taken part in the debate. [Interruption.] It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to continue my speech. I am trying to answer questions posed by the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose debate this is.
We know that NATO will—as it usually does—check each nation’s spending against its expectations on a yearly basis, so that will be an obvious way in which we can see progress being made towards our goal. We will also continue to report, as ever, and I have no doubt that we will get to 3% in the next Parliament and that there will be a trajectory towards 5% overall, with the 1.5% security and resilience spending. Instead of making allegations about that commitment being smoke and mirrors, it would be better for the Opposition to say that they would do the same if they were in Government. If they did so, we would have a proper consensus to give industry certainty that this is what we are committed to do as a nation. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats said that they would commit themselves to that goal.
I look forward to engaging with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the recommendations in the report, and I intend to make sure he is satisfied by what we come back with. He had some particular requests about Ajax—we all know that notorious name—including when the 180 vehicles would be delivered. The initial operating capability of Ajax will be by December 2025; I am hoping it might be sooner, but as far as I am aware, that commitment is on track and at least 180 vehicles will be delivered by that time. Morpheus and the broader land environment tactical communications and information systems programme has been a troubled programme in some respects. It is a £6.5 billion, 10-year programme. It involves lots of things fitting together, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. We are trying to make sure that the programme delivers what it is supposed to deliver.
Some of the programmes we have inherited have troubled histories. That is one of the reasons why we are committed to defence reform. One of the problems with our procurement and acquisition system—this was mentioned, including by those who have perhaps experienced it in their professional life, whether in the forces or in the Department—is that it is not fit for purpose when it comes to doing things quickly and delivering what it says it will. The defence reform agenda is not about reorganising for the sake of it. That is not what we ought to be doing. Were the system in perfect order, we would not be reforming it. This reform is about ensuring that the national armaments director is accountable to Ministers and the services for delivering the equipment that the services need in a timely fashion, because that is not what happens now. Currently, each service goes off on frolics of their own. They have their equipment budgets and top-level budgets, and know what they want, and they never really talk to each other across services. As the hon. Gentleman said, a programme might get started because people think that they want the equipment, and it is a 10-year programme that is not funded right to the end, so money gets wasted. We have to do better.
One way we will do better is by having much clearer accountability. The NAD is a tremendously important figure in that. We will also make sure that we shorten our acquisition timescales. We cannot just have CADMID— concept, assessment, demonstration, manufacture, in service and disposal—for everything, with pre-contract phases and so on. We cannot do that any longer. We are not in times when we can get away with taking 10 years to produce something that is not quite what we wanted in the first place. There has been too much of that, and that is why we are segmenting our acquisition budget. The NAD will be in charge of delivering the capabilities that all our services need in much shorter timescales.
As for drones and that kind of capability, we are trying to get to contract within three months. By standing up UK Defence Innovation with a ringfenced budget of £400 million this year, and 10% of our investment budget in future, we aim to ensure that there is the money to innovate fast and get lethality into the hands of our warfighters faster. That is essential. We need to shorten the time it takes to get there, even for nuclear submarines. Members will have seen the aspiration in the SDR to get the time to contract down from an average of six years for those kinds of things to two years. That is a challenging aim.
On spiral upgrades and the new radars for our existing capabilities, we need to make sure that we get the time to contract down to a year. We need a much faster pace of innovation, change and improvement. The NAD will be responsible for that. There will be direct lines of accountability, and direct budget lines for which he is accountable. We have to ensure culture change to empower those at a lower level, so that we do not slip back into the old way of doing things. That is a challenge, but we need to meet it, given the times we are in.
Adam Dance
The Minister must be a mind reader. Will she give us a timescale for when the new medium-lift helicopter contract will be awarded? I hope it will be awarded to Leonardo in my constituency.
Maria Eagle
I am not making any announcements today, but I have heard what the hon. Member said, and I want these matters dealt with more swiftly than in the past. He needs to listen out, because the announcement will come in due course.
We are undertaking this defence reform to make a real difference to acquisition and a real improvement to our procurement, to stop wasting money, and to get things into the hands of our warfighters faster. We can argue about money, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) likes to, but we must do better with the money that we receive, because the money allocated to defence could be spent on other things—on hospitals, schools, and helping people with their needs at home.
We all accept that we have to show the public—the voters—that we are spending the money in a way that provides us with maximum value. I know that the Select Committee will help the Government to do that, and I am determined to ensure that we do it. That is what defence reform means.
James Cartlidge
The Minister mentioned money, and it is brilliant that she is engaging in that debate. I mentioned the 2.6% issue. This is very important; the pledge is for 2.6% of GDP by 2027. In written parliamentary answers, we are not being told what quantum of money will be added to the Ministry of Defence budget—namely, what the intelligence spend will be, and the spend on the Foreign Office items outside Chagos. Will the Minister tell what that quantum is, so that we know whether the MOD will really be spending 2.5% on the core defence budget?
Maria Eagle
What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech was very simple, I must say. I understand the point that he has made, although I have not seen the answers to which he has referred, so I shall have to take his point away. I am happy to discuss it with him on another occasion, but I cannot give him an answer today.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I deliberately included a little bit about recruitment and retention in my speech. There will, I think, be a tension between the armaments director and the Chief of the Defence Staff over recruitment versus the budget for equipment. It is not possible to suddenly turn on the tap and recruit more people; it takes time. Can the Minister say anything today about when she will start to ramp up that recruitment?
Maria Eagle
A great deal of effort is already being made. Both the Minister for Veterans and People and the Minister for the Armed Forces are leading a number of efforts to improve recruitment and retention. As the House will know, in a “flow and stock” situation, it takes time to turn around a long-standing trend, and unfortunately the last Government did not meet the recruitment targets for the armed forces in any one of their 14 years. This is like turning around a supertanker. We have already made some reforms to try to speed up the time that it takes to recruit a young person who wants to join the forces, and that will start to show results in due course.
Maria Eagle
I am conscious that I am probably overusing my time, so I do not want to give way any more. I apologise, but there is another debate to come.
All of us in the House essentially understand the importance of increasing our defence spending in a way that is effective and gives us good value for money, so that we can boost the capacity of our armed forces to defend the nation and deter potential adversaries. I think we are all on the same page in that regard, and that is a good way for me to end my speech. I thank all Members for taking part.
War Memorials
Maria Eagle Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is quite clear from the debate today that many Members here, and probably many who have not made it to the debate, could speak at length about the memorials in their own constituencies. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing the debate and highlighting the importance of war memorials in Britain, particularly in this armed forces week, when many of our minds turn to remembering the service of people in our armed forces. That includes, of course, remembering those who have sacrificed for our futures, their own.
The first duty of every Government is to protect its people, but it can only do so by asking men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. They step forward, as is clear in today’s debate, from every corner of our United Kingdom—every hamlet, every village, every town, and every city, to serve with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones and often in difficult and dangerous situations. It is no surprise, therefore, that communities left behind, and who have lost loved ones to conflicts that we have been involved in over the years, seek thereafter to commemorate and to do so in perpetuity to the extent that they can.
The story that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy told about her war memorial reaching its 100th anniversary today could be replicated around the country, but it is unique in that it has not only an art gallery and community space, but a library attached. It is clearly at the very heart of her community. It is therefore quite understandable that the events to commemorate the anniversary are so extensive and involve so many people—perhaps 8,000. I do not know if it is 8,000 people who have done a poppy each, or 4,000 who have done two each, but clearly quite a lot of people have knitted the poppies that will set a striking backdrop to the commemorations. Perhaps it is not surprising the extent to which her local community cares about that memorial, because of the way in which it came to be in the first place, arising at the end of the first world war, out of the grief of a rich member of society who lost his only son and therefore dedicated time and money thereafter to providing the memorial, the art galleries and, later on, the library.
It is unbelievable to me that memorials can be vandalised as my hon. Friend’s has been. I can only say that I am glad that the damage has been repaired. Although memorials are very rarely paid for by the Ministry of Defence or by the state, there is a scheme run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that provides for some contribution towards repairs if a memorial is vandalised, which would equate to the VAT. It would enable some contribution from Government, with all the proper forms being filled in. I think the deadline for this year is 30 June, so if that has not been applied for already, and it is helpful, then my hon. Friend needs to get her skates on and move fast.
It is quite clear across parties and from all Members who have spoken today the extent to which local Members of Parliament involve themselves in making sure that their memorials are known about and raised in the House. It is perhaps not surprising that there is amity across the Chamber. There has been no disagreement about how important these memorials are to local communities and the families of those commemorated upon them—not just the immediate family, but through generations. There is also educational value in making sure that the stories of those commemorated on them are told to subsequent generations. The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) gave about a local school making sure that a lost memorial is remembered, even though it is 100 years since it was erected, is quite telling about the powerful nature of these stories, which are intergenerational and should go forward in time.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the Minister agree that there is a particular importance of memorials to people who have no known grave but the sea? I believe I am right in saying that the three great Royal Naval memorials at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth commemorate more than 66,000 Royal Naval personnel who lost their lives in the two world wars. Of course, the one at Tower Hill commemorates about 36,000 merchant seamen and fishing fleet personnel who were similarly lost with no known grave.
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. For families left behind—increasingly as time passes, it seems to me—the lack of a grave or something to mark an individual’s sacrifice is felt more deeply. It is therefore extremely understandable that there have been memorials erected latterly. It is completely correct and, I think, one of the values of the National Memorial Arboretum. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referenced his visits there, and I am sure that other colleagues have attended various events there. It is important to have a place in the middle of the country, which is where the Arboretum is, that can be attended and where there are a number of memorials to make sure that there is somewhere for everyone who has lost someone to go and contemplate that loss.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also referenced the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is unsung but extremely valuable and very much appreciated. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), my understanding is that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does include women. I am not saying that every war memorial around the country includes women—that clearly is not the case—but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does, as I understand it. However, her point that there are many forgotten people who lost their lives and are not on the memorials is an important one.
I have some numbers on those who have been commemorated who were lost at sea—the merchant sailors as well as the naval personnel—but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just mentioned them, so I will not repeat them. The general point is that, apart from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the funding of memorials has overwhelmingly come from public individuals and organisations. That is why they survive—they are part of our communities, they are loved by our communities and they are supported by our communities. That is an important part of their power—they are seen as something that is done by local people, for local people, to commemorate local people.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. I wish her very well with the commemorations. It will be hard to read the names out, so I particularly wish her well with that. If there are 1,500 names on her memorial, she will not do all of them, but it will none the less be a powerful reading. Reading out each name individually will take a lot of time, and it is a powerful indication of quite how many people were lost. It will be one of the most powerful parts of the commemorations. She highlighted what will happen in her constituency and I congratulate her.
Oral Answers to Questions
Maria Eagle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
This Government are making defence an engine for growth across the UK. Our forthcoming defence industrial strategy will grow a faster, more integrated, more innovative and resilient defence sector. Prioritising UK-based firms for Government investment will drive economic growth, boost British jobs and strengthen national security. We are sending a signal to the market and our adversaries: with a strong UK defence sector, we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Douglas McAllister
Increasing our investment in defence not only bolsters our national security, but is an opportunity to support vital, skilled defence sector jobs and boost economic growth. Will the forthcoming defence industrial strategy spread prosperity across the regions and nations of the UK, and will the Minister use defence procurement and investment to generate wealth and create high-quality jobs in the west of Scotland and make defence an engine for growth across Scotland?
Maria Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are delivering for defence across all the nations and regions. The Clyde infrastructure programme—a £1.8 billion programme—will create skilled jobs in the west of Scotland over the next 40 years, while delivering our triple lock commitment on keeping the continuous at-sea deterrent. I recently opened the Rolls-Royce submarines office in Glasgow, which aims to access skilled talent pools in his area to support Dreadnought and AUKUS-class boats. As he said, this all goes to show that defence is an engine for growth.
Nick Smith
General Dynamics already provides good jobs in south Wales. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I welcome plans to cut delivery times for the new communications and weapons systems of the future. Does the Minister agree, however, that we need to overcome public scepticism about defence kits taking too long to get to the frontline?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with my hon. Friend, because under the previous Government the average time to contract was six years, and only two out of the 49 major projects they oversaw were on time and on budget. Our procurement reforms will speed up and improve delivery to the frontline, and thus boost our defence and security.
Sam Carling
To encourage more people to pursue a career in our armed forces, we need to ensure that the whole offer is strong, including accommodation. Concerns have been raised with me about poor performance by managing agents involved in maintaining Ministry of Defence properties in my constituency, often with complex subcontracting arrangements that make it very difficult to hold anyone accountable. I know of cases where people were dealing with a rodent infestation for six weeks due to inaction after it was reported to the managing agents. Can the Minister assure me that we are working to ensure that managing agents are held accountable by the MOD?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are delivering for defence by putting people at the heart of our defence plans. The new consumer charter for families in military homes will include improved repairs, a named housing officer for every family, and a better and clearer complaints process. I am aware of the issues he raises about pest control at RAF Wittering. This has been raised with Amey, the contractor that has the maintenance contract there, and I will expect to see an improvement.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
My constituency of Huntingdon is the home of our defence intelligence capability. It is also home to the joint intelligence operation centre Europe, which is an analytics centre for the US air force, and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre. Wyton airfield has recently been designated as a trailblazer site, and it could be a key location at which to build defence technology. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the potential of building a technology hub in Huntingdon, alongside the combined authority and Huntingdonshire district council?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Member has set out a compelling reason why I should meet him, and I am very happy to do so.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Times has reported that the UK has fewer than 10 tanks stationed in Estonia and that troop numbers have been cut from 1,650 in April 2022 to around 1,000 today. By comparison, Germany has 5,000 troops on track to be stationed in Lithuania by 2027. Is this correct, and is it a concern for the Minister?
Mr Speaker
That is of borderline relevance, but I am sure the Minister can respond.
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman has set out some troop movement issues. We are moving to a lighter formation, but there is no reason why we cannot meet him and explain the situation in full, and I am very happy to volunteer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to do so.
Maria Eagle
Mr Speaker, I was waiting to hear whether the hon. Lady had got the wrong question, but she fitted it in and it was in order, so I congratulate her on that. We are co-operating across different European arrangements, and our own, to ensure we can supply Ukraine. We in the UK have stepped up, spending £4.5 billion this year. We co-ordinate a lot of the UK and European-wide efforts to ensure that Ukraine can stand up to the aggression it still faces from Russia, no matter what President Putin or anybody else has to say about it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The landmark agreement secured today will complement our bilateral partnerships with European countries. It will pave the way for UK defence industries to participate in EU defence programmes, supporting thousands of British jobs, boosting growth and making our continent safer.
Johanna Baxter
I am pleased that today the United Kingdom is hosting a summit in London to reset our relationship with Europe—yet another sign that this Labour Government are restoring our reputation as a global power after it was trashed by a decade of Tory incompetence. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps are being taken to ensure that our world-leading defence industry can access the European rearmament fund, to drive economic prosperity at home, benefit my constituents, and strengthen security across Europe?
Maria Eagle
The UK and the EU will use this opportunity to explore closer collaboration across defence industrial initiatives in a way that will support economic growth and jobs on both sides, and help to prevent fragmentation across our shared industrial base. We can now go on to discuss a bilateral agreement to facilitate participation in EU schemes such as ReArm and SAFE—Security Action for Europe.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What financial commitment will the UK have to make to participate in the fund?
Maria Eagle
Any financial commitment that has to be made will be subject to the further discussions that I have just set out. Today’s agreement enables us to discuss bilaterally what arrangements we can make to have access to those programmes.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
We are delivering for defence by putting people at the heart of our defence plans. We have secured a deal to buy back 36,000 military homes to improve housing for forces families and save taxpayers £600,000 a day in rent. Our new consumer charter means that families will have a named housing officer, improved repairs and a clearer, shorter complaints process. Our forthcoming defence housing strategy will set out plans to undertake a generational review of our properties.
Alison Hume
In December, the Defence Committee found that two thirds of service family homes
“need extensive refurbishment or rebuilding”
to meet modern standards. We know that poor-quality housing impacts children’s ability to learn and to attend school, as well as their physical health. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the 3,500 children from service families who attend school in North Yorkshire live in adequate accommodation?
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis of the impact of poor housing. We have regained control of 2,793 of the 3,221 service family accommodation units in Yorkshire and Humber previously owned by Annington, after a landmark deal earlier this year. As well as saving taxpayers rent that can be recycled into improvements, that enables us to plan a once-in-a-generation improvement of service family homes. The detailed plans will be set out in the defence housing strategy later this year.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I will certainly do that. Programme Euston is a £2 billion investment aiming to deliver resilient out-of-water engineering capability at His Majesty’s naval base Clyde by the early 2030s. Market engagement is under way, but it is too early for me to let my hon. Friend know of any kind of outcome. However, I recognise the skills and experience at Methil, and I welcome the certainty that Navantia UK’s purchase of Harland and Wolff has brought to that facility. I look forward to seeing any bids that come in.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The number of nuclear safety incidents at Faslane and Coulport is on the rise. They include six incidents in the last 12 months in which there was actual or high potential for radioactive release into the Scottish environment. The Ministry of Defence has ceased providing information to either the Scottish Government or the Scottish people about the nature of these incidents. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has stopped providing information to the Infrastructure and Projects Authority so that it can grade nuclear projects on value for money and success likelihood. What does the Secretary of State think about this veil of secrecy over the nuclear enterprise?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Maria Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for that investment in her constituency. We have to do more to improve housing for military families, including in Suffolk Coastal. The defence housing strategy work includes an extensive review of our entire service family accommodation portfolio to determine how we will use our properties. It will report later this year; she will then know more.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
One of Eastbourne’s last surviving world war two veterans, the incredible Eric Deach, celebrates his 100th birthday three weeks today, on 9 June. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing him a very happy centenary, and thank him for his service to our country?
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Yesterday, a Conservative councillor in my constituency said that the Government were “dancing to the tune of warmongers” because of their support for British defence manufacturing, despite one of those manufacturers being in his ward. Do the Government believe, as I do, that we need to do more, not less, to support British defence manufacturing?
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend: we need to do more to support British defence manufacturing, and we are doing more by reforming procurement and prioritising UK-based businesses for the work that we can give them.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Land at Eastriggs in my constituency, formerly part of MOD Eastriggs, was declared surplus, and 18 acres were successfully leased to a rail business that provided important jobs in the constituency. However, the plans for the remainder of the site seem to have got bogged down. I hope that Ministers can expedite a decision, so that more valuable jobs can be created in my constituency.
Maria Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I will look into it and get back to him.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Salute Her, a veterans’ charity in the north-east, does incredible work to support women veterans with specific needs in accessing support. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that women’s voices and needs will be heard and catered for in the upcoming veterans’ strategy?
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
The Minister may know that I have spent months convincing British scale-up Aeralis to choose Prestwick as the location at which it will build a proposed Hawk replacement—the first British jet built in 50 years. That would create 4,000 jobs. Will she do all she can to bring Aeralis to Prestwick, and make the Red Arrows British and Scottish?
Maria Eagle
I have met representatives of Aeralis on a number of occasions, as have my senior officials. The MOD has provided the company with considerable support as it develops its concept of a modular aircraft with digital design. The Department remains engaged with Aeralis, and with the sector as a whole, to seek a solution that will generate the combat air pilots of the future. We have begun considering what aircraft will replace the Hawk fast jet trainer, which is currently in operation in the Royal Air Force.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I welcome last week’s written statement confirming that the cases of many of the Triples—the Afghan commandos who served shoulder to shoulder with UK special forces—will be reviewed. What guarantees can the Minister offer that those individuals will be protected, wherever they are, and that their evidence will be heard by the public inquiry relating to Afghanistan?
Defence Industries: North-East
Maria Eagle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
It is great to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on securing the debate and shedding light on the vital defence industry in the north-east, and particularly his part of the region.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for accompanying him to show the great strength of will among elected representatives in the north-east to boost and push the development of their defence industries. I congratulate them all on the contributions they made. I have managed to visit some, but not all of the constituencies represented here today. I know that people will now ask me to go to the other ones, and we will have to bear that in mind as time goes on.
As we heard today, defence makes a considerable contribution to the north-east in terms of jobs, investment and growth, but my hon. Friends have also made clear that a huge contribution could be made beyond what has already been done. The nation as a whole needs us to boost our defence industries, and this Government are determined to do that. It is clear that the world is becoming much more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. At the same time, the Government face the challenge of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces to meet those threats better, after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out.
We are conducting the strategic defence review to assess fully the threats we face and to determine what capabilities we need to meet them. It is also why we brought forward an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with plans to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament; and it is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy. We cannot continue to spend money in the MOD as we spent in the past. We have to get better value. There is no point in increasing spending if we pour some of it down the drain. We have to do things better, and that is what defence reform is about.
The defence industrial strategy is in part about how we can transform procurement to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about the need for us to do procurement better and reform it. He mentioned some very good small firms, including Tees Components, which I know to a degree. It is a family firm in a small community that does wondrous things.
There is enormous potential in north-east communities for innovation and dual-use technologies, but the way we do procurement now positively excludes small companies from being able to participate, partly because it takes us so long to do it and partly because of the requirements on the firms to prove all kinds of things and produce all kinds of documentation that they do not normally have the staff to produce. BAE Systems might, but a small family firm does not. The system excludes small firms and they end up, at best, in the supply chains of the primes, which is fine as far as it goes, but does not enable them to show us what they can do in terms of agility and innovation.
My hon. Friends will recall the Chancellor’s announcement in her spring statement that we are going to reform defence procurement. Part of that reform will be to speed up getting to contract. The average time to contract is six years, which is ridiculous in the current situation. Procuring a nuclear submarine might take a bit longer than procuring the latest drone, so we are going to segment our procurement arrangements to recognise the fact that not every contract is the same.
We will do this in three layers. One layer will be major programmes, on which we will aim to cut the time to contract from the current average of six years to three years. The second layer is developing new upgrades—a new radar for one of our platforms, for example. For that segment, we aim to get to contract within one year instead of within three. At the faster end—I will not say the smaller end—we aim to get to contract for novel and agile dual-use technology within three months. That will challenge the MOD, but we are determined to do things better and make sure that our spending gets better value and better capability faster into the hands of our warfighters. Many companies in the north-east will be able to benefit from this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland will recall that the Prime Minister announced the formation of an SME hub, which ought to enable small firms to plug into the available opportunities and help them to know where to get finance, which is a problem for small firms. We need a clearer idea of what the capabilities are to enable them to plug their ideas and their dual-use technology into the opportunities that are available.
The establishment announced by the Chancellor of UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget this year, which has already started, means that there is more money available for dealing with innovative and novel technologies. The Chancellor also committed us to making sure that there is a ringfenced budget that will increase to 10% of our acquisitions budget.
I therefore think the prospect is good for our small and innovative firms. When I go to trade fairs, go on constituency visits and do roundtables to find out what industry wants, I meet many of these small firms from around the country, including the north-east—I have met some on a couple of occasions in the north-east. Many of them say the same thing: “We need a way in. We need to know what you are doing, and what you want and when you want it. And we need to be able to engage faster and more effectively.” I hope that we will be able to do that.
It is going to require wholesale reorganisation, and us to learn how to do things differently, but I will just say to this Chamber and to my hon. Friends that the efforts we have put into supporting Ukraine show that we can do things faster, we can procure better, and we can ensure that we get capability into the hands of warfighters who desperately need it on a much faster timescale than we have done traditionally. The people who have done that are the same people in the MOD who have traditionally done the slower, more long-term, more stately work. It is just about risk appetite and about what we want them to do.
With the strategic defence review publication coming up shortly, in due course, and with the defence industrial strategy also to be published—not at the same time, but not too far away from that—we ought to have an obvious and transparent framework, backed by resources that are guaranteed to be increasing into the future. That is not something that industry has had in the past, which is something that it has always complained about, telling us, “We need a demand signal. We’re not going to invest until we know that you really want this long term.”
I think we will have the kind of ecosystem and opportunities that small firms and large firms in the north-east, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are here today, will be able to take advantage of to grow and bring forth their agility, ideas, energy, and patriotism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said, many people in the north-east who work in the defence industry are very proud of doing so and really do want to support our country in its defence and security needs. They will be that much more motivated because there will be more opportunities.
I know that my hon. Friends, who are here in numbers today to represent the north-east, will make sure that I know what the opportunities are in the north-east and what more can be done, and I will rely on them to do that. I cannot get out of the office as much as I might like, so I rely on right hon. and hon. Members to let me know what is going on, what the issues are and what the problems are. I hope that, between all of us, we get into a position to boost our defence industries in a way that not only increases our defence and security, and our ability to deter our potential adversaries and, if needs be, make sure that our warfighters are properly equipped, but leads to regional growth and job opportunities, real lives and careers for our young people and our older people who work in the defence industries and in dual-use technologies, and also enables us to grow our economy as a whole, nationally.
I know that if we get this right and harness the skills, capabilities, commitment, good sense and effort of people who work in the defence industries, we will be in a much, much better place. It is a win-win for all of us—not only for my hon. Friends, but for the north-east and for the nation as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Vulcan Handover Date
Maria Eagle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment in Caithness, Scotland, has been used for prototype testing of nuclear propulsion plants for more than 50 years. The last test reactor was shut down in 2015 and more recent activity at the site is focused on fuel management to support the ongoing safe operation of our current nuclear submarines.
The site continues to provide valuable support to the submarine enterprise, ensuring our submarines remain safe to operate in meeting our national security requirements, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, and we expect this to continue until at least April 2027. This maintains around 280 highly skilled jobs for the contractor Rolls-Royce Submarines and the Ministry of Defence.
Once complete, the plan is to hand over the management of the Vulcan site from the MOD to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning to commence. Synergies are being sought between the NRTE site and the neighbouring Dounreay civil nuclear site, which is also being decommissioned, to ensure we deliver value for taxpayers’ money.
In the longer term, the MOD remains committed to decommissioning of the Vulcan site and to remove fuel from the site as soon as is reasonably practicable.
[HCWS551]
Oral Answers to Questions
Maria Eagle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The Defence Secretary raised this issue at the meeting of all NATO Defence Ministers in February and has held a number of discussions with NATO allies since, including with the US Secretary of Defence and in meetings with joint expeditionary force and E5 allies. European allies are stepping up within NATO, and the UK is leading efforts to increase defence spending and expand defence industrial capacity.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that it is deeply disappointing that France has blocked European Union countries from allowing SAFE—Security Action for Europe—funds to be used for the procurement of British weapons. With that in mind, what has the Minister done to ensure that actions are being taken to guarantee a multilateral, NATO-wide procurement strategy, with the UK at its centre?
Maria Eagle
I have met a number of my equivalents bilaterally, but it is important to say that we welcome the ReArm initiative and that it is in all our interests for SAFE to allow member states to partner with the UK. We will continue to emphasise the need for EU defence financing and wider defence industrial initiatives to include third countries like the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, we want to conclude a UK-EU defence and security pact that will give us access to that scheme.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. Last week, the Defence Committee met the Chief of the General Staff, who highlighted the challenges of supporting our troops in Estonia. I highlighted the Rail Baltica project, which received significant funding from the EU’s Connecting Europe Facility and NATO, and which links my constituency, via High Speed 1, right through to the Baltics using British steel. Will the Minister meet me to discuss supporting the expansion of HS1 capacity, as it is the type of opportunity that would support growth within our defence industrial capacity, improve our deterrence and increase our commitment to our European allies, while bringing high quality jobs to east London?
Maria Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I hope hon. Members from around the House are starting to realise, if I am asked for a meeting my general answer is yes. I am very happy to meet him.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
SMEs can help us make defence an engine for growth in all our nations and regions. I want far more involvement from SMEs in our procurement, providing agility, innovation and resilience as we seek to ramp up our industrial production. That is why the Prime Minister recently launched a new defence SME support hub, and committed us to publishing a new target for MOD spend with SMEs.
Amanda Martin
Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the privilege of visiting His Majesty’s Royal Naval Base in Portsmouth, to meet personnel and see equipment used by our armed forces that is made by Accuracy International and SIG Sauer, an SME firearms manufacturer in my constituency. Accuracy International employs more than 100 local people. What is the Minister doing to ensure that companies such as Accuracy International and SIG Sauer are given a fair shot in defence procurement and can continue to provide jobs in my city?
Maria Eagle
A fair shot—I commend my hon. Friend on her puns. Accuracy International has made a great contribution to UK defence and exports. I have been talking to defence firms, many of which are SMEs, during the defence industrial strategy consultation. I hope that the changes that we will make to speed up procurement and provide more access to opportunities will transform their chances of doing business with us, while making defence an engine for growth across all our nations and regions.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We are shortly to appoint a national armaments director with a salary of more than £600,000 a year. I hope that that colossal salary comes with the mandate to be able to tear up the book on defence procurement as we rearm the nation. Will the Minister reassure me that when we get the national armaments director back to the Defence Committee in a year’s time, they will not say, “Well, we tried to change things, but they wouldn’t let me”?
Maria Eagle
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are tearing up the way in which procurement works before the national armaments director moves into his place. It is one of the biggest jobs in government, which needs the right salary to attract the right person. I am clear that we will do things differently. The national armaments director will be held accountable for ensuring that we do so.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, Type 31s are being built at Rosyth and Type 26s are being built at Govan. We have got a programme for eight at Govan, and five so far at Rosyth—that is the current number.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
As you know all too well, Mr Speaker, Lancashire has a proud defence manufacturing pedigree at the cutting edge of our British sovereign capability—you think manufacturing and you think Lancashire. Will the Minister for Defence Procurement continue to champion Lancashire’s defence jobs? Will she commit—I understand that this is cheeky—to replacing tranche 1 Typhoon aircraft with new, modern Lancashire-made Typhoons?
Maria Eagle
I commend my hon. Friend for asking that question. He will know that the strategic defence review is considering our current mix of fourth and fifth-generation aircraft. He will also know that, in addition to the Typhoon, 15% of the F-35s as well as 37% of the Typhoons are made in Lancashire, so there is work aplenty in Lancashire, no matter which aeroplane is bought.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that expanding our military expenditure creates a golden opportunity to deal with the shortage of people going into science, technology and engineering jobs, and that as we expand the military budget, we should make sure that the defence industry expands the number of apprenticeships and builds a robust skills and training base so that young people can benefit from those jobs?
Maria Eagle
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there are skills shortages across much of manufacturing, not only in defence, so there is certainly going to be an issue. I can tell him that the apprentices I have met in the defence industry tend to smile the whole time. They are getting extremely good training for lifelong excellent jobs, so I am absolutely certain that we can get that across to young people and ensure that defence gets its fair share of the skilled people that we need.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Hawk is due to be out of service in the early 2030s. We are taking steps to consider what the alternatives might be, and we of will course consider any UK options that exist. I cannot tell him what the answer to that is yet, but it is under active consideration.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Those who bravely serve in our forces should never lose their say in our country’s future, so I welcome the Government’s swift action to introduce the ability to use the veterans ID card as voter ID. May I ask the Minister what plans there are to ensure that veterans around the country are aware of this important change?
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Maria Eagle
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer right now, but I am certainly happy to look into it and meet him, if he wants a meeting, or write to him.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I have a number of nuclear veterans in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency, as many colleagues do in their constituencies. What steps are Ministers taking to meet veterans, acknowledge their service and deal with the consequences of their service and their exposure to nuclear material?
Single Source Defence Contracts: Baseline Profit Rate 2025-26
Maria Eagle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I am today announcing on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence that the baseline profit rate for single source defence contracts will be set at 8.56%, in line with the rate recommended by the Single Source Regulations Office. This an increase of 0.32% from 2024-25. The Secretary of State has accepted the methodology used by the SSRO to calculate these figures. A full explanation of the SSRO methodology is published on their website. Element 2024-25 rates 2025-26 rates Baseline profit rate (% on contract cost) 8.24% 8.56% Baseline profit rate to apply to contracts between the Secretary of State and a company wholly owned by the UK Government, and where both parties agree (% on contract cost) 0% 0% Fixed capital servicing rate (% on fixed capital employed) 3.26% 3.64% Working capital servicing rate (% on positive working capital employed) 3.1% 4.69% Working capital servicing rate (% on negative working capital employed) 1.61% 3.21%
The SSRO’s recommendation on the capital servicing allowance to be applied to single source defence contracts has also been accepted and these rates are set out in table 1. These rates have been published in the London Gazette, as required by the Defence Reform Act 2014.
All of these new rates will come into effect from 1 April 2025.
[HCWS522]
Ukraine
Maria Eagle Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
Yesterday, at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary, we saw almost 50 nations and partners standing together. Ukraine is backed by the members of the group, and by billions of dollars-worth of arms and ammunition that have been committed to keep its warfighters equipped. That will increase pressure on Putin, help force him to the table, and bring a sustainable peace closer.
We were pleased that Secretary Hegseth confirmed the US’s continued commitment to the group, to Ukraine’s pursuit of what he called “a durable peace”, and to the importance of security guarantees. We heard his call for European nations to step up; we are, and we will. NATO allies pledged €40 billion in 2024, and went on to provide €50 billion. The majority of that came from European nations, while non-US NATO allies boosted wider defence spending by 20% in just the last year, so Europe is stepping up.
Finally, we saw a clear commitment to ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, using both military and economic tools. We all agree that 2025 will be the critical year for Ukraine. At this crucial moment, we will not step back, but step up our support for Ukraine. President Trump and President Zelensky have both spoken of their desire to achieve “peace through strength”. The commitments made yesterday provide the collective strength that we need to achieve peace. For our part, the UK will spend £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, which is more than ever before.
We have now provided more than 500,000 artillery shells, worth over £1.5 billion. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary announced that we will provide an additional £150 million of new firepower, including drones, tanks and air-to-air missiles. Ukraine’s security matters to global security. That is why the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group coalition of 50 nations and partners stretches from the Indo-Pacific to South America. This war was never about the fate of just one nation. When the border of one country is redrawn by force, it undermines the security of all nations.
The US is serious about stability in the Indo-Pacific, as are we. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the carrier strike group will go there next year. If aggression goes unchecked on one continent, it emboldens regimes on another, so on stepping up for Ukraine, we are, and we will. On stepping up for European security, we are, and we will.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder.
In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate.
We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator?
We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries.
Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?
Maria Eagle
I welcome the fact that, in the main, there is still consensus across this House on supporting Ukraine. That has been a tremendously important part of the support that we have given over the last three years, and before, to the Ukrainians.
The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine; my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made that clear in his remarks yesterday. NATO’s job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for any talks, but there can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine’s involvement. We want to see a durable peace and no return to conflict and aggression. That is the only way in which this war can end, with the kind of security that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have referred to.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We are all conscious of the three-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine at this time. However, there can be no peace without justice. It is therefore welcome that countries are collaborating to try to bring about a de-escalation of the war. What are the Government doing to focus on the justice system, to ensure that war criminals are tried, and justice is brought to the Ukrainian people?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that this has to be a just peace, and that those who have committed war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine need to be pursued for them.
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?
Maria Eagle
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about being betrayed by our allies. The US Defence Secretary has made it clear that he that he wants a durable peace. That is what he and the President are proceeding to try to obtain, so I do not accept that point. In terms of our own forces, we are seeking to ensure that recruitment, which has failed to meet targets over the last number of years, is improved, so that the numbers in our armed forces are up to full strength.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and the additional support that the Government have announced. It is essential that the UK supports Ukraine, and that the annual £3 billion pledge continues. Does she agree that working alongside our allies is even more essential in these turbulent times to bring about an end to the war?
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that any such negotiations must involve Ukraine, and that the Ukrainians must be happy with the peace that is negotiated. Our role at present, while fierce fighting is still going on, is to put them in the strongest position that we can, in order to enable them properly to negotiate.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that in this new world, and in the event of any peace deal, the United Kingdom and its European allies must lead in providing Ukraine with military support and, potentially, military presence across land, air and sea, to give Ukraine confidence that any peace will endure? I assure the Government that they will have my support, if that is what they decide to do.
Maria Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, when he played a part in these matters he was in office, so he is very knowledgeable about them. I can confirm that we aim to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to enable it to negotiate. That involves continuing to supply the Ukrainians with the arms and weapons that they need in order to fight, because the fighting is still fierce. We need to step up and ensure that we do that. Certainly over the last period, the EU and European nations that are involved in the coalition to support Ukraine have given the majority of military aid and support. As the Secretary-General of NATO confirmed yesterday, 58% of the support that Ukraine received last year was from European nations, so European nations are stepping up. We must continue to do so.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments about Ukraine’s security being indivisible from global security. Does she agree that the UK must stand firm against those who believe that they can take land through aggression, and that we must continue to send a strong signal around the world that larger nations cannot just grab bits of smaller nations as and when they please?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. As I said in my initial response to the urgent question, it is important that we deter that kind of behaviour wherever it is seen around the world.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is quite clear from events of the past few hours that the Atlantic and the high north are of increasingly critical concern. Indeed, I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee that considered that in the previous Parliament. I know that the Government have had conversations with Denmark, but what conversations are they having with our other Joint Expeditionary Force partners to ensure that those forces are given the support and the resources that they need?
Maria Eagle
The Government have ongoing discussions with our partners in Europe and the high north.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this announcement should not affect the support of this House and the UK for Ukraine, and will she work with our armed forces and our defence industries to do everything possible to support Ukrainian forces on the frontline?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied.
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.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Viewed from Washington, the idea of carving up the map in Europe might look like a pragmatic deal, even if history tells us that that always ends badly. Surely we in Europe understand that no matter what we give Vladimir Putin, he will always want more. Is that the context in which the strategic defence review is being carried out, and does the Minister accept that this moment requires a fundamental reset of our relations with our European partners—not just in defence—and that we need to get real about the financial and economic implications?
Maria Eagle
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review is about identifying threats that we face now, rather than threats we perhaps faced before the Ukraine war began, so I can tell him that the review is being conducted with that in mind. On the deterrence that we need to be able to provide and the money we need to spend to provide it, the commitment is as it has been: as the Prime Minister has said, he will set out a path to 2.5% once the strategic defence review has been published, and we expect that to be in the spring.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
As the Minister will know from her many welcome visits, my constituency is home to many defence companies that are playing a vital role in this conflict. Does she agree that it is crucial that we continue to support companies here in the UK to get military kit into the hands of those in Ukraine who need it most?
Maria Eagle
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the pleasure of visiting her constituency on several occasions, and when it was her predecessor’s constituency as well, so I am well aware of the strength of its defence industrial base. We need to strengthen that base across our nations and regions, and we are doing that. That has the additional importance of providing deterrence for our nation as well as supporting Ukraine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister agree that this clarifies what the benchmark of success for the defence review must be? As some of the defence chiefs have been expressing, we must be ready, if necessary, to fight a war with Russia if we are to deter it and if we are to be in any position to guarantee the security of an independent and sovereign Ukraine after whatever is agreed between President Trump and President Putin.
Maria Eagle
I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%—
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the statement that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine. In that spirit, has the Minister or any of her colleagues had conversations with their counterparts in Ukraine following the recent developments to find out how they are feeling? If not, do they plan to soon?
Maria Eagle
I have not, but I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having discussions and, indeed, our discussions are ongoing and frequent. I have had contact with my counterpart in Ukraine, just not since yesterday.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Yesterday, no matter that we in this House wish it was not the case, the people of Ukraine were betrayed and the crimes of aggression and annexation were rewarded in a telephone call between Washington and Moscow. Right now, we have to be building closer partnerships with our European allies for whom democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law still actually mean something. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but how will the Government do that in the face of two men who believe that, because of their military superiority, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want?
Maria Eagle
The US Secretary of Defence made it clear yesterday that any peace negotiations that the Americans are involved in need to lead to a durable peace that does not see a resumption of the aggression that has led to this war, and we support that. We have also made it quite clear that these negotiations must involve Ukraine—of course they must. That is the way in which this war will finally end.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the commitment that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine, because if reports of the call between President Trump and Moscow are to be believed, this is less the art of the deal and more a charter for appeasement. Will we be working with NATO allies to establish a clear road map with defined timeframes for Ukraine’s NATO membership, ensuring long-term deterrence against inevitable further Russian aggression?
Maria Eagle
We have always said that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and our position is that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. However, we have also always been clear that the process will take time. I have already said quite clearly that the fate of Ukraine in these negotiations cannot be determined without Ukraine being fully involved, and that is our priority. At the moment, warfighting is still happening to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate from strength.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In 1994, Russia —along with the UK and the US—signed the Budapest memorandum, pledging to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Given Russia’s flagrant breach of that undertaking, why should Ukraine believe a word that Putin says without concrete security guarantees?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure the House that it is UK Government policy that not only must Ukraine be involved in a peace and in securing its territorial integrity, but it is only the Ukrainian people—not President Trump, nor President Putin—who can determine the destiny of Ukraine?
Maria Eagle
We have said that Ukraine must be involved in those negotiations, and that peace negotiations need two sides to come an agreement. It therefore clearly follows that the Ukrainians must be content with whatever the process comes up with. There must be security guarantees, and the peace must be durable—everybody agrees with that.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this
“was not a good war to go into”?
Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia?
Maria Eagle
We have made quite clear with our 100-year partnership with Ukraine that we back it in the long term. We have provided Ukraine with support from many parties across this Chamber over a number of years to ensure that it can continue its fight, and we will continue to support Ukraine during any negotiations that take place so that it can get the peace that it wishes to have.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister’s commitment to continued defence support for Ukraine is essential, and I am sure the House’s thoughts are with Ukrainians who are fighting for their freedoms and all the Ukrainians in our own communities who have found sanctuary in this country. Does she agree that any settlement cannot be a repeat of the Budapest memorandum or the Minsk agreements, which failed to deter future Russian imperial aggression?
Maria Eagle
I think everybody agrees that any peace that is negotiated must be durable. That will require security guarantees, given the past experience that the Ukrainians have of Russia and Russian aggression.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
As the Minister will be aware, much of the Russian war effort is being sustained by other nations, including several of the BRIC nations, which are supporting Russia through direct military aid or dual-use products. What is the Minister doing to try to deter the flow of arms that is continuing to sustain Russia?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman will know very well that there are sanctions, which we do our best to police, and they have had some impact. I think they have to continue both while the war is still ongoing and while the peace is being considered and negotiated.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
All wars end, but I know it is the feeling of Members across the House that we very much owe it to the men and women fighting for Ukraine that, when this war ends, it does so with Ukraine in a position of strength at the table and in the driving seat on the terms and timescales.
Maria Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to continue to support Ukraine to put it in the strongest possible position both while it is fighting the war and during any negotiations that take place.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could we take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost in this war—Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, Russian soldiers—and all the families who are mourning today?
Efforts were made earlier on by Latin American and African leaders and the Pope to try to negotiate an end to this war, and we may now have an opportunity to demonstrate that one country should never occupy another. Does the Minister believe that there is any possibility in the near future of a ceasefire, ahead of negotiations, that would be acceptable to the people of Ukraine as well as the rest of Europe, because we need to see an end to this ghastly conflict?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that conflicts such as this need to come to an end as soon as possible, so I acknowledge the point he makes about the death on all sides and how bad that is. However, I think it is important for any peace that may be negotiated to be durable and lasting, so we need to focus our minds at present on supporting Ukraine as much as we can so that it goes into any such negotiations in the strongest possible position.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Given Putin’s illegal invasion and declared intent, do the Government agree that any negotiations must result in a sovereign Ukraine, and that the UK will play its part in providing security guarantees that are meaningful, unlike those of the past, because that is crucial to securing a lasting peace?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Member is right that security guarantees are likely to be an important part of any peace agreement given the past history. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and we are committed to ensuring that it can defend its sovereign capability to continue to exist. While it is too early to talk about any details of what those security guarantees may be, we are committed to making sure that Ukraine can continue as an independent state.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On Monday, there will be a concert in Bath abbey in support of Ukraine. My constituents have been unstinting in their support for Ukrainians living among us, but also for Ukrainian communities such as in Oleksandriia. Now is not the point at which to weaken our support. How will the Government ensure that Ukraine’s voice is heard loud and clear in any peace talks, and that no European countries may potentially, or will ultimately, be bullied by US President Trump?
Maria Eagle
I agree very much with the hon. Lady when she says that our Ukrainian friends here in this nation have received a lot of support—not only in her constituency, but across the UK—from their friends and neighbours, and that that will continue. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. We have supported the Ukrainians through the toughest times of this war with arms and other necessary support, and we will continue to do so.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, as I do, the huge effort of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, of which a large proportion is in Scotland, particularly in and around my constituency. Given the huge efforts they have made, does she agree that we must not convey the idea in the coming weeks that we have in any way let them or their countrymen down?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with that, and we have no intention—I think in any part of this House—of doing so.
Jim Shannon
No, no—I will grab the chance.
I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these concerns. It is clear that any peace that is negotiated, which must have the consent of the Ukrainians themselves, has to be durable, and to the extent that that requires security guarantees, those have to be present for it to work.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to prepare. The strategic defence review will set out the threats that we face and we will then turn our attention to making sure we obtain the capabilities to deal with them. Obviously we will look at any weaknesses there might be and try to shore them up.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Every time President Trump makes a statement about Ukraine I hear from constituents that they are terrified for the future of Ukraine, and never more so than in the last 24 hours. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government were consulted on or told about President Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin beforehand?
Maria Eagle
I am afraid it is above my pay grade to know the answer to that question, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to ask those whose pay grade it is not above at another questions session. As far as I am aware we have had friendly conversations at the Ukraine defence contact group with members of the US Administration.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What practical help are the Government providing to Ukraine’s legal system and judges to ensure the prosecution of war crimes?
Maria Eagle
We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which has been signed. That will be supporting it in any way it feels it needs support that we might be able to offer. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question today about what help we have given, but I am absolutely certain that if Ukraine asks us for help and it is considered that our legal profession is able to supply it, we will think about doing so.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the Minister not agree that the lesson to draw from this is the importance of military strength, working with all our NATO and European allies, but critically being able to stand on our own two feet militarily? We need to see defence spending as investment, and in that light does she wish we were not giving however many billions of pounds it is to Mauritius and that we could invest that money in our defences instead?
Maria Eagle
We have a commitment to getting our defence spending back to 2.5% of GDP, and the last time it was at that level was at the time of the last Labour Government.