Ukraine

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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%—

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

When?

[Maria Eagle]

In the spring.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

2. What his plans are for the disposal of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

Neither HMS Albion nor HMS Bulwark were due to go to sea ahead of their out-of-service dates in 2033 and 2034. The Royal Navy is exploring options to sell both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark in a Government-to-Government sale. Several potential customers have shown interest, but no final decisions have been made.

[Rebecca Smith]

Given that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are reportedly being sold to another navy for a figure that could well undervalue previous spends on refits and maintenance, how does the Minister justify the economic impact of their sale on Plymouth and Devonport dockyard, let alone the reduction in amphibious capability in the Navy, when the promised multi-role support ships are at least half a decade away from service?

[Maria Eagle]

I do not recognise any of the figures that have been bandied around in the newspapers; it would not be accurate to take them as anything other than speculation. The disposal shows that we are delivering for defence by divesting ourselves of old capabilities to make way for the future, as the First Sea Lord Admiral Ben Key put it. Those ships were effectively mothballed by the previous Government, so I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on how to deal with these matters.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

3. In which financial year he plans to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

13. What his planned timetable is for awarding the new medium helicopter contract.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

The new medium helicopter competition is at the evaluation and approval stage. If everything goes well, I anticipate a contract award later this year, subject to all the usual approvals.

[Edward Morello]

A significant number of my constituents contribute to the defence sector, whether through apprenticeships, graduate roles or skilled employment. Many were schooled in West Dorset and now work in the surrounding areas, including for firms such as Leonardo in the neighbouring constituency of Yeovil. What assurances can the Minister give that contracts such as the new medium helicopter will be awarded quickly so that the futures of the many apprentices and employees in the defence sector are protected?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right: some of these programmes can take a long time to get to contract. In fact, this programme experienced delays in securing outline business case approval under the previous Government. I hope that we can get it to the end of the line as swiftly as possible, in accordance with the current process, and that some of his constituents will benefit from having work to do on the new programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

T2. This week is National Apprenticeship Week. I know from my constituents that apprenticeships are a vital and successful route into the workplace. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the 26,000 apprenticeships in the defence sector across the country? Will the Government continue to build the right skills and workforce of the future through apprenticeships?

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

I am very happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point. I met many apprentices late last week at the launch of National Apprenticeship Week. Whichever factory I visit, I meet apprentices—young men and women—who are thrilled by the opportunities that a career in defence gives them. They all have smiles on their faces and futures in front of them. It is great that National Apprenticeship Week highlights all that.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

T5. We pressed the Government to extend continuity of education allowances to 100% for service families. We were told that there would be no exemptions from the depredations of the decision to impose VAT on school fees, but it turns out that the children of American servicemen and women are exempt. Would it not be fair to extend that exemption to the men and women who serve our country?

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

T3. The Government are rightly proud of the men and women who work in our defence industry. Will the Minister join me in encouraging excellent universities such as Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme to work with our defence sector to create good jobs for local people, boost skills and safeguard our national security?

[Maria Eagle]

I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in making those points. He is right that we must fully support defence companies and their personnel, and we must ensure that universities such as Keele, and all others across the further and higher education sectors, welcome defence firms at their careers fairs.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

T7. Do the Secretary of State, his officials and his chiefs have a plan to implement the additional resource from 2.5% of GDP when it arrives? If they do not, we will be faced with lengthy delays while procurement plans are put in place. Is this a case of ministerial prevarication, or is there a serious plan? If 2.5% arrives but there are no plans for procurement ready to hit the ground running, we will actually be no further forward than we were at 2%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

With the Russians using drones to drop CS gas into the trenches of the Donbas, and Avon Protection in my constituency ready to manufacture the residue of the 300,000 gas masks that Ukraine requested, will the Government put in an order as soon as possible, please?

[Maria Eagle]

We have taken many steps to try to improve the capabilities of the Ukrainians when it comes to drone technology, and I am perfectly happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy, but it is also the proud home of many companies in the defence sector: BAE, Airbus and Accuracy International, to name just a few. Those companies provide fantastic job opportunities for my constituents, but they have faced real difficulties in the last decade. What steps is the Department taking to support our defence sector in the UK and in Portsmouth in particular—both the businesses themselves and the recruitment and training of the skilled workforce—as part of our Government’s industrial strategy?

[Maria Eagle]

I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend shortly when I visit some of those businesses in her constituency. The defence industrial strategy is the way in which we will seek to deal with the issues that she has raised.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituent Owen was medically discharged from the Army after 17 years of service. Since then, he has been waiting for two years for a resolution of his claim under the armed forces compensation scheme. Does the Minister agree that that is too long to make a veteran wait, and what advice can he give me so that I can resolve my constituent’s case?

Defence

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises on 28 January 2025.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) was passionate in making his points about late payment; this is not the first time that he has raised that issue in parliamentary settings. The Government do recognise the importance of fair payment practices. Direct suppliers to the MOD are required to sign up to the prompt payment code to be eligible for MOD contracts. The Director General Commercial recently wrote to large suppliers to remind them of that responsibility because some are better at complying than others.

[Official Report, 28 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 105WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle):

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) was passionate in making his points about late payment; this is not the first time that he has raised that issue in parliamentary settings. The Government do recognise the importance of fair payment practices. Direct suppliers to the MOD are required to comply with the Government’s prompt payment policy to be eligible for MOD contracts. The Director General Commercial has written to large suppliers to remind them of that responsibility because some are better at complying than others.

Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

I will certainly do that, Mr Stringer. This debate has been excellent, and it is good to see so many colleagues in the Chamber to participate, even if they could not make the length of speech that perhaps they had hoped. None the less, everybody was able to get the nub of what they wanted to say into the debate. For that we have my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) to thank, because it is he who secured the debate; I congratulate him on it. I welcome this debate on the involvement of SMEs in defence procurement because this is an issue, as my hon. Friend and many others have said, that is of critical importance to the future of our military and to our capacity to deter potential adversaries.

We all know that Britain faces acute and growing dangers—conflict in the middle east, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Indo-Pacific—and we also know that our armed forces have been underfunded and hollowed out over the last number of years, which is why we are having a root-and-branch strategic defence review to assess these threats and develop the capabilities we need to counter them. It is why we are boosting spending this year by just under £3 billion in real terms, and why we are going to set out a pathway to 2.5% of GDP on defence. I am not going to repeat everything that was said in the House yesterday on this, but I realise that it is a matter that everybody across the House is concerned about.

Our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and procurement system that supports and equips them. The procurement system itself was described during the last Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee as “broken”. It is clear that changes need to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor set out some of what he wants to see, including the ability to respond more swiftly to the changing face of warfare. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have set out some of what they have seen, during their time in this place, of that effort being achieved, particularly in respect of the support we have been giving over the past few years to Ukraine. There is nothing like an emergency situation like that to ensure that we innovate. It is important that we learn the lessons of that innovation for our procurement more generally.

I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, to get SMEs more involved in our procurement processes. He made a number of suggestions, as did other Members around Westminster Hall, of how we might be able to do that. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned Supacat, which I saw last week at the international armoured vehicles conference. Everything he said about Supacat is correct. It is an excellent example, and the hon. Gentleman was able to provide the Chamber with numbers in relation to jobs and the improved economic growth in his area that it is able to provide. That is precisely the kind of thing that we want the new defence industrial strategy, when it is published, to be able to pursue and do better with.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said rightly that MOD spend in Northern Ireland is less than in some regions of England, and he quoted some numbers. He is quite right, but there is no indication that SMEs over there have less ability to innovate or to provide services of the type that the MOD needs. I hope to be able to do precisely what he asks and increase that number. I will be visiting in due course, not too far in the future, and I hope to hear from some of the SMEs that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who is, unusually, no longer in his place—talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about the Teesside defence and innovation cluster and some of the companies in his constituency. He is right: I promised him a visit—I think we are trying to organise it now. When I am considering which proposals to take forward in the defence industrial strategy, before it is published, it is tremendously helpful to hear directly from SMEs about their experience. I have already done some of that and, between now and the end of the consultation, I will be doing as much, in as many regions, as I possibly can, in all of our nations around the UK. I hope to be in a position to get a good sense of the big issues that smaller companies are raising with us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) was passionate in making his points about late payment; this is not the first time that he has raised that issue in parliamentary settings. The Government do recognise the importance of fair payment practices. Direct suppliers to the MOD are required to sign up to the prompt payment code to be eligible for MOD contracts. The Director General Commercial recently wrote to large suppliers to remind them of that responsibility because some are better at complying than others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) argued, “Let us not decide that all defence primes are evil”—I think that is the word he used. I thought that was going a bit far, but his point was that they are not the enemy; they can be part of the solution. There are examples of good practice, where primes have been very clear about involving small, innovative, agile companies. There are some examples that are not so good, and we need to improve the way in which small firms engage with MOD contracts, whether directly or through contracting with a prime on a particular programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) asked me to visit. I think I have offered to visit absolutely everybody else in Westminster Hall, so it would be churlish of me to say no to him. I cannot promise to visit before the end of February, but I can promise to come and see some of what his constituency has to offer. It obviously has a long history of engineering and of working hard in tough industries. I look forward to that visit. He mentioned that he is visiting a firm that supplies products across domains, and it sounds like he will have an interesting time.

I look forward also to dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I was glad to hear her say that she is in favour of a comprehensive industrial strategy because the defence industrial strategy that we are going to bring forward is part of a thorough, countrywide industrial strategy for all Departments. She will recall that that strategy identified defence as one of the eight growth sectors on which we ought to rely to improve economic growth and spread prosperity across the nations and regions—and that is what we want to do. In fact, the defence industrial strategy that we will bring forward will act as the sector action plan for that broader strategy, so we will be joining up.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk raised the issue of protest-related activity on university campuses and what that means for the ability of defence companies to recruit the best talent. This Government recognise the crucial importance of attracting new entrants to the defence sector. Obviously, university campuses provide a way of engaging with young people who might want to work for existing companies or set up their own and get involved in the defence sector. We do need to do that. We are working closely with the Department for Education and with Skills England to address the skills landscape in the defence sector. Part of that is about making sure that young people at educational institutions such as universities can get the full range of information, at university careers fairs and so on. I hope that between all of us we can make an improvement, to the extent that there is a problem that was identified by The Times.

[James Cartlidge]

I think what everyone wants to see from the defence sector is that we champion the ethical value of investing in defence because it delivers security, and in doing so challenge those who protest as if these companies were somehow out there to harm us.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with that and I think there would not be too much disagreement across the House of Commons about that. I think it is something we can agree on, and that we should try to get that sense out there. Increasingly, as people see the increasingly dangerous world we are living in, there is the capacity for any concerns that there might have been about defence in the past to be seen properly in context, and for it to be seen that actually, defence is a key part of our ability to continue with our way of life as we choose in a democracy.

I have a couple of minutes left before I hand over again to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. It has been an excellent debate. In many ways we have not had enough time to get through all the contributions that colleagues around Westminster Hall would have wanted to make, but as I go about trying to deal with our defence industrial strategy, it is helpful for me to hear from colleagues, just as it is helpful for me to get around the country as much as I can to listen directly to SMEs. It helps make sure that the policy prescriptions we come out with in the defence industrial strategy are the right ones; that we can change procurement in a way that will assist SMEs to have full involvement as they wish in defence procurement; and that we can spread prosperity and economic growth across all our regions in England and all the nations of the UK. That is the prize in front of us, and that is what we can do if we get this right.

Fairey Swordfish Mark II

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a gift which the Ministry of Defence (MOD) intends to make to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust Ltd.

Since 1960, the Royal Navy operated a collection of MOD-owned historically important naval heritage aircraft with the Royal Navy Historic Flight. Five military-registered aircraft formed part of the Royal Navy Historic Flight, all of which had been maintained at some expense on the military register by the MOD. In January 2018, it was determined that, to allow greater freedoms in operation at reduced cost to the MOD, the Royal Navy Historic Flight should be disbanded, with its aircraft transferred to a civilian owner-operator. On 1 January 2020, four former Royal Navy Historic Flight aircraft were gifted to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, with one, a Fairey Swordfish Mk II (LS326), retained while its original conditions of transfer to the Royal Navy were clarified.

The gift comprises a Fairey Swordfish Mk II (LS326) torpedo bomber aircraft, famous for the battle of Taranto and operations throughout world war two, in flying condition.

The total value of this gift is in the region of £495,000. The transfer of ownership is expected to be undertaken over the coming weeks.

The Fly Navy Heritage Trust Ltd, a charity operating under the umbrella of “Navy Wings”, has promoted the culture and heritage conservation of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm since the formation of the trust in the early ’90s. The trust has provided significant financial support to the renovation, repair and maintenance of heritage aircraft, operating them in direct support of naval service engagement aims.

The gifting of this final former Royal Navy Historic Flight aircraft to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust will allow this historically important aircraft to continue to be used in support of commemorative and educational aims in support of the Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm for many years to come.

[HCWS389]

Unity Contract

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is almost a shame to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on an important development relating to our Royal Navy submarine fleet that will boost national security and economic growth, and deliver savings to the taxpayer.

This morning, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is visiting the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy site in Derby to announce our new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. Unity is worth around £9 billion over eight years and, as its name implies, brings together eight contracts into one, covering the research, design, manufacture and in-service support of the nuclear reactors that power the current and planned Royal Navy submarine fleet, which helps to keep the nation and our allies safe.

This is the biggest contract that Rolls-Royce has ever had with the UK Ministry of Defence. The contract will help Rolls-Royce to operate in a more integrated and efficient way, driving efficiencies, reducing waste, saving more than £400 million and delivering on the Government’s commitment to provide value for money for the taxpayer. It will ensure that our committed submariners, who, alongside their families, sacrifice so much to keep us all safe, can continue to protect us around the clock, every minute of every day.

Not only is this new deal a boost for our national security, but it underpins the Government’s triple-lock guarantee to our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our important AUKUS defence and security partnership with the United States of America and Australia by enabling the development of our next-generation SSN-AUKUS nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines.

The Unity contract is also a boost for British industry, for the resilience of our defence supply chains, and for jobs, skills and economic growth in communities in the east midlands and across the country. The Unity deal will create more than 1,000 new jobs, sustaining around 5,000 skilled and well-paid roles in total—the majority in Derby, but also around 200 in Glasgow and Cardiff. The deal will also help to deliver the next generations of skilled workers we need in our nuclear defence enterprise, with the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy offering 200 apprenticeships each year. Unity also paves the way for the use of safer and more sustainable materials in our fleet, supporting the commitment made by defence to better environmental performance.

The new contract with Rolls-Royce—an historic British industrial success story—comes as we consult industry partners and trade unions on our new defence industrial strategy, and as we seek to create a new partnership with Government fit for our more uncertain age. The Government recognise not only that defence is critical for our national security, but that it is a key driver for economic growth. It makes the UK more resilient. Through our defence industrial strategy, we aim to strengthen the virtuous circle that connects a more resilient UK-based defence sector and economic growth across the country. That virtuous circle will enhance our military capabilities and in turn make them more resilient, which not only deters our enemies but acts as an engine of growth for opportunities, skills and well-paid jobs across our devolved nations and regions.

By onshoring and putting British manufacture first wherever it is in our national interest to do so, we will build on the 200,000 skilled British jobs currently sustained by MOD expenditure, delivering on the Government’s plan for change and our primary mission to kick-start economic growth, while simultaneously delivering on the first duty of any Government: to keep their people safe.

We in this House are all passionate about defence. The defence of our nation should be too important for political point scoring, and I hope we have a consensus on that. It is in that spirit that we are consulting on our strategic defence review, so that we have a national plan for defence—not just a Labour plan for defence—that will inform our path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. In that spirit, I thank my predecessor in the role, the current shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for the groundwork he put into this deal. What he started, we are finishing.

On Wednesday, the Defence Secretary updated the House on the key role of our submarine fleet and the role it plays in deterrence. We all saw it warding off the Russian spy ship Yantar from UK waters. We should be under no illusions: this was just the latest example of growing Russian aggression targeting the UK and our NATO allies. In our increasingly dangerous world, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy that protects our freedoms and our way of life.

This deal underpins that insurance policy for the next eight years, as we begin to phase in our new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines. This deal also foreshadows a brighter future for the UK defence sector, guided by our defence industrial strategy, which will make us more secure and prosperous at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady not only for early sight of her statement, but for her kind words in recognising my contribution to delivering this deal—Unity by name and by nature. As with the Annington deal and the UK-Germany barrel-making deal, I can safely say that this deal is profoundly to the benefit of our country. While I would have dearly loved to conclude those deals while in office, it is better that such deals are delivered under any Government than not at all, and I am delighted to be responding to the statement today.

While it is unusual to have statements on a sitting Friday, I thank the Government for announcing this deal to the House today, because it speaks to its huge importance to our national interest. Before explaining why the deal is so important, may I first thank all those involved in bringing it forward: those at the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, and in particular the commercial teams, who have worked so hard to iron out all the complex details needed to get it over the line, and of course Rolls-Royce itself? On that note, I thank everyone in the defence nuclear enterprise, and, as the right hon. Lady said, we give particular thanks, as we always should, to those who crew our nuclear submarines, and in particular the 24/7 continuous at-sea deterrent.

My personal experience—I am sure the right hon. Lady will have discovered this in the many international engagements in the export role that is so important to any Ministry of Defence procurement—was that Rolls-Royce was the single UK defence company, possibly only matched by BAE, that seemed to have greater success in penetrating major export markets. Visiting Raynesway last April to keep this project moving forward, I saw the sheer scale of Rolls-Royce’s commitment to apprenticeships and manufacturing excellence. That underlined how it is a domestic and international industrial success story for UK plc, and we should do everything possible to support it. The deal is economically crucial, helping sustain our sovereign defence nuclear industry, as the right hon. Lady said, and in turn sustaining thousands of skilled jobs.

I was struck, while speaking to apprentices at both Barrow and Raynesway, that of particular appeal to them was the assurance of a long-term career pathway. Today’s announcement will underwrite not just a major corporate investment, but the life plans of thousands of young people, and I wish them all well. Skills remain a challenge, given the sheer scale of the nuclear undertaking, so will the right hon. Lady update us on how she is taking forward the work of the pan-civil and defence nuclear skills taskforce, which I launched together with the then civil nuclear Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in August 2023?

This deal clearly builds on the good work done by the previous Conservative Government, who always backed our armed forces, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our defence industrial base, and who brought the mighty AUKUS partnership to life with the US and Australia. Can the right hon. Lady provide further detail on her very welcome confirmation that this deal will underpin AUKUS?

In talking about the economic importance of this announcement, we should also be clear about its military significance. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the Secretary of State’s statement on Wednesday regarding the Russian spy ship Yantar and its grey zone activities in our waters and economic zone. I said in response that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government not just on Ukraine but in standing up to the Russian threat, which I still regard as by far the most immediate and serious in terms of the UK homeland. I urged him to lean into being more open with the country about the Russian threat, while of course protecting operational security, so that the country can understand the nature of the treat and what it will inevitably mean for defence expenditure.

The strategic defence review is expected in the spring, and I hope that it will be published as early as possible—ideally in March—but whenever it is, it appears likely that there will be a particular focus on homeland security and missile defence. That is entirely right, but we must all understand a fact of military reality: there is one UK capability that matters above all in the Kremlin, and that is our continuous at-sea deterrent. There is a strong argument for reinforcing our conventional missile defence capability for the UK homeland, but that is not what deters Putin from striking our cities; rather, it is our potential to retaliate. For that reason, we must continue to give absolute priority to the deterrent in our defence budget, and that budget must be urgently increased. Whatever else is announced in the SDR, I hope the right hon. Lady will confirm both that investment in our deterrent will remain central to all future plans and that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament.

While the deterrent is inevitably a multibillion-pound undertaking, it remains a way to guarantee our security for a fraction of overall public expenditure. Today has shown that it also offers a huge economic return to the country, underpinning manufacturing excellence. As such, and given the threats that we face, it has never been more vital that we continue to strengthen our defence nuclear enterprise.

[Maria Eagle]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Defence Secretary said—unity, indeed. He asked about 2.5%. I think we all agree that defence spending needs to increase, and he knows well that we have just increased it by 5.9% in real terms this coming year—it is up by £2.9 billion—as a step on the way to getting to 2.5%, which is a cast-iron guarantee.

The hon. Member referred to the strategic defence review, which as he knows we said will be coming in the spring, and that is still the plan. He will have to wait a little longer to see the precise details of the threats that that identifies and, therefore, the capabilities we need to develop.

I think there is general agreement across the House about the dangers of things like the Yantar incident, which the Secretary of State spoke about on Wednesday, and we will all have noted that it was dealt with by one of our nuclear submarines. That reinforces the point that the hon. Member made about the importance of our deterrent.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The contract that our Defence Secretary has announced at Rolls-Royce in Derby today is the biggest Ministry of Defence contract in its history. It will make a major contribution to the long-term investment in our city that I and neighbouring MPs have been calling for, creating 1,000 jobs and protecting 4,000 more. It is an investment not only in industry and nuclear, but in the skills and expertise for which our city is famous. Does the Minister agree that this represents a landmark deal for British defence?

[Maria Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She knows a lot about the subject, and she is correct that it is a landmark deal. It is particularly beneficial for Derby. As she said, there are many skills there already, but the Nuclear Skills Academy will be creating 200 apprenticeships and opportunities a year for young people to get into nuclear skills. Of course, those are transferable skills that are relevant not only on the military side but on the civil side, which will give young people with those skills great opportunities in life. That is one of the most important parts of the deal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman will be aware that she is allocated two minutes, which she has already exceeded significantly.

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the deal and for our continuous at-sea deterrent; that has not always been the Liberal Democrats’ position, so I welcome the fact that consensus has increased in this House.

The point that the hon. Lady made about enabling SMEs to get involved in the defence supply chain is tremendously important. We are currently consulting on the defence industrial strategy, and I am particularly keen to ensure we take steps to make that better, because the potential for innovation, agility and pull-through of new technologies is tremendous. I invite her to contribute to the consultation and to watch out for the defence industrial strategy when it is published.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this statement. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) said, we need SMEs to support our defence sector. One of the key challenges facing our defence sector, as Ukraine has shown, is that we need to speed up the pace of innovation in this new era facing defence. In Stevenage, we have many excellent SMEs supporting our local defence primes, Airbus and MBDA. Will my right hon. Friend show her support for what SMEs are doing and support them in the future?

[Maria Eagle]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which is that SMEs form a central part of our industrial base and can do more, if we encourage and enable them to do so, to boost our defence, boost jobs and boost economic growth in all regions and nations. I invite him to get involved in our defence industrial strategy consultation, which is ongoing.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the Unity contract and the work done by the previous Government to initiate it. It is a critical step in maintaining our submarine fleet and facilitating our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence. The Minister recently confirmed to me that, excluding Trident, our defence spending as a percentage of GDP is actually only 1.9%. That puts the UK 23rd of 32 NATO countries, below North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and others. Our non-nuclear NATO partners currently spend proportionally more than we do on conventional forces, while Trident is a measure of last resort. To ensure that we are properly resourced for high-intensity, multi-domain collective defence, should our NATO spending commitment not be to meet that target on conventional forces, with our nuclear capability in addition to that?

[Maria Eagle]

I am not sure that is even the policy of the Conservative party—the shadow Defence Secretary can confirm whether that is the case. If I may say so, it is a bit sleight of hand to say that taking out a big chunk of our spending, which we are actually spending, will leave us well in deficit. Of course it would. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the importance he attaches to spending on conventional defence. That is an important point, and once the strategic defence review is published he will be able to see the threats it identifies and how we will improve our capability to deal with them.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Government and Rolls-Royce on their fantastic and innovative Unity project. As today’s welcome announcement shows, defence is a fantastic pipeline for building skills and refining the jobs and growth that this country needs. That is felt and needed nowhere more than in my constituency, the home of the Royal Navy and of so many defence companies, be they national or SMEs. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), I intend to hold a roundtable later this year on growth strategy. Can the Minister assure the House that the defence industrial strategy will have a focus on training and skills and will promote and prioritise British industry?

[Maria Eagle]

I commend my hon. Friend for holding a roundtable; I have done a few of those around the country lately. It is quite illuminating to hear what comes back, particularly from small firms, and it will be informing our defence industrial strategy. I agree that there is much potential in all our constituencies across the nations and regions to get economic growth and jobs from boosting SMEs.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s announcement, but can she tell us where we are getting to with the industrial strategy in utilising Rolls-Royce’s expertise to produce small modular reactors? There seems to have been a lot of delays in actually delivering on those, yet Rolls-Royce has demonstrated by this contract that it is a leading global player in that field.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that there is much innovation in the defence industries in our nations, and often with dual-use technology, which means that it is not just about defence but about a broader range of potential opportunities. I see no reason why all those opportunities cannot be exploited using our defence industrial strategy to kick things off. I hope to see that in future.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As a former official of the GMB shipbuilding and ship repair union, I warmly welcome today’s announcement. Does the Minister agree that an aim of the defence industrial strategy should be to open up opportunities for jobs and apprenticeships to people from disadvantaged communities?

[Maria Eagle]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Our defence industries are largely based outside of London and the south-east and are in all our nations and regions. Quite often they are focused already in areas that have some deprivation. My hon. Friend is right to identify that defence industries across our nations and regions can be a part of regional development as well as boosting national growth.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The nuclear defence enterprise for the UK is an extortionate vanity project. We would much rather the money was spent on conventional defence capabilities. The Minister states that the contract will drive efficiency to reduce waste and save over £400 million. Given that no major nuclear contract has ever come in under budget, how does she expect this to happen? On the 200 jobs that will be split between Cardiff and Glasgow, can she let us know when during the course of the contract these jobs will be delivered? Will it be at the end or earlier on, and what will the split be between Cardiff and Glasgow?

[Maria Eagle]

I opened the centre in Glasgow that has some of those jobs, and I can assure the hon. Lady that it is well under way, and although the Cardiff centre is not quite up and running yet, it soon will be. So those jobs are already there. I disagree with her first point, of course, but that is fair enough. I hope that she will see the importance of manufacturing skills and job opportunities, many of which have dual-use applications, as indeed do the apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce in Derby. There is nothing to suggest that the young people who obtain those nuclear qualifications will not go and work on the civil side of nuclear in the future, and even she ought to be able to see the importance of skilling up young people and creating job opportunities across the nations and regions.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think we all want to live in a world where we do not need a nuclear deterrent, but it is clear from some of the conflicts we have seen recently that that is not the world we currently live in. Does the Minister agree that the first duty of a Government is to protect the country, and will she welcome the work being done at Raytheon, which we both visited—it seems a lifetime ago, but it was actually only seven months ago—to ensure that we are manufacturing and producing defence systems in-house, rather than relying on foreign imports?

[Maria Eagle]

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and I fondly remember that visit to his constituency during, I think, the general election campaign. Defending the country is clearly the first duty of any Government. My hon. Friend will have noted from the statement of intent in respect of our defence industrial strategy that one of our key aims is to build more in Britain and to improve British jobs and economic growth through the money that we spend on our defence, and I think that that is a win-win.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

This deal is absolutely the right thing to do, and I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to our continuous at-sea deterrent, which has not always received universal support on the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked the Minister a very clear question about how she sees this underpinning the AUKUS deal for the long term, but unless my hearing is even worse than I thought, I am not sure that she gave a clear commitment in that regard. May I give her another opportunity to make absolutely clear this Government’s commitment to AUKUS and this deal’s central role in its long-term future?

[Maria Eagle]

I was attempting to answer a great many questions from the shadow Defence Secretary and did not reach that one, so the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it with me again. The deal enables us to boost production and the capacity that we need in order to deliver SSN-AUKUS as a follow-on from our Dreadnought submarines. Without it, we would be in much more difficulty in ensuring that we can do everything that we need to do on time to deliver those commitments. It is essential to the delivery of our AUKUS commitment, as it is to the delivery of our own continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Like many people from Gateshead, I am proud to say that I come from a long line of people working in the defence manufacturing industry. Can the Minister assure me that this deal, and other defence manufacturing deals, will benefit those in all the nations and regions of the country, especially Gateshead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. This is the biggest deal that Rolls-Royce has ever signed. It is a long-term commitment between the Government and Rolls-Royce. It increases efficiency and resilience, creates jobs, and makes savings. These are virtuous circles, and if we can achieve them in other parts of our defence spending, they will benefit the entire nation and all the regions within it.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Immediately before the Minister came to the House, we were debating environmental protections to secure our country and the future of our globe. In the spirit of unity, will the Minister agree that there is little point in talking about environmental protections and security without also securing our world through robust defence spending? There is nothing worse for the environment and humanity than war, and we need to invest in defence in order to secure our globe and to secure this country.

[Maria Eagle]

In the spirit of unity—that pun is becoming a bit wearing, but I have just used it, too—I very much agree that the foundation of security and deterrence is a key part of us being able to advance as a nation. Without that security, we cannot secure any of our public services or our way of life.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Today’s announcement will help deliver long-term growth, boost British industry, and create and support thousands of skilled jobs. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a key ambition of our defence industrial strategy will be to deliver jobs in every nation and region, and indeed in smaller towns such as Rugby, where GE Vernova is doing fine work to support the Royal Navy with advanced hybrid electric propulsion technology for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s frontline fleet?

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, I can confirm that. MOD spending already supports over 200,000 jobs directly, and many more besides, and my hon. Friend has set out an example from his constituency. The defence industrial strategy will aim to create jobs in every nation and region of this country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for a very positive statement—it is always good to have positive statements, and today is one of those occasions. It is great news to hear of the wonderful investment, which is needed to shore up not only defence but our manufacturing industry. Looking at the job allocation, I see that there are 800 jobs for Derby in England, and 200 for Glasgow in Scotland and Cardiff in Wales. I have no doubt whatsoever about the Minister’s commitment to job creation, but will she outline how the Government will ensure that businesses and factories in Northern Ireland can be involved in the supply or provision of parts? Particularly, will she outline whether the skills of Harland and Wolff can be utilised in fulfilment of the contract, and whether UK-wide involvement was a stipulation of the deal with Rolls-Royce?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is fighting for his constituents. He makes some good points about Harland and Wolff and skills. We do have defence contracts based at Harland and Wolff, and I will be visiting Belfast in due course—I will not give him the exact date, but it is soon—in order to galvanise and understand what is available, particularly in the SME community, in Northern Ireland. I look forward perhaps to talking to him about that at the time.

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

Today’s announcement is a fantastic boost to British industry and British manufacturing. In my constituency we have a proud history of supporting our national security. What steps will the Minister be taking in the defence industrial strategy to support local economic growth in constituencies such as mine in west Wales?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right that there is great potential for economic growth in all of our nations and regions, and in every one of our constituencies, in respect of the extra spending that the MOD is now able to offer to keep our nations safe. I am sure that he has SMEs in his constituency that can benefit from defence contracts if we can make it easier for them to engage with defence, which is one of the problems that they all tell me they have at present.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As the final word comes back to the east midlands, I thank the Minister for her hard work. Many of my constituents in Rushcliffe work for Rolls-Royce and will wholeheartedly welcome the announcement today. Could the Minister briefly explain how skills development will link to the evolving defence industrial strategy, and how she will work with our fantastic Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to maximise the opportunities for our region?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right that skills are key, which is why this deal has established a defence nuclear skills academy to ensure that 200 apprentices a year can benefit from gaining those skills. I have no doubt that long-term partnerships with defence industries will enable us to do that on a broader scale. The defence industrial strategy will be a key part of giving that confidence to companies that it is the right time to invest in skills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. While the Ministers switch places, I inform Members that we are going to return to the Climate and Nature Bill.

UK Submarine Fleet

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Catherine Atkinson]

Derby North.

[Maria Eagle]

I knew I would get it wrong. My hon. Friend also mentioned the efforts of her constituents in contributing to this national endeavour.

The backlog of 23 decommissioned submarines that have yet to be dismantled and recycled, which has built up over many years—seven are stored in Rosyth and 16 in Devonport—is a longstanding and ongoing issue that needs to be resolved. The previous Government set out on a path to resolve it, and we intend to continue and make sure that that work is done.

While hon. Members should be in no doubt that our submarine capabilities are the envy of the vast majority of countries in the world, the disposal backlog is one of the challenges across the portfolio of the Submarine Delivery Agency that it identified in its most recent annual report, resulting from historic underinvestment in capability and infrastructure over many years. As a Government, we are committed to defueling, dismantling and disposal of those submarines, and to meeting our responsibilities at every stage of the life-cycle of our fleet. Defueling and disposal are complex tasks, and Ministers, our Submarine Delivery Agency, and our entire defence nuclear enterprise take their responsibilities extremely seriously.

HMS Swiftsure was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, and workers at Rosyth yard, as he knows very well, are in the process of entirely dismantling it, which is on track to be completed by the end of 2026. That will make HMS Swiftsure the first decommissioned Royal Navy nuclear submarine to be fully dismantled, with around 90% of its structure and components being reused or recycled. This is a demonstrator programme, designed to identify methods of dealing with the backlog of decommissioned submarines swiftly and safely—and, I might say, “surely”, given the name of the submarine, but that is a very corny joke. We intend to do that in a way that provides the best value for money for the taxpayer.

The responsible and innovative approach we are taking has a strong focus on sustainability. By extracting the reactor rather than storing the whole reactor compartment, we are recycling a greater proportion of each submarine and dramatically reducing the volume of radioactive material being placed in long-term storage. We are also ensuring that steel from decommissioned hulls will be able to be reused to support the manufacture of future UK-built submarines.

Workers at the Rosyth yard have also successfully and safely completed the initial stage of the dismantling process on four decommissioned submarines—which should give my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar some reassurance about future work that is going on. That will pave the way to accelerate the programme, having learned, from HMS Swiftsure, the best way of going about it, and should sustain high-skilled jobs in Rosyth as we deal with this legacy.

In parallel, we are evaluating our long-term options for future submarine disposal capability in the UK, using the lessons being learned from HMS Swiftsure, to enable us to dispose of future classes of submarine as they leave service, rather than having to park them at Devonport again and then wonder what to do with them thereafter. The submarine disposal capability project was established in 2022, as I am sure the hon. Member for South Suffolk and you, Dr Murrison, recall, to identify an enduring disposal capability for future submarines. The project is still in its concept phase, assessing all options for a future submarine disposal capability within the UK. An initial study has shown that there were various potential sites for disposal, including Rosyth. That work was investigative.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response. I am very keen to see that we all realise the potential from the dismantling of the submarines, and I know the Minister is very keen on that, too. Is there any possibility that we in Northern Ireland could be part of that, perhaps through Harland & Wolff and others?

[Maria Eagle]

I am going to have to go back to my officials and interrogate them about what the possibilities are in Belfast. It is not a place where submarine work or nuclear work has previously been done. There will be criteria that any potential place would have to meet in order to do that, but I will certainly go back and challenge my officials about the extent to which Belfast—

[James Cartlidge]

The Minister makes an important point, because, as she knows, there is essentially a blockage in the infrastructure caused by having all these submarines awaiting dismantling. Will she confirm that she will be looking all over the country for potential places to add capacity? I am sure she agrees it could be immensely valuable economically to those areas that get involved.

[Maria Eagle]

I can, of course, confirm that. We are more than willing to look at any suggestions that any hon. Member might have.

I would like now to try to answer some of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—it is his debate. He asked specifically about the well-being of submariners, and about what is being done and what more can be done to support them and their families. We are aware of the pressure put on submariners and their families during their long periods of absence. They are given extensive training prior to deployment to try and help to them prepare for life underwater and for life away from their families for such a long time. They have access while at sea to a weekly short message from their nominated loved one, which should help, although it is, of course, not quite like being in the same place at the same time.

When returning from deployment, submariners have access to the Royal Navy family and people support services, which can offer a range of specialist, tailored welfare services if they are needed. Recognising the impact on families, the Royal Navy has also worked to enhance support for families of those deployed, backed by service charities, so there is work there. We are conscious of the extra pressure that exists, and we take steps to try to make sure that there is support and help.

My hon. Friend also asked what assessment I can make of the Astute fleet, and whether it is able to carry out its intended role. The fleet is perfectly capable of carrying out all of the roles that are required of it. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two more Astutes that are not currently commissioned yet—HMS Agamemnon and Astute Boat 7. We will continue to build those, and we expect that the new class to replace Vanguard will also be fully built—certainly, the first boat is currently on target in terms of timing—so we are confident that the fleet can do what it is intended to do.

My hon. Friend also asked what steps have been taken in regards to the NAO findings to ensure that the defence nuclear enterprise is delivering effectively and efficiently. The organisations that make up the defence nuclear enterprise are working more closely than ever before, operating effectively as an integrated team to ensure the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent posture. We are harnessing expertise and experience of multidisciplinary teams to deliver this mission and are committed to sustainment and renewal of the nuclear capabilities for as long as is required. The NAO’s work is tremendously valuable to us. It shines a very positive light and focuses minds in the Department and the defence nuclear enterprise on making sure that we do the best we can to get value for money and deliver on time and to budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked me about the budgets. He discerned from a parliamentary question the £9 million per year cost of maintaining submarines that are awaiting disposal, and he asks whether that reduces the £298 million budget for the major project portfolio data, which he got from a parliamentary answer. Obviously we do not release particular spending profiles for individual programmes, but I can tell him that the latest whole-life cost for the submarine dismantling project is £298 million, and that figure includes costs associated with dismantling work in Rosyth and maintenance costs for decommissioned submarines in Devonport.

My hon. Friend asks if I will work with Babcock, Fife council, Fife College and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into a world-leading centre for submarine dismantling. He wants a quick announcement on the next stage of the programme. We are currently learning lessons from the dismantling of Swiftsure, which he already knows is on target to be completed by the end of next year. It will pave the way for future dismantling—my hon. Friend knows that there are already four submarines there and that the first stages of the process have already been undertaken for them. Once that work is done and we have finished with Swiftsure, we will look to accelerate the programme in Rosyth, drawing on the lessons we will have learned. That will sustain high-skilled jobs and support sustainability. My hon. Friend will see that we will have made more progress by then on the future of submarine disposal capability.

I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and his local council and other organisations—indeed, we already do. There is a partnership between the MOD, the Royal Navy, and local authorities and nearby universities and colleges called the Arrol Gibb Innovation Campus. Three projects that relate to Rosyth are currently earmarked there for funding. We are more than happy to try to assist in making sure that the local area and his constituents get best value for the money being spent in Rosyth. I hope that answers some of my hon. Friend’s questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

10. What steps he plans to take through the defence industrial strategy to increase support for defence sector SMEs.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

We are delivering for defence, boosting spending by £3 billion in real terms this coming financial year. I hope that more of our procurement spend can go to SMEs. The defence industrial strategy will set the conditions to unlock the full potential of SMEs, to seize future opportunities and ensure the growth and resilience of our defence manufacturing base, providing more good jobs in every nation and region.

[Alan Strickland]

The North East Technology Park in Sedgefield is home to many innovative defence businesses, producing satellite technology and biological and radiation detection equipment that is used by our allies across the world. Those businesses proudly contract directly with the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA, the American Defense Department and other allied Governments, but too often they struggle with MOD procurement rules, which exclude SMEs. Will the Minister meet me and NETPark businesses to discuss how to remove the red tape that hits small businesses in my constituency and across the country that are designing and producing innovative defence supplies?

[Maria Eagle]

First, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his North East Technology Park businesses as soon as possible. The Government recognise that SMEs face particular challenges, which I want to address. Through the defence industrial strategy we will reduce barriers to entry and foster a more diverse community of suppliers, including non-traditional SMEs and those that are developing future technologies. We will also send a clear market signal about our preference to grow onshore production capability.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As part of the defence industrial strategy, does the Minister of State recognise the link between successful defence vehicle manufacturing, such as Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land manufacturing the Challenger 3 tank in my constituency, and the onshoring of barrel technology and defence engineering? Does she recognise the link between that skills cluster and the importance of companies such as RBSL having a future in manufacturing not just vehicles but barrels? I look forward to her visit to my constituency in the coming days.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not disagree at all. I look forward to visiting the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to seeing the potential of firms. He is completely correct that clusters of excellence and skill are the way forward. I look forward to visiting his constituency shortly.

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

The defence sector supports one in 60 of our jobs in this country—more than 400,000 well-paid jobs that are central to this Government’s growth mission and to our nation’s security. However, the majority of those jobs are outside London and the south-east. Therefore, growth and—crucially—engagement with defence and security are inhibited for young people in constituencies such as mine. Will the Minister confirm that the key ambition of our defence industrial strategy will be to broaden access to the defence sector in every region, including constituencies such as mine?

[Maria Eagle]

I am happy to accept that point, and I agree. Plenty of jobs and skills will be needed around the country in every nation and region, so that we improve matters everywhere.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?

[Maria Eagle]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important, in addition to production for our own use. We are working very hard on the export campaigns. I cannot say any more than that at present, but I can assure him that we are working very hard. The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions. It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?

[Maria Eagle]

Neither of the ships has been at sea for years—one since 2022 and the other since 2017—and neither was due to go back out to sea before their out-of-service date. The question of who might be said to have scrapped them is moot; the ships have not been scrapped, but we took the tough decision in November to retire ageing capabilities, so that we can save the money for dealing with the threats that we will face in future.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that veterans have access to appropriate housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T8. BAE Systems in my constituency recently announced an extra £200 million in avionics investment to support the F-35 programme, which will secure 200 extra jobs in the Warren Wood area. Will the Minister commit to reviewing our investment in our defence industry, to ensure that more jobs are secured by well-trained young people throughout the country? Will he also commit to visiting the site to witness that expansion and celebrate that success with our residents and community?

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

Yes, she will make a commitment to visit the site. I agree with my hon. Friend: our defence industrial strategy will enhance the incentives for long-term investment in the UK defence sector. It will encourage investment by private firms, alongside public money, align the imperatives of national security, and ensure that we have the necessary skills.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T4. The Defence Secretary said in October that despite conflict returning to Europe, the number of Army personnel would drop to below 70,000 next year, the lowest level since 1793. The problem is not just recruitment, but retention. More people are leaving than are joining. In 2023, 15,000 people left the armed forces, while only 11,000 joined. Will he commit to addressing the recruitment-retention balance in this year’s strategic defence review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The procurement of Ajax wasted hundreds of millions of pounds—money desperately needed in my North East Derbyshire constituency. Can the Minister update me on the progress made in learning the lessons of that failure and implementing the findings of the Sheldon report?

[Maria Eagle]

Yes. My hon. Friend will know that the report was produced under the previous Government. Its findings were set out under the previous Government, and I think they announced that all the necessary steps to implement all 24 recommendations—15 were accepted and nine were accepted in principle—had been completed. We need to continue to learn the lessons and make sure that such problems do not arise in other programmes.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The cost of the 10-year equipment plan for the Defence Nuclear Organisation stood at £44 billion in 2019. In 2022, it went up by 27% to £60 billion, and in 2024 it inflated by 62% to £99.5 billion. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the MOD has not lost the run of itself on this worst-of-all defence procurement debacles? What personal commitment can he give the House that he has the foggiest idea what to do about it?

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

The naval base at Faslane and companies such as BAE Systems support thousands of jobs in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that we need to grow an integrated, innovative and resilient defence sector that will address problems such as skills shortages and the need for strategic long-term partnerships?

[Maria Eagle]

Yes.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State appeared at the Defence Committee recently, he was sitting alongside his permanent secretary when the permanent secretary announced that it was his aspiration to reduce the number of MOD civil servants by 10% within this Parliament. Does the Secretary of State recognise and welcome that aspiration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that our defence industrial strategy, in enabling SMEs to access contracts and work for the MOD more easily, will increase that number substantially.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the figures for the incidence of blood cancers and sarcomas in veterans and current service personnel who have crewed particular military helicopters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I recently visited HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth in my constituency, a former Royal Navy submarine now being safely and securely dismantled and recycled by Babcock, as a pilot project of the submarine dismantling programme. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme, which could secure hundreds of jobs in Dunfermline and Dollar by dealing with similar submarines at Rosyth over the coming decades?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend will be aware that despite the fact we have had nuclear submarines since 1980, we have never dismantled one, so there is a lot of work to be done. What is happening with Swiftsure is very encouraging and will hopefully provide many jobs in dismantling nuclear submarines. I hope my hon. Friend will be happy with that reply.

UK Air and Missile Defences

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Roome]

I am sure the Minister heard what my right hon. Friend said.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

He is not right hon!

[Ian Roome]

Sorry—my hon. Friend.

The introduction of flexibility in defence capital spending would mean we can focus on meeting critical in-service dates rather than simply hitting financial deadlines. Fixing defence procurement will ensure that our armed forces remain modern, capable and ready to protect us in an ever-changing world. A fresh approach has never been more essential in our lifetimes.

I would like to mention Systems Engineering and Assessment in my North Devon constituency, which won a £135 million contract to supply state-of-the art defensive countermeasure systems to the Royal Navy—groundbreaking technology that will also likely be deployed via export to surface fleets across a number of this country’s allies. We also welcome the ambition of the Secretary of State for Defence to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. However, the Government have not issued a timetable to do that, and we need clear, tangible plans outlining how the target will be achieved in practice. It is critical that the Ministry of Defence has certainty about its future funding so it can plan effectively. Can the Minister now provide more clarity on the measures the Government intend to take to increase the defence budget and ensure long-term financial security for the MOD?

Finally, by taking action now we can prevent future generations from facing the need to allocate 3%, 4% or even 5% of GDP to address challenges such as air defence that could have been anticipated and managed earlier. This is about building lasting resilience and protecting our nation for the long term. A co-ordinated approach across Government is essential. Many Members have put some very important strategic defence questions to the Minister today and I look forward to the replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be.

Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there.

We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—

[James Cartlidge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will just say this: last week the Government announced very significant cuts to defence capability without waiting for the SDR, so why do they have to wait for the SDR to realise that we need to go to 2.5% to replenish our munitions as a matter of urgency? They must know that, no matter how many SDRs they undertake.

[Maria Eagle]

Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%.

This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging.

Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use.

This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it.

The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies.

Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do.

That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces.

Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need.

We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression.

We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans.

One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, Minister, but I want to give the Member in charge the opportunity to wind up. You have a minute left.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. All the screens are showing different times. I am perfectly happy to conclude my remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

This Government are getting on with delivering for defence to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The UK remains a leading voice in NATO on missile defence, which we see as a cross-Government and international effort. We are working to enhance our missile defence capabilities, and modernising our approach to air and missile defence, both for our own forces and with our NATO allies.

[Lucy Rigby]

At last month’s NATO Ministers of Defence meeting the Secretary of State agreed to step up co-operation with our NATO allies on missile defence and cutting-edge long-range missiles. Does the Minister agree that a focus on integrating NATO’s missile defence is key to strengthening European security?

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, I do. Defence against air and missile threats has played a key role in our recent thinking, and with our NATO-first approach to policy, putting integration with our allies at the heart of our defence plans makes sense and is a vital part of ensuring our security going forward.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the United Kingdom, preferably in tandem with our European colleagues but if necessary bilaterally with the United States, align with the United States in permitting Ukraine to use the missile defence systems that we have supplied as it sees fit in its own defence?

[Maria Eagle]

Absolutely. We intend to align with our allies in making sure that Ukraine can make use of the capability that has been offered by those who have committed support to that country in its fight.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to support veterans in Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

13. Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on potential risks arising from the use of nuclear weapons.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

We recognise the serious risks posed by the use of nuclear weapons. It was a Labour Prime Minister who signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1968. The UK remains fully committed to the multilateral non-proliferation aim of a world without nuclear weapons. We also have a triple lock commitment on our nuclear deterrent, which is a vital part of UK defence and deterrence.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

According to the Nuclear Information Service, there have been 110 historical incidents involving UK nuclear weapons. There have been 25 well-recorded near misses between the United States and Russia—and, formerly, the Soviet Union. In that context, will the Minister explain why, on 1 November, when the United National General Assembly was invited to vote on establishing a panel for a scientific study on the effects of nuclear weapons, Britain, Russia and France were the only three countries to vote against its establishment? Fortunately, the committee was established. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will fully co-operate in examining the devastating effect of nuclear weapons were they ever to be used?

[Maria Eagle]

The UK has always recognised the possible humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. The proposed panel does not establish a clear mandate to address maintaining long-held knowledge of the devastating consequences of nuclear war using scientific research, and the resolution will not advance progress towards nuclear disarmament. That is why we voted against it.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State’s commitment to nuclear testing veterans is well known, but he may be concerned by a report in the Daily Mirror today claiming that incorrect testimony and incomplete documentation were provided by civil servants and given to judges in the court cases brought by the nuclear veterans over decades. Will the Secretary of State investigate those claims urgently and report to the House?

[Maria Eagle]

I can assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People has met nuclear test veterans to establish a new relationship to ensure that we have consistent and productive dialogue. I know that he is committed to exploring the concerns raised about access to medical records, and I am sure that progress will be made in that context.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

T4.   I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his decisive action to safeguard the Octric semiconductor factory in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, protecting jobs and, crucially, the sovereign supply of this vital defence component. Will my right hon. Friend meet with me to discuss how we can expand the jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities at this fantastic high-tech facility?

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

The MOD will continue to invest in the company’s people to ensure that the facility has a sustainable future. Octric’s leadership team is currently finalising its future resource plan, which will cover the need for new high-tech roles such as engineers and scientists to ensure that the facility is best placed to develop new technology and meet defence needs. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend about that.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

T3. I was so pleased to go to His Majesty’s Lord Lieutenant of Kent’s cadet awards recently to hear about the fantastic work of our local cadet forces. What might the Secretary of State have to say to the brilliant young people I saw there to justify the recent decision to cut funding for state school cadets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I will be pleased to meet the Father of the House and look at those plans. I think it was my sister who made that decision in the Home Office—[Laughter.]

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I served in Germany for two years as part of NATO’s very high readiness joint task force, and I welcome the improved co-operation with that nation. I also saw at first hand the importance of our relationship with Poland. Can the Secretary of State tell me what we are doing to improve co-operation with that nation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In the UK we have some very special skills when it comes to developing future defence equipment. To lose those skills would be a desperate business. Does the Secretary of State agree that co-operating and working with our friends in Europe is one way to preserve them?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. There are increasing examples of industry working across our European nations, both in the EU with our improving relationships on defence and in NATO. That is one way in which we can ensure that the skills are available to make the equipment that we need.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Due to a lack of funding, many reservists in my constituency are not getting the training days they need and are therefore not receiving the salary that they had anticipated. That means that many highly trained and committed reservists have no choice but to leave and join another career. Will the Minister outline what the Labour Government will do to support our reservists, including those who live in my constituency, all of whom are a vital part of our armed forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency tell me that research and development funding has dried up since last December. What hope can the Minister offer to ensure that SMEs continue their vital innovation to keep the UK safe, and to help them turn their swords into ploughshares?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of SMEs in improving our industrial base and bringing agility and new ideas to our defence industrial production. He can be assured that there will be SME involvement in our industrial strategy to the extent that it is possible. We intend to make sure that SMEs, not just the primes, get a better in at the MOD and are able to get the work.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion for another highly successful poppy appeal, and the Redditch and Astwood Bank Royal British Legion for another record-breaking year?