Defence
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not require any correspondence from the Minister, although it is always welcome.
Al Carns
Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.
What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war
“whether we like it or not”.
The following week, she says,
“I never said we should join”,
and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.
However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been an interesting knockabout. On the question of what we are achieving, I refer the Minister back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the Conservatives were in office, on the numerous wastage scandals in defence procurement. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years; I go back so far that I remember Lord Levene being appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We are never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement. We have the sixth biggest defence budget in the world, but we do not get bang for our buck. I do not have any instant solutions, but is this not something we can all unite around? Can we not just insist that we stop these huge projects, which are not fit for modern warfare, and go back to actually being able to fight a war?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister responds, I note that many colleagues wish to contribute; no doubt he is coming close to his conclusion.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We are moving in that direction; the national armaments director is providing professional oversight now and is looking at reviewing the system. I think we can all collectively agree on whether we have got value for money over the past 14 to 20 years. We need to make sure that we do get value for money in the future; if we had in the past, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.
In closing, this motion asks the House to express regret about a Government who are delivering the largest increase in defence spending, leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed to protect British lives, the Opposition offer a motion built on a record they would rather forget and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring but a time for leadership, and this Government are providing it. I urge the House to reject the motion.
James MacCleary
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [Interruption.]
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?
Mike Martin
On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Forgive me; I was slightly distracted. We now have a speaking limit of eight minutes.
Brian Leishman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times.
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy.
Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers.
Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.
Middle East
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
John Healey
There is no use—there has been no use—of Prestwick airport for US bombing strikes.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.
John Cooper
I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is almost last, but not least. I reject almost every assertion he makes in his tripartite question. The decisions we have taken and the permissions we have given have a sound legal basis. They are for defensive purposes, and are directed at Iranian sites that are attacking our interests and our allies, and that hold a threat, including to British ships and red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?
Commonwealth Troops: First World War
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jas Athwal, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I just want to put on the record that I talk about the work of Noor Inayat Khan to my daughter, Farah, so her legacy will not be forgotten.
Martin Rhodes
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I recognise the important work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its outreach and public engagement teams. I also recognise the huge contribution of volunteers in promoting that work.
How we commemorate and who we commemorate must reflect the full breadth of those who served and sacrificed. I hope that the first permanent memorial to the British Indian Army in the grounds of Kelvingrove will be a testament to that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we must remember our shared past if we are to help build our shared future.
Monica Harding
The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will shortly come on to the forgotten stories of this war.
From the mud of Flanders to the deserts of the middle east, from the jungles of East Africa to the mountains of the Balkans, Commonwealth soldiers were present in almost every theatre of the conflict. Their bravery and resilience, too often forgotten and overlooked, was one of the most notable features of the conflict.
Canadian troops faced chlorine gas for the first time at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, holding the line. At Vimy Ridge in 1917, four Canadian divisions fought together as one for the first time, and in just four days they achieved what the French and British had spent years and over 100,000 lives bravely failing to do. This courage was not confined to the trenches. In the skies above Europe, Canadian airmen distinguished themselves with equal daring. Fighter aces such as Billy Bishop, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, played a crucial role in securing allied control of the air.
Australian troops bravely fought for eight months on the steep cliffs of Gallipoli, before playing a decisive role in the final offensives of 1918. New Zealand, with a population of barely 1 million people at that time, sent more than 120,000 soldiers overseas, nearly one in five of whom never returned.
My own constituency of Esher and Walton has a profound historical connection to New Zealand, dating back to the first world war. During the conflict, Walton served as a major centre for treating injured soldiers from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, particularly those wounded in the Gallipoli campaign. The Mount Felix mansion was converted into the first New Zealand hospital in the UK. Some 27,000 New Zealand soldiers were treated there, and 21 New Zealand soldiers unfortunately died and are buried in St Mary’s churchyard in Walton.
We remember this connection, such as through our roads; New Zealand Avenue runs through the middle of Walton, and we have Adelaide Road too. Since 1920, an annual Anzac Day service is held at St Mary’s church. The Mount Felix tapestry features the soldiers at the hospital, and a kowhai tree donated by the New Zealand Government in 1970 stands at the former site of the hospital. My brilliant constituents in Esher and Walton ensure that the sacrifice of those from New Zealand who served in the great war is remembered.
Soldiers from the Caribbean served in the British West Indies Regiment, operating across Europe, Africa and the middle east. Many of them were denied the chance by the British Government to fight as equals. Instead, they were often assigned labour duties, such as digging trenches, unloading ships or carrying supplies. Despite that discrimination, they served with courage and dignity.
African soldiers and porters were indispensable to the campaigns across the continent, carrying ammunition and supplies through terrain that would have stopped any conventional army. They suffered catastrophic losses, but they were the logistical backbone of the campaign, and their story remains one of the least known chapters of the war. Women across the Commonwealth were also vital to the British war effort, serving as nurses, driving ambulances, working in munition factories, and keeping farms and industries running.
In many schools, our students still learn about the Somme, Passchendaele, and the western front but hear very little about the role played by Indian, African, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian and Chinese forces. As Baroness Warsi powerfully put it,
“Our boys weren’t just Tommies—they were Tariqs and Tajinders too”.
When we speak of those who served in the first world war, we are speaking about people from every corner of what was then the British empire—people who crossed oceans to fight for a country they had never seen, people who fought in climates and conditions utterly alien to them, people who believed that they were fighting for principles, freedom, justice and the defence of small nations. Yet the response of the British Government in the immediate aftermath often fell far short of the ideals that these men believed they had fought for. West Indian soldiers were excluded from the London victory parade. In India, promises of reform made in return for wartime loyalty were followed by the brutality of the Amritsar massacre.
The first world war reshaped not only Europe but the political map of the world. The modern Commonwealth and the family of nations that it represents today has its roots in the sacrifices made during that war. That brings us to the present. We must honour the shared history that binds us to the Commonwealth. Let us ensure that their contributions are fully recognised. Their service must be fully integrated into our national commemorations, and their stories taught in schools so that young people understand that the first world war was not fought by Britain alone.
We must uphold the vital work of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers, whose quiet dedication ensures that the name of the fallen, regardless of their nationality, faith or background, are remembered with dignity. We fought alongside a brave coalition of nations and peoples—millions of individuals whose courage, labour and sacrifice made victory possible. They fought in the mud of Belgium, the deserts of Palestine, the mountains of Greece and the jungles of East Africa. Tragically, many of them never came home. They were asked to fight and, sometimes, to die for a country that they had never seen. Let us, a century later, remember why they came and the bravery with which they fought not as a footnote to history but as an essential part of the story of how that tragic war was fought and won.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is clearly a subject matter expert. I entirely agree with her sentiment about both the contribution of those South African labourers and the vital work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
It is also important to commemorate the contribution of Caribbean troops to the allied war effort. Most of them, as we have heard, served in the West Indies Regiment, which saw combat in France, Italy, Africa and the middle east. Indeed, that was pointed out in particular by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton.
Albeit from a different conflict, I can reveal to the House that the records of the ship’s company of HMS Victory at Trafalgar record the presence of a seaman whose name was John Francois. He was on Victory. I do not believe he was a direct relative, as he was recruited from the Caribbean—none the less, I can assure the House that there was at least one Francois at Trafalgar who served on the British side.
In the limited time available, I have been able to refer with only the briefest outline to the contribution of troops from across the British empire and the Commonwealth to what was believed—at that time, at least—to be the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case; the world was involved in a second major conflagration barely two decades later. Let us passionately hope that in our lifetimes—indeed, in those of our children and grandchildren—we never see a third. Although I say humbly to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, as the Roman military theorist Vegetius taught us, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”: he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it.
In thinking of how to conclude, I came upon some lines from Rupert Brooke. In his eternal poem “The Soldier”, he wrote:
“If I should die, think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.”
If that be so—and I believe it to be so—then there is also a part of a neighbouring field that is forever Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, South African, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and African and Caribbean, too. Without the contribution of all those nations from right across what was then the empire and is now the Commonwealth, we would never have defeated the militarism of the Kaiser’s Germany, and Europe undoubtedly would never have been free. We thank them all and their nations for their service. Lest we forget.
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. For colleagues’ information, I should say that I intend to take everybody, but how long that will take depends on the length of the questions; we could be here for quite some time. Can questions and answers please be short?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy and RAF personnel in taking out this rogue tanker flying under the flag of a rogue nation. The Bella 1 was taken just a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic, which is too close for comfort for those of us who come from the Western Isles.
I understand that we hosted the USAF maritime patrol aircraft Poseidon out of Stornoway airport and two V-22 Ospreys out of Benbecula. Can the Secretary of State give us more details on the role of Scottish airports in this operation? Does he agree that, yes, we have a frontline in the Donbas, but that the frontline for us against Russia is our backyard: the wild North Atlantic?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s observations. I think this is a test for the leader of Reform: are the interests that he declares closer to those of President Putin or closer to those of the British people?
John Healey
I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. This new era of threat also demands hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy, but all that is based on a domestic political unity of values and unity of intent. I am proud of the way that the UK sets the standard for that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome this evening’s statement. I say, primarily to those outside this Chamber, that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict. If we do not deploy those forces, put that deterrent in place and back Ukraine—if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future—there will be devastating consequences for British interests and global stability.
With British interests in mind, although I fully appreciate the answer the Defence Secretary gave on troop numbers—I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those—can he reassure the House that this country has the soldiers, the resources and the equipment to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the other commitments we have made to allies around the world?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I left home in Newcastle-under-Lyme on Monday to travel down to Parliament, the weather was already very bad after heavy snow on Sunday night. However, for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the situation at home has got worse, thanks to both the weather and the complete and utter failure of Staffordshire county council to grit our roads and keep those who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme safe.
I have had reports of empty grit bins on Sterndale Drive in Westbury Park and on Plymouth Grove, of our town centre being an ice rink, of the A34 from Newcastle to Talke not being fit for purpose and of the roads through Chesterton, Audley and Madeley being cut off, just like roads in Wolstanton. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me of the best way to raise this issue in the House? [Interruption.] This is serious. How can I get Staffordshire county council and its leadership to do what my constituents pay for and want: to do their job and grit our roads, and to do so now?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I do not doubt that the matter is indeed serious, but it is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair, whose powers do not extend to Staffordshire county council. The hon. Member has nonetheless got his very important matter on the record.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.
I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.
Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is clear that the previous solution, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It was found to be unlawful by our courts, and therefore it needed to be replaced. It is also clear that the solution to this complex issue must provide justice, be legal, and ensure that our veterans feel that they have been protected and their service has been celebrated. Can the Minister confirm that nobody who perpetrated terrorist atrocities during the troubles will be given immunity? How exactly will the Government protect veterans from repeated investigations?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The reality is that the last Act was opposed by every part of the Northern Ireland system, groups across the military and civilians in Northern Ireland. It left our veterans in a legal wild west. The honest answer is that our military will always adhere to the law, and to the highest levels of the law. The new Bill allows us to protect this cohort, so that the legal process does not become a punishment, and importantly ensures that individuals cannot rewrite history. For the first time, we will have protections in place to support our veterans, and we will protect them from repeated investigations. There will be a legal duty to consider our veterans’ welfare, and we will ensure that no veteran has to attend proceedings or go to Northern Ireland; they can give evidence from home. These protections for our veterans have been designed by veterans, through discussions with me and various people across the Ministry of Defence.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.
Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues will struggle to get in unless they keep their questions short, and the Minister should make sure that his answers are just as short.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. The French Government have recognised the legal jeopardy that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has described, and they have legislated to protect their servicemen and women and veterans accordingly. That is contained within their recently published manual on military operational law—all 353 pages of it—which I recommend to the Minister. Why can the French do that for their people, while this Government are doing completely the reverse?
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and the tone in which he asked them. I too was disgusted when I heard the news of the injuries to our service personnel, especially after a point at which the vehicle was assured to be safe. It is for that very reason that I will not speculate—I hope he understands why—until the investigations have reported, so that we can understand the cause of the noise and vibration injuries. A decision can then be made based on that information. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I want to ensure that information given to Ministers—be it to me or any other Minister, in this Government or any other—is accurate and timely, so it is appropriate that we get to the bottom of this. I also share his concern around a particular issue with one GD employee, which he raised. I can confirm that General Dynamics has written to the Department to apologise for the recent social media posts from a member of its staff, and that was the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about an independent review of the platforms. As well as the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the British Army’s teams investigating, I have asked that an external organisation with experience of noise and vibration be brought in. We are building a team of experts from a number of organisations outside the usual GD production line to add expertise and external challenge to the work. Hopefully, I will be in a situation to say more to the House in my next update; I hope to table a written ministerial statement ahead of the Christmas recess to keep the House informed about progress.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for our service personnel. It is not good enough for our service personnel to sustain injuries in this fashion on a platform that they were reassured was safe, just as I was. That is why getting to the bottom of this issue is a priority for me. I await the reports of those three investigations to understand what happened and therefore what decisions we will take as a result.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What an absolute shambles. The Minister should be livid at how things have transpired, given the billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money that has been spent over the years on the Ajax programme and the injuries sustained by our brave service personnel. In addition to problems with Ajax, the Boxer mechanised infantry vehicle is years late into service, and the 6,000 or so MAN support vehicles are currently grounded due to broken parts. Is there a wider systemic problem with land vehicle procurement and sustainment? Where exactly does this leave us with the British Army’s readiness at a time of such increased international tensions?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as well as for the questions he asked me in front of his Select Committee last week, which gave me the opportunity to provide an update to his Committee and the public on the investigations.
The MAN SV fleet is a system that is working properly, in the sense that problems have been identified with a vehicle that is nearly 20 years old. When problems are identified, it is right that fixes are then identified and rectifications are put in place. That is what is happening with the MAN SV fleet, which should return to full capabilities early in the new year. In the meantime, duty holders have the ability to operate those vehicles within strict parameters, to make sure Army tasks can continue to be carried out. However, my hon. Friend will know that the defence procurement system we inherited is in need of quite significant reform. We have started that process already, but there is more work to be done, because we need to move to warfighting readiness—for all our forces to be able to deter aggression, and defeat it if necessary. To do that, we have to get on top of what could be quite significant issues with a number of platforms, and that is what we intend to do.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the service personnel injured in the recent training incident involving the Ajax vehicles.
The recent revelations about the Ajax programme raise questions that go far beyond this single family of vehicles—they go to the heart of how the Ministry of Defence manages major defence projects, our ability to meet our NATO obligations, and the safety of the men and women who serve so bravely. Meant to enter service in 2017, the Ajax is now getting on for nine years behind schedule, and after more than £6 billion has been spent, the Minister still cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that Ajax is safe to operate. Will he confirm whether the Department has prepared any contingency plan should the Ajax ultimately be deemed unsafe or unviable? If further delays or design overhauls are needed, what assessment has been made of the impact on our NATO commitments, particularly our contribution to the UK’s armoured capability? Our allies will be watching closely, as will our enemies.
Finally, given that this programme has been allowed to drift for so many years at eye-watering cost, is the MOD considering an internal investigation into how these failings were able to progress this far without detection? If that investigation were to be undertaken, could it be expanded further to touch on the issues already raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), about the Boxer tank, the Boeing E-7 reconnaissance plane, and other MOD acquisition failures over recent years? Taxpayers deserve answers and value for money, and our armed forces deserve equipment they can trust.
War in Ukraine
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Bernard Jenkin, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If Members keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, we can get everybody in. I call the Father of the House.
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his support for defence. I completely agree that the Ukrainians are undergoing a serious violation of international law by a barbaric and reckless leader in Russia. They are experiencing bombing, drone attacks, ballistic missile attacks, which cannot be heard, subterfuge, sabotage, hostage taking, and the huge, large-scale kidnapping of children. Air raids go off every night in Ukraine, in a way that is reminiscent of world war two. The wailing of those sirens alone will have a psychological impact that will last long after any war finishes.
Why is this happening today? It is because of Putin’s barbaric, unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign state. We must continue to do the maximum to support Ukraine and encourage its allies and partners. We have done a significant amount. The House may recall that at the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, we launched a 50-day drive to deliver more for Ukraine. Fifty days on, we have 5 million rounds of munitions; 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles; 2,500 uncrewed systems; 30 vehicles; and 200 electronic warfare and defence systems. On top of that, we had a £70 million plan to provide 350 air defence missiles, and, finally, £150 million to provide air defence and artillery. We are at the leading edge, and have been for a long time, in supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to be, long into the future.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Overnight, Poland faced down an unprecedented violation of NATO and Polish airspace—the latest act of belligerence by a Russian dictator hell-bent on recreating the Russian empire. This is a stark reminder that history cannot repeat itself. The drones were part of Russia’s latest large-scale assault on Ukraine, an assault in which 450 drones were launched. We thank the Polish air force for protecting the NATO alliance, and we stand with our allies. No matter what President Trump believes, it is clear that Putin is not stopping. He is not considering peace; he is testing NATO’s limits. A line has been crossed, and we must collectively stand up to this aggression.
The Government must take tangible action. Will the Minister take forward the Liberal Democrat proposals to end the import of products using Russian oil that have been processed in third countries; stop UK companies shipping or insuring Russian liquefied natural gas; and push for a further cut to the oil price cap? As Tusk said this morning,
“Actions speak louder than words.”
The strongest action we could take would be to seize the frozen Russian assets across the UK. Will the Minister commit to doing that today?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Naish, you seem to have bounced around every seat on the Back Bench. Are you finally comfortable and ready to ask a question?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for moving around. Poland is one of our closest European allies, with a long, shared history. In my region of the east midlands, that is embodied in our large British Polish community, whose roots go back over 80 years. In the light of last night’s attack, what are the Government’s plans to strengthen our deterrence on NATO’s north-eastern flank?
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 9th September 2025
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I rise today not to upset a Speaker or Deputy Speaker—let us see how this goes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill. I do so as a proud former member of our armed forces, having devoted 24 years of my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation, particularly in intelligence gathering, where UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shapes my view of the Bill. I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or faux patriotism from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our armed forces.
The Bill exemplifies the forward-looking, effective and patriotic approach that this Government have taken to our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that will ensure that our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies—notably the US—until at least 2124.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Not yet.
Allied naval, aviation and communications assets will be able to protect UK interests across a vast area of the western Indian ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change, turmoil or insecurity that the coming decades may bring.
The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the treaty, but I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Secondly, we will have joint control over whether any security forces—military or civilian—will be permitted, except for our own and those of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have joint control over any land development and any construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights; they apply not just to Diego Garcia, the 12-mile boundary within which territorial sovereignty extends or the 24-mile boundary surrounding it, but to the entire Chagos archipelago of 247,000 square miles.
What the Opposition have missed is that it is not what UNCLOS precludes but what it allows that is the threat. When it comes to the activities of third parties, control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. This joint control will give us the ability to veto decisions if, after engaging fully with our Mauritian partners through the joint commission, we are ultimately unsatisfied about the security risks in a way that we cannot now. Within 12 miles of Diego Garcia, our control will be unrestricted, not joint; the same will apply to our rights, and those of US forces, to access Diego Garcia by air and sea. This will deliver the control that our armed forces need to keep the base secure over the decades to come.
In achieving the agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, as I will come to later, but first and foremost with the United States. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has left the Chamber, because I have some questions for him.
We need to be clear about the games that Opposition parties have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservatives have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interests and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies. We saw the same approach from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I note that I can see none of the Reform party present.
As I have told this House from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Our allies rely on the same kind of lease agreements to underwrite their own bases, so they see that this model can stand the test of time despite huge geopolitical shifts, and all of us can see that too.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said that we should save the base for our unilateral action, but he did not once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefit of these negotiations, as a way to bolster our cross-Atlantic alliances and increase the value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves started. Thankfully, they have failed. Our international partners have welcomed this agreement, and it now falls to us to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the treaty can come into force and we do not let down our allies.
By far the strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, an utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come. The continuation of the UK and US forces on Diego Garcia, while resolving the question of sovereignty, aligns our strategic interest more strongly with India’s and helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia, which can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. The Conservatives conceded that by starting negotiations about sovereignty. I have asked them all repeatedly about that, and not one of you—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You were so close to succeeding. Let us try to get the language right.
Mr Bailey
I did not receive a single response from any of them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have mentioned colonial history, which is going to get some Conservative Members very excited and make them want to use patriotic-sounding rhetoric about the concept of sovereignty, which, as I have just explained, they do not themselves understand. I will take the issue head on. The simple fact is that despite its name, the British Indian Ocean Territory has never been British in the way that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are. It has never had a resident population who were British and said with one voice that they wanted to remain so. Perhaps the Chagos islanders could have had such a population if history had gone differently, but they were robbed of that opportunity when the territory was created.
I welcome the apology from the Minister earlier, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) speak so powerfully about this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response shortly. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do is what we are doing: giving the Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship and integration here if they choose it, while supporting resettlement options within the agreement reached with Mauritius.
The absurdity of making a big song and dance about sovereignty is reflected in one simple fact. As the explanatory notes to the Bill point out, the UK has always committed to returning the islands to Mauritian sovereignty when they were
“no longer needed for defence purposes.”
That was part and parcel of the decisions made when the British Indian Ocean Territory was created. All that is happening through the treaty and the Bill is the creation of a more secure and durable solution that safeguards those defence purposes; and we are making good on our promise that the UK’s sovereignty would be continued only temporarily, not forever.
When the flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the flag of a tarnished endeavour—is lowered on Diego Garcia, the Union flag will be raised in its place: the flag of a modern, forward-looking nation of which Government Members are proud. By passing the Bill, we will not only address the growing vulnerability of a vital military asset, but entrench our alliances and our position in the Indo-Pacific, furthering Britain’s interests across the world.
Bradley Thomas
I will not. While the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to paint this as a good deal, they know that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have watched closely and have all taken note.
Finally, it is not just this country’s taxpayers who recognise that this is a bad deal. Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Labour Security Minister, said that ceding the Chagos islands to Mauritius would be “irresponsible”, risk our strategic interests, and undermine the fundamental principles of international law. Why do the Government prioritise any interests other than Britain’s, and foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed. It is a betrayal not just of UK interests but also of British Chagossians, and it does not deserve a Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I now call Lewis Cocking for the final Back-Bench contribution. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber.
Lewis Cocking
No, I will not give way. There have been lots of interventions, and I am fed up with the same interventions coming from the same Labour Members. Quite frankly it does not help the debate—just because they say something several times does not make it true.
The Bill is costing us financially, but it also has security risks. China supports the deal and is welcoming Mauritius into its sphere of influence with open arms. Mauritius is strengthening relations with Iran and Russia. As a Policy Exchange report notes, it is impossible to assert with certainty how much influence China will have over Mauritius in the next five or 10 years, let alone for the 99-year duration of this lease.
We already have British sovereign territory with a base, so I cannot understand why we have done that negotiation, and why we are hurting the British people with tax rises. As I said, we are being cruel to older people by taking away their winter fuel allowance, going after farmers with the family farm tax, and going after British businesses with the increase to national insurance contributions, yet we can find money out of nowhere—£35 billion—to give to Mauritius.
In summary, I gently say to the Government that people out there know that. When we knock on doors, as I am sure we all do across our constituencies, people will say to us, “Hang on a minute. How come we are being punished? How come we have to pay more taxes, but you soon find money when it suits you?” That is why the British public have fallen out of love with this Government already. Hopefully the Government will wake up and start representing the people who they were elected to represent in this Chamber: the British public, not foreign Governments such as that of Mauritius.
Defence Industrial Strategy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the defence industrial strategy. Today we fulfil another manifesto commitment by publishing our plan to strengthen our security and grow our economy. It is a plan to back British-based industry, create British jobs and drive British innovation.
Before I set out the detail of the strategy, I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her work in developing the strategy. I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who has joined the Ministry of Defence team.
This is a plan supported by £773 million of investment—a plan to make defence an engine for economic growth in every nation and region of our country. The men and women who serve our nation are rightly respected across the world for their dedication and professionalism, yet as we know from the war in Ukraine, when a country is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. The UK has one of the most advanced, innovative defence industrial bases the world over, but we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era of UK defence.
Our strategic defence review set out our vision to make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. Through our defence industrial strategy, we will ensure that we have an industry to deliver that vision. All the pledges made today can only be met because this Labour Government have committed the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war: 2.6% of GDP by 2027, and 3.5% by 2035, alongside our NATO allies. But with the promise to invest more comes the responsibility to invest better. By implementing our strategy, we will ensure that workers and businesses across the UK feel the benefit of the defence dividend.
In opposition, the now Defence Secretary told the House:
“Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 798.]
Today, ambition in opposition becomes action in government. Using every lever available to the Government, our strategy will prioritise British-based businesses. We will make it easier for British-based firms to do business with the Ministry of Defence. We will launch an office of small business growth to support small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing MOD contracts, and we will give greater clarity by sharing our five-year acquisition pipeline, allowing businesses to invest with confidence.
The £10 billion frigate contract signed with Norway last week was the biggest warship deal in our history—a demonstration that when we export defence capabilities, we not only strengthen our security abroad, but create high-skilled jobs at home. Through our strategy, we will back British businesses to go out and win—win more contracts and create more jobs. The new office of defence exports brings responsibility for defence exports back into the Ministry of Defence and creates a Government-to-Government exports structure that reflects what our allies and industry need.
Sustaining sovereign capabilities is the cornerstone of national security, so our strategy sets out the requirement to onshore key assets. We will maintain the advantages afforded by open international competition, but in a way that improves value for the British taxpayer. For the first time ever, we will introduce an offset policy, designed in consultation with industry. It will mean that when we buy from our allies, the UK economy will be strengthened in return through new jobs and novel technologies.
Our defence industrial base represents a commitment to innovation and excellence. Today, it supports over 460,000 jobs and over 24,000 apprenticeships across the UK, the vast majority of which are unionised. As a trade union member, I know that good, well-paid and unionised jobs are good not only for defence but for growth. The defence industry is a source of not only prosperity but pride; it proves that we are still a nation of makers. When I speak with defence workers, I see their deep sense of purpose in what they do. They are right to feel that way; their efforts keep our nation safe. Through our strategy, more people will be afforded the opportunities and rewards of working in this industry.
To ensure that the benefits of the defence dividend are shared across every nation and region of the UK, we are investing £250 million in defence growth deals. Our deals will build on inherent strengths in defence communities by improving skills and infrastructure. The first phase will be launched in Plymouth, where we will focus on advanced marine technologies and autonomous systems, and in south Yorkshire, where we will build on our recent investment in defence and steel. Further locations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced, because there is not only a defence dividend from our uplift in defence spending, but a Union dividend, strengthening our United Kingdom.
ADS analysis indicates that the defence industry workforce could grow by 50,000 people by 2035, when defence spending increases to 3% of GDP. To ensure that the UK can take full advantage, we must ensure that we have the workers with the right skills to fulfil those roles, so I am today announcing the biggest ever investment in defence skills: £182 million of new Government funding to establish five defence technical excellence colleges, so that we can promote to over 800,000 school pupils the benefits of a career in the defence industry; and our new defence skills passport, which will make it easier and faster for veterans and workers in other industries to move into the defence sector.
Over the past few years, defence firms have expressed growing concerns about attending jobs fairs. The harassment and intimidation to which they have been subjected has forced companies to cancel events on university campuses. The campaign to boycott and target defence firms misunderstands the purpose of deterrence. We know the full measure of freedom and security in Britain because of what our defence industry does. The strategy will help the industry to attract the talent it needs by creating a dedicated presence on the UCAS website, a new defence apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, and a defence university alliance to strengthen careers in the sector.
The war in Ukraine reminds us that innovation is the central pillar of deterrence. To ensure that we meet our objectives of better capability and increased growth, we are committed to spending at least 10% of our equipment budget on novel technologies. The newly established UK Defence Innovation is backed by £400 million of ringfenced investment and has the authority to reallocate funding and resources, ensuring a focus on priorities and value for money. Today’s strategy outlines how we will employ UKDI to rapidly produce technologies that give our armed forces an advantage. We will set out the first of the innovation challenges that we want industry to go after, as well as how we will better support firms in testing their innovations.
This Government inherited what the Public Accounts Committee described as a “broken procurement system”. For too long, defence has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity, yet today we know that whoever gets technology to its frontline forces the fastest, wins. We have proved that we can do it for Ukraine; now we must do it for Britain. Our segmented approach to procurement sets ambitious targets to drastically reduce the timescales to get new projects on contract. As part of the biggest shake-up to the Ministry of Defence in over 50 years, we have created the role of National armaments director, and because we want UK firms to win not just at home but abroad, we will improve our export licensing system with a new digital platform, better training for staff, and reformed procedures, including allowing exporters to apply for licences during the bidding process.
Unlike previous strategies, our one is funded. It is also the culmination of months of detailed work and close engagement with industry, academia, and trade unions. Throughout the process, our aim has been to produce a strategy with the defence sector, rather than to it. With a clear plan backed by historic investment, our Government, alongside industry, will now deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
Luke Pollard
I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.
I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.
The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses.
Luke Pollard
The offset policy that we will shortly consult on with industry provides not just the opportunity for us to bring our industries closer together, but means that in circumstances where we have to buy from a foreign provider, which could be because of quality or specific opportunities, we have the ability to then invest more in UK businesses. This is commonplace and has featured in the Norway deal and in procurement by the Australian Government and South Korea. It is a model that works and it creates an environment where we can mesh our industries together more closely with those of our allies, helping to share research and development costs for new platforms and ensuring that when we are not able to spend money on British purchases, British industry still benefits from increased skills and increased investment in novel technology. This is an area that will directly benefit UK firms and our entire defence ecosystem, especially with those investments in skills, which will last a lifetime for the workers involved and show a real defence dividend.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.
The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?
It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?
It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?
While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?
Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
May I ask Members to be brief, and the Minister to be even shorter?