Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this debate and for his kind words. We can work cross-party to change the culture across financial services with our voices from this place. May I also say what a pleasure it is to be here with my hon. Friend the Minister? I thank her for all her work on Op Courage and Op Ascend, and on veterans’ homelessness.

I want to be clear: ESG does not need to get in the way of lending to SMEs. It is important to say from the outset that many conflate ESG rules with broader ethical and commercial decisions that firms make; I will perhaps come back to that. I speak from some professional experience: I was acting head of compliance for a fintech where day in, day out, I had to make calls on whether to do business with some of these customers. ESG can, in limited circumstances, be interpreted as blocking lending to SMEs, something that is inconsistent and increasingly at odds with our national security, industrial strategy and economic resilience.

I will touch on what I believe is an artificial distinction between so-called dual-use military technology and single-use military equipment. I come across so many main high street lenders that find this difficult. British high street lenders have every right to put up their hands and say, “We do not want to lend to any company that is involved in chemical weapons or cluster munitions.” They have every right to look at some of the United Nations weapons conventions and say, “We do not want anything to do with them.” However, many lenders are not lending to dual-use military equipment makers.

I will give some examples. I met a fantastic company, Needles and Pins Aerospace, at Defence and Security Equipment International. The company has found banking, insurance and finance very difficult. It produces the insulation that goes on military helicopters—helicopters, by the way, engaged in humanitarian aid missions around the world. The insulation that goes in those helicopters is not an ordnance or a bomb; it is there to protect our British armed forces. It is worth bearing in mind that these lenders and their compliance departments—and I was from that parish—should really get to know the products and services that their customers want to seek finance for.

Another example from my constituency is Edmund Optics, which produces prisms and lenses. There are medical, aerospace, commercial satellite and civilian aircraft applications for those. However, some of those products and services have a dual use—there is also a military use to them. Again, lenders get caught up in a very binary distinction; they should be spending more time understanding the products and services that companies provide.

I want to give another shout-out, this time to 4GD, a data-driven defence training SME with which I have worked extensively, along with ADS, the industry trade body. I saw 4GD’s founder Rob yesterday, and he has told me countless stories about being debanked. His business is about training British armed forces to do what they do better, so that they are more equipped against our adversaries, safer and more resilient. There is nothing more ethical than that. The fact that high street lenders have closed their doors to that commercial opportunity shows the inherent laziness among some people in compliance departments, who refuse to understand the products and services for which their prospective customers are seeking finance.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for referencing the work I have done alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). Last year, along with 100 Labour parliamentarians, we wrote to fund and bank managers about ESG. I was really pleased that two things came off the back of that. First, some funds marketed as sustainable said they were going to invest in defence companies, because they found nothing in the rules that inherently disbars sustainable funds from investing in defence—there is nothing in the regulator’s rulebook that does that. That is just a fact, and that fact was ultimately confirmed by my old employer, the Financial Conduct Authority. I am immensely grateful to its chief exec, Nikhil, for his speech last year on defence, and for the FCA’s statement. The FCA has been rock solid and clear that there is no tension between ESG regulatory rules and defence financing—none whatsoever. I say to the financial services practitioners who are listening: please take heed of that.

As I mentioned, there have been some good shifts, but ESG and broader ethical considerations are only part of the structural barriers facing defence firms. Recent work by colleagues across the House, including a report I co-authored, “Rewiring British Defence Financing”, makes the point clearly. That work shows that ESG considerations sit alongside and are outweighed by deeper, more persistent problems across access to capital, commercial lending risk, cash-flow pressures, contracting structures and compliance complexity. Defence SMEs are not failing to secure finance because they are somehow irresponsible actors, but because they operate in an ecosystem defined by long payment cycles, sometimes single dominant customers like the primes, uncertain procurement pipelines and fragmented support across Government.

On that last point, let me turn to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who cannot be here today. He has done some phenomenal work setting up the office for small business growth in the Ministry of Defence, which is designed to break down some of the contractual complexities and the fear factor that many defence SMEs face when trying to contract with the MOD. I am happy to confirm to the House that one company in my York Outer constituency, Flyby Technology, will be part of the new OSBG’s shaping cohort, to get into the nitty-gritty of how we can streamline the contracting processes for SMEs, in line with the Government’s mission to increase the direct spend in defence SMEs across the country.

I want to touch on the role of primes when it comes to SMEs in particular. Sometimes the cash-flow challenges created by defence primes are not acceptable. The primes are great employers in this country. I have been to Barrow-in-Furness and seen at first hand how BAE Systems is transforming the fortunes of that town. The primes have a great understanding of their tier 2, 3 and 4 suppliers, but they need to make sure that they pay SMEs on time and quickly.

This is not a mundane point. Were Members to sit down with the chief financial officers of these SMEs and look at their cash flows, it would be clear: a 90-day payment term with a prime, or even a 120-day payment term, increases working capital requirements. The company then has to go out to lenders to try to get financing to cover the shortfall, because the primes are really slow. In turn, that means that when defence SMEs try to get loans for inventory or asset financing, they are often offered worse terms. Primes have a duty to start paying the wonderful SMEs of Britain quickly, because improving their payment terms will create a cyclical effect. Some great primes are better at it. Overall, the result is a system in which highly capable, export-ready firms struggle with the basics—securing bank accounts, insurance and working capital—not at the margins but as a matter of course.

I am worried that some insurers are becoming increasingly hesitant about insuring defence companies because of the risk of political violence. I have worked with Aviva and others on this issue. It is interesting to note that some of the protesters who target the insurers may well themselves have insurance policies with them, or their defined-contribution workplace pensions may well be held in one of these insurer’s accounts. There is a degree of hypocrisy there. Insurers should have every confidence from Members in this place that they are doing right by the defence sector in supporting its growth and development.

Why do all these complexities matter? As the hon. Member for Windsor touched on, they create serious consequences, because if challenges mount up, they could undermine our sovereign defence capability. If British firms cannot raise capital here, what will they do? They may choose to scale abroad or sell to overseas buyers rather than to the British base, or fail altogether. We could become more dependent on foreign supply chains for critical technologies. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has done some really strong work on critical minerals and our sovereign capability in that respect. We have to ensure that there is a sovereign financial base to support our sovereign defence industry.

The challenges we have talked about in procurement, ESG and access to finance hit SMEs the hardest. They do not have big teams of financial experts, and the larger primes can navigate the challenges more easily as they have access to wider capital pools that the smaller firms do not. There is a risk of strategic contradiction, because on the one hand we are asking defence firms to scale, innovate and deliver at pace, but on the other hand we seem to be tolerating a financial system that treats some firms as a reputational liability. That is not sustainable, to borrow a term. The issue is not necessarily ESG principles themselves, but the absence of clarity in how lenders apply their risk tolerance to defence. ESG concerns are only one part of the financing challenge facing defence firms, alongside credit risk, contracting structures and cash flow, but they are the tip of the iceberg. Because these issues are often poorly defined, they create uncertainty that deters lending.

What is missing is a shared understanding across Government, regulators and financial institutions that defence, when conducted lawfully, in line with UN weapons conventions and in support of democratic security, is not a problem but a public good to be enabled. The hon. Member for Windsor touched on the theme of their being nothing more ethical than lending to defence companies that are equipping our Ukrainian friends. Other countries around the world understand that. The US has been much more explicit in aligning its financial system with its national security priorities, particularly in terms of single-use and lethal military equipment.

What needs to change? There is an overwhelming case for a multilateral defence bank—such as the proposed defence, security and resilience bank—that would meet some of the financing challenges. We cannot just look at incremental fixes. I do not want to take up too much time on that, but there is a role for multilateral development finance.

As the report I wrote sets out, private capital alone is not filling the gap, particularly for SMEs in the dual-use space, and where finance does flow, it can be short term. I do not want to get into the details, but we need to make sure that the institutions of the state, be that the NSSIF—the national security strategic investment fund, an arm’s length body that is part of the British Business Bank—or the National Wealth Fund or UK Defence Innovation, sing together and make sure that their finance comes into innovative technologies.

We need to learn the lessons from the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US. I heard that a significant proportion of US GDP growth comes from the DARPA investments of the 1980s—of course, that agency invented the internet, the smartphone and so many other underlying technologies. Let us learn from the leadership role of DARPA.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman plainly knows a great deal about this subject and is educating a few of us on it. He talks about the US example; could he also reflect on the European Union regulatory regime around ESG, given that the EU is about to start investing considerably more in defence?

[Mr Charters]

When it comes to our European friends, we have to have cross-border financing. I have met some of the main German commercial lenders that want to come in; likewise, British financial services are investing in success stories such as Rheinmetall and some of the great European defence brands. We have to come together, not just with our European friends, but with Canada and other allied nations around the world, to approach defence financing on a multilateral basis. That is the real lesson.

Let me touch on what our adversaries are doing. They know that they need to innovate quickly when it comes to building up their own financing capabilities. Russia is moving towards more off-balance-sheet lending to a lot of its defence sector. Russian advance manufacturing companies are increasingly gaining access to the Chinese bond market. In general, the Russian war economy is mobilising at pace. Clearly, when it comes to some of our adversaries’ financing mechanisms, they are daring to do things differently—according, of course, to the rule books and ethics of their particular countries. We need to be agile enough to reform our own financing capabilities at pace, too. I am very concerned that we risk forcing British defence SMEs to seek foreign ownership, to offshore their operations or to seek finance overseas simply to survive. That is strategic self-harm when it comes to our sovereign defence capabilities.

You will be pleased to hear, Ms McVey, that I am about to close. In an era of renewed geopolitical competition, the question is not whether the state should play a role in defence finance, but whether we are prepared to act now in order to do so with the seriousness that our security environment demands. I believe that a strong defence financing sector acts as a deterrent to some of our adversaries and means that, where we need to scale industrial capability much quicker, we are ready to do so, if we have a defence financing revolution. This is not a choice between values and security; it is about recognising that, in the world we live in, the two are inseparable.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to set out how the Government can encourage lenders to turn on the taps for some of the innovative defence SMEs, no matter whether they are producing prisms, training our special forces or insulating our helicopters. There is nothing more ethical, in our modern world, than supporting the defence SMEs that are maintaining our collective security.

Armed Forces Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I am proud to speak in support of the Armed Forces Bill on Second Reading, and I do so as the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, the home of the British Army. In my constituency, service is not an abstract concept. It is lived, every day, by families who accept unique pressures on their time, their family life, their careers, their children’s education and their health. Our duty in return is clear: fairness, respect, and practical support that works in real life.

I will begin with housing. The last Government left defence housing in an absolute mess, with satisfaction levels for service family accommodation hitting the lowest level on record. I hugely welcome the creation of the new Defence Housing Service and the direction of travel the Bill sets. My patch will be one of the biggest recipients of these changes, as there are more than 1,800 service family homes in Aldershot. That is thousands of families who should never have had to put up with the basics being a battle.

For too long, I have had conversation after conversation with service personnel and their spouses about housing that is not fit for purpose, and a repairs system that feels like a maze. People have described the nightmare of trying to get even straightforward repairs done, and the frustration of being treated like the problem rather than the customer. Again and again, families say to me that they miss the days when there was an estate manager on site who could fix problems quickly and take responsibility. I am delighted to see the Bill deliver that, restoring a service that is accountable, visible and on the side of forces families.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member has said about service family accommodation, but the investment in single living accommodation is unlikely to keep up. As we have heard, that is the responsibility of frontline commands that are unlikely to prioritise it. Does she think that there could be the unintended consequence that people want to move out of the block and even enter relationships in order to move into the much better quality service family accommodation?

[Alex Baker]

That is a fair point. I know that the Defence Committee will be holding Ministers to account on single living accommodation as much as we are on SFA. They both need to improve very quickly.

The second and central point that I want to focus on is the covenant. It is absolutely right that it is strengthened and put on a clear legal footing. The covenant is the nation’s promise that those who serve and their families should not be disadvantaged because of service life. If that principle means anything, it must apply consistently across the whole of Government and the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Defence Committee has heard powerful evidence of how inconsistent the covenant can be in practice and how families often feel they are left to fight their corner alone. I will give just one example. We heard evidence from someone serving who moved from Scotland to the south of England while waiting for an NHS specialist appointment. They had been told that their place on the waiting list would transfer under the covenant, but instead they were put to the end of the queue, with the local trust stating that it did not recognise or follow the covenant. That is just one story among hundreds.

The Committee heard that significant proportions of serving personnel feel disadvantaged when trying to access healthcare, education and housing, and that challenge is not limited to service personnel themselves. We also heard how service life affects spouses and partners, from difficulties transferring professional roles to families being denied remote working arrangements when posted abroad.

The most worrying conclusion the Defence Committee reached was not simply that disadvantage exists, but that there is no clear single shared understanding of what the covenant actually means on the ground, either among providers or within parts of our armed forces community itself. That gap in understanding is exactly where good intentions go to die.

While I strongly support putting the covenant into law, I urge the Government to go a few steps further. If we are creating a stronger legal covenant, we should take the opportunity to set out a clear, positive, public commitment: what the armed forces community can expect, what “no disadvantage” actually means in practice, and what will be delivered consistently across the UK. It should include clear standards, practical guidance for those delivering services and proper mechanisms for accountability and learning so that best practice is shared and poor practice is tackled quickly. Legislation alone will not fix inconsistency if the people responsible for implementation do not know what is being asked of them or if families cannot see a straightforward route to challenge decisions that plainly ignore the covenant.

Lastly, we should set out a clear vision for how the armed forces covenant is made real in communities across the UK. This really relates to our commitment to a total society approach to defence, particularly within the strategic defence review. That is why I am campaigning for Aldershot to be officially recognised as an armed forces covenant town. I want to create a national movement of covenant towns, cities and villages committed to delivering the covenant consistently across local services and organisations. I am working with the Royal British Legion on what that looks like. Towns like Aldershot, where civilian and military life are inseparable, already understand what it means in practice. By establishing places like ours as covenant towns, cities and villages, we can kick-start a national effort to ensure that respect and fairness for the armed forces community are not just a box-ticking exercise, but embedded in the beating heart of our communities.

In Aldershot and Farnborough, families do not ask for special treatment. They ask for fair treatment and for a system that recognises the reality of service life. This Bill, with a renewed approach to housing and a stronger covenant, is a major step in the right direction. I welcome and support it and will keep pushing to ensure that its promise is felt by forces families not just in speeches this evening, but in their everyday lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member comes at this not only from having served, but from now serving on the Defence Committee. On that point about the age limit for recall liability, does he know whether any modelling has been done on what impact it might have on recruitment?

[Mr Bailey]

I do not know, but perhaps the Minister could expand on that in his response. However, I do have experience of people such as Flight Lieutenant Mark Raymond, who served under me on the airdrop team that delivered lifesaving aid to the Yazidi people. He was eventually retired at the age of 64, but only after having to apply for annual extensions each year after turning 60. That was not because his capability had diminished, but because the system would not allow otherwise. It was probably also because the Conservatives deleted the C-130, which was a very bad mistake. Reservists and planners have long argued for a more individualised approach to service, recognising experiences and skill rather than forcing people out at an arbitrary age. When war comes, it does not discriminate, and it will require the contribution of the whole of society, so our armed forces must be structured to draw on all the talent we have.

I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it easier for people to move between regular service careers and the reserves. A zig-zag model of service reflects modern careers and helps us retain invaluable experience, rather than losing it altogether. This Bill provides a platform for an armed forces model fit for the future, and one that rewards service, supports families and ensures that the covenant is real across Government. Our service people deserve nothing less, and I commend this Bill to the House.

I hope some of the issues I have spoken about, particularly those about the support of other Departments and the changes those Departments must take on board, are acknowledged by all Members in the House this evening, and that they champion them, and go out and do the work necessary to highlight such cases, particularly the examples I have mentioned. I look forward to hearing how extensions under medical capacity could benefit our service families, particularly for dental health, and how this support can be extended into parts of our nation where service numbers are high but the local populations are low.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. It is true that we have sparred in this Chamber—famously, on one occasion—but I utterly agree with the spirit of his intervention, which I am sure carries the support of the entire House tonight.

There are a number of measures in the Bill to improve reserve service, which was mentioned by multiple Members, including the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). The measures cover the potential transition to war and the regularising of call-up liabilities across all three services. We think that the proposals largely make sense—though I have to confess that I recently turned 60, and seeing that the Minister wants to extend the call-up liability to 65, I had best dust off my old set of webbing at the back of the garage somewhere just in case.

[Richard Foord]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time.

Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment.

The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink.

We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me.

Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary.

Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country.

The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King.

We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

Arctic and High North

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Those are two points I will come on to, as to why the UK must act independently but also with our European allies in the High North and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in particular.

We must always remember that Putin will respond to actions, not words, and we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Secondly, as with any bully, Putin will feel the need to retaliate after the actions last week, but it might not be against the big kid of the USA; he could act against the UK. That is not something that should make us scared, but it should highlight that we must be ready for a response from Russia in one domain or another and make sure that we are able to respond and defend ourselves effectively.

I commend Ministers for initiatives to strengthen our armed forces, including raising the service pay, bringing housing back under public control and strengthening industrial partnerships across the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, we have also increased investment in the joint expeditionary force working with High North allies. In both visits to Estonia and the US, that was mentioned as something that the UK should continue to do to implement effective security measures as actions, not merely words.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about our High North allies. I have just been next door with Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s Minister responsible for energy and mineral resources. Given that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark is a founding member of NATO, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the security of Greenland is a matter for all of NATO and not a matter for unilateral action from the United States?

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more. The UK’s position should be very clear: Greenland’s future is to be determined by people in Greenland and absolutely no one else.

Initiatives in the UK must be matched with urgency and sustained funding. We must see a clear path to the 3.5%, plus the 1.5%, of defence spending agreed at the NATO summit in The Hague. We need a defence investment plan as quickly as possible, and one that commits the UK to force development that will truly give Vladimir Putin a moment of pause. Failure to do both those things will leave the UK and our people at risk.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about small businesses and the wider supply chain. A large component part of the defence industrial strategy talks about those things as well; I am sure he has read that strategy, so he will be familiar with it. We want to see our suppliers in the UK expand. We also want to see more of them selling to the UK military; indeed, lots of our small companies sell to foreign militaries, but not yet to the UK military. We are launching the office for small business growth later this month. That will enable an easier route for UK SMEs to sell their products and services into the UK military—something that, time and again, they have said has been hard in the past. We are making it easier for the future.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I, too, am concerned about the potential loss of jobs in Yeovil and the wider south-west if we do not see a positive decision on the production of the new medium helicopter at Yeovil. Late last year, we learned that the Government had failed to negotiate access to Security Action for Europe, a €150 billion defence fund. Leonardo is an Anglo-Italian company, and was also supportive of UK access to SAFE. Can the Minister reassure us that this lack of a decision on the new medium helicopter is completely divorced from access to SAFE?

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I can. We were very clear that we wanted to explore the options for the UK participating in SAFE, but we were also clear that we would not join at any price. Unfortunately, we were not able to make the value for the UK taxpayer and for UK industry match in those discussions with SAFE. We continue to co-operate very closely with not just the European Union, but our European allies—that can be seen from the new agreements we have signed, such as the Trinity House agreement with Germany and more collaboration and co-operation with Poland—and there is more to come.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I think my hon. Friend would not expect me to be able to, or to be prepared to, answer hypothetical questions. What I can say to her is that if the US, as our closest defence and security ally, asks for UK assistance, we will always be willing to respond. We will ensure that any support we do offer, whether it is support or a combined operation, will have a strong legal basis, as indeed this one today, which has been mounted so effectively and—early indications—successfully, has had.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Secretary of State said in relation to Ukraine:

“we will continue to work with the United States towards security guarantees”.

I regret that President Trump has continued to undermine NATO this afternoon, writing:

“I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed them.”

That flies in the face of the experience post-9/11, when Brits and Danes fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan. How would the announcements from Paris yesterday differ if there was no prospect of a US backstop?

[John Healey]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, things have moved beyond that point. Jared Kushner yesterday confirmed the readiness of the US to provide a backstop, and special envoy Witkoff said that the President “strongly stands” behind the security protocols that are being agreed. So I would first say to the hon. Gentleman: catch up. Secondly, he is right, of course, that the only time that article 5 has been triggered was when NATO responded to the US’s request following 9/11. We were proud to be a part of that and we are now proud to be a leading part of a 32-nation-strong NATO.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I have worked very closely with those in the Northern Ireland Office on this issue, and I will allow them to come up with the answer, but from our perspective the legacy commission as a whole has the most powers to review the evidence that has gone through. It will get to truth, reconciliation and justice better than any other organisation, which is why we are promoting pushing as much as we can through it to ensure that those three different groups of people in Northern Ireland get to that truth and reconciliation in the first place.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I carried out court martial duty while serving, and it gave me greater confidence in justice for accused serving personnel. Last week we learned that, as Prime Minister, Tony Blair supported the trial of British soldiers by court martial rather than by a civil court. When it was suggested that the case should go to a civil court, he annotated the proposal with the words, “It must not!” Can the Minister reassure civilians who are thinking about joining the armed forces that justice from a jury of a service person’s peers is worthy of their confidence?

[Al Carns]

In my last role, I had considerable dealings with the service justice system. I have been to visit the Defence Serious Crime Command and had a look at the victim support units that it has established, and I can say that since 2021 there has been a huge amount of revamping and rebuilding of the service justice system. It is fully fit for purpose, and it has my utter confidence.

Ukraine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Children should never be pawns of war. May I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for championing this issue? There is not a Ukraine debate that goes by without her raising the issue of Ukrainian children. It is absolutely vital, and it is why, as a country, we have said that a lasting and just peace in Ukraine must include the return of all the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia. We have committed more than £2.8 million to support Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. We will continue to support that effort and to make the case that stealing children is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak nation, and it is not something that we will support or that any decent nation around the world should back.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister said about introducing a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas; I was a little less welcoming of what he said about it being phased in over the next year. It was reported this week that UK-insured ships have transported almost half the Russian diesel exports since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those exports are thought to have been worth more than £24 billion pounds, and UK-owned or UK-insured vessels are reported to have enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas. Why can the Government not get on with the UK maritime services ban today?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have announced that we intend to introduce the maritime services ban on Russian LNG, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export globally. The reason it is being phased in is so that it can be done in lockstep with our EU friends, who are introducing equivalent restrictions. He is right to identify the issue, and the Government are right to take steps to address it. I am an impatient so-and-so, and I know that the efforts that we are making across Government are based on a similar impatience to get it done fast, but it must be done well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

There is a mismatch between the rhetoric that we are hearing and the funding for defence in this Parliament. The NATO Secretary-General talks about preparing for war on the scale that our grandparents endured, while the US national security strategy states that it is a “core interest” of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability” with Russia. In that context, will the Government urge a lowering of the temperature of statements by the likes of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the First Sea Lord, or will they increase defence spending closer to 3.5% of GDP in this Parliament?

[Al Carns]

Let us be really clear, for 14 years—[Interruption.] For 14 years, we have not seen defence spending going up. As shadow Ministers sit on the polished Opposition Front Bench criticising the individual Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government, I am the one who, collectively with others, had to put up with poor recruitment targets, terrible morale, and poor equipment and capability. For the first time in a generation, this Government are increasing defence spending for a long time, so that everybody in uniform will be able to look forward for the next 10 years and see that defence spending is going up. Well done.

1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, given your insight on matters of national security. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing the debate today.

This summer, a constituent joined me in my surgery at Honiton and explained that she was the widow of one of the victims who had been killed in a helicopter crash in 1994. Her husband was one of the 29 security personnel who were killed when Chinook Zulu Delta 576, in which they were travelling, crashed over the Mull of Kintyre. In my speech, I want to focus on what has happened since: the years of uncertainty, the fragmented investigations, the unanswered questions and the decision to seal key documents away until 2094.

My constituent is now a member of the Chinook Justice Campaign, led by 24 of the 29 families who are seeking answers about the crash itself, but also accountability for way that it was handled in the aftermath. They have set out a long list of unanswered questions—a stark reminder of how much remains unresolved for the families—including: “Why were our loved ones placed on an aircraft that even the Ministry of Defence and its most experienced test pilots were prohibited from flying?” and “Were the passengers on board told that the proper authority in the Ministry of Defence had determined that the aircraft was not to be relied on in any way whatsoever?” After three decades, those are modest and entirely reasonable requests.

The withholding of information has denied families the answers that could have brought some closure to their grief. Across 31 years, six separate investigations have examined the Chinook crash, yet none has provided a full or coherent account of what happened. The original RAF board of inquiry in 1995 blamed the pilots without ever resolving the serious airworthiness concerns known about at the time. Later reviews, culminating in the 2011 Lord Philip review, overturned the negligence verdict but still did not address why the aircraft was allowed to fly despite being declared unairworthy by the MOD’s own testing centre in 1993.

Even subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and internal MOD examinations, including through the 2000s and the 2010s, left major questions unanswered. Those include how the false declaration of airworthiness was made, why crucial information was withheld from the pilots, and what is contained in the documents now sealed until 2094.

[Tessa Munt]

When the Minister replies, I wonder whether she might answer this question, with which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. When did the MOD stop allowing so many critical personnel on one flight? Those on board included members of MI5, RUC special branch and the British Army intelligence corps, as well as Northern Ireland security experts—almost all the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence capability on one flight. We know that in the case of the royal family, the monarch and the heir are not allowed to fly together. Will the Minister explain exactly when the MOD stopped the practice of putting everybody on one flight? Has that actually happened?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that so many high-value, senior and experienced personnel would not be put on the same flight today. If we reflect on that collision in 1994, we have to ask why six inquiries have not brought clarity. Instead, families are left with a patchwork of findings, and gaps where the truth should be.

The Chinook Justice Campaign poses a crucial question: how can future tragedies be prevented through changes to oversight and accountability? That brings me to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which passed its Second Reading this month. Its central idea is that public servants should have a duty of candour—a legal requirement to act truthfully, to co-operate and to avoid the kind of defensive practices that have deepened the suffering of victims’ families in the past.

The Bill contains a significant exemption under clause 6: the duty of candour does not apply to the intelligence agencies or others who handle material falling within the definition of “security and intelligence” in section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I entirely understand why some agencies and the broader intelligence community might need to be exempt, but if certain institutions are to be exempt from a statutory duty of candour, Parliament must at least strengthen the independent mechanisms that can review and oversee sensitive decisions behind closed doors.

At present, that mechanism is the Intelligence and Security Committee, but its remit no longer reflects how all national security work is carried out across Government. In its 2022-23 annual report, the ISC warned that the

“failure to update its Memorandum of Understanding”

has allowed key intelligence-related functions to shift into policy Departments outside its oversight, creating what it called an “erosion of Parliamentary oversight”.

Families want to see the full truth and have urged MPs who represent them to call for relevant documents to be released where possible. Liberal Democrats support the families and are calling for the release of those sealed Chinook documents that can be released, and a judge-led public inquiry in due course with access to all relevant material, so that the unresolved questions about airworthiness and accountability can be answered. We are also urging the Government to follow through with a duty of candour on public bodies, which should of course include the Ministry of Defence, in which the Minister and I and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), all served.

We need to ensure that bereaved families are never again forced to fight for decades to have basic transparency. Where documents relating to the Chinook crash can be released, they should be, so that families can finally understand the full truth of what happened and why. If there are elements relating to national security that genuinely cannot be made public, the Government must put in place trusted, independent parliamentary oversight with the authority to examine that material. For the sake of my constituent, and for every Chinook Zulu Delta 576 family still waiting for answers, we must not let this injustice endure for another generation.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the full details, but having another Typhoon partner nation using UK radar technologies provides the opportunity for us to get greater value out of the R&D costs that the UK has put into the development of those new technologies, but also provides more opportunity for the workforce and the companies, especially Leonardo in Edinburgh, to be able to deliver that as well. It is not just radar, of course; as the shadow Minister suggested, it is also the software upgrades that are required to do so. I am very happy writing with the fuller details, and will share the letter with the House for Members who may be interested.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I warmly welcome this Typhoon export deal not only for entailing the strengthening of the NATO alliance, but for the jobs it will bring to the south-west of England. Plainly, these expensive Typhoon platforms will not be subject to re-export and are bound for Türkiye. However, given that UK manufactured arms have been found in the hands of the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan in recent weeks, how satisfied is the Minister with the integrity of the UK’s arms export regime to states in eastern Europe and the middle east?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the good-value platforms that we are exporting to Türkiye; it is really important that we have a strong relationship with Türkiye. He will know that the arms exports regime is run by the Department for Business and Trade. I have to say that the risk of diversion from some locations is real, and that is why before any arms exports licence is agreed by DBT, there is input from not just the MOD but other sources across Government to assess the risk of diversion or the equipment being lost or used in a way that does not accord with international humanitarian law. Where we think there are such risks, we do not grant those export licences. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take up the matters he has raised further with DBT colleagues.