Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Eighty years ago, the guns finally fell silent across the Asia-Pacific, imperial Japan surrendered, and the most devastating conflict in human history came to an end. Today we remember not just the victory, but the immense courage and sacrifice that made it possible.

Just two months ago, I stood in this House to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Across my Slough constituency, communities of different backgrounds came together to reflect on that milestone. However, while Europe celebrated peace in May 1945, the war raged on in the east. Hundreds of thousands of British troops remained in combat across Asia and the Pacific, alongside millions of Commonwealth soldiers—the largest volunteer Army in history—who bore the burden of war with extraordinary resolve. Their service reminds us that victory was never the triumph of one nation alone.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Chair of the Select Committee to mention some of the many diverse groups from across Berkshire, whom I know he is thinking of at this very difficult time, including our local Nepalese and Gurkha communities?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend and Berkshire colleague for that intervention, and he is so right in what he says. We must remember them.

As we mark this solemn anniversary, we must shine a light on those whose sacrifices have too often been overlooked. Their names may not appear in our history books, but their courage shaped the world we live in. At the time of my VE Day contributions to the House in May, it was my understanding that only two British-based veterans who served in the pre-partition Indian Army were still with us. It is with deep regret that I inform the House today that both veterans have, sadly, since passed away.

I would like to pay tribute to Havildar Major Rajinder Singh Dhatt MBE and Daffadar Muhammad Hussain, who was a local Slough resident. These two formidable Commonwealth ex-servicemen, whom I had the honour and privilege of meeting on several occasions, served with distinction and dedicated their lives to preserving the legacy of those who served. I am sure the House will join me in sending condolences to their family and friends. Their stories are a powerful reminder of the global nature of this conflict and the enduring bonds of service.

As a proud Sikh, I carry this legacy personally. My great-grandfather lost a leg fighting in the first world war and my grandmother’s brother and other family members served in the second world war. As I discussed with my staff members Isabella Elie and Lewis Rantell, their stories are echoed in families across Britain and the Commonwealth. One such story is that of Patrick McAnulty, one of the thousands of British and allied prisoners of war who endured unimaginable suffering in captivity. Subjected to forced labour, starvation and brutal treatment, many POWs did not survive. Those who did carried the physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. Their resilience in the face of such cruelty is testament to the human spirit, and their sacrifice must never be forgotten.

As we reflect on the past, we must also celebrate how far we have come. The United Kingdom and Japan, once wartime enemies, are now very close allies. Today, we stand together in defence of peace and democracy. As the Defence Committee noted in its report on the global combat air programme, that partnership is a cutting-edge collaboration between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop the next generation of fighter jets. It is a powerful symbol of reconciliation and shared purpose.

As veterans share their stories during this 80th anniversary, we are reminded that remembrance must be more than ceremonial: it must inspire action. The lessons of history are clear, yet conflict persists from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan, the Congo and more. These are not distant tragedies; they are urgent reminders of the fragility of peace. In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I am regularly reminded of the vital role that our current brave servicemen and women play in keeping our country safe, and I would like to recognise their contributions, too. However, recognition must be more than symbolic; it must be matched by action and support. So, in conclusion, let us remember, let us reflect, but above all, let us ensure that the sacrifices of the past are never in vain and that the peace they secured is never taken for granted.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Victory in the battle of Britain means we are having this debate in this place in English, but how was that aerial triumph secured? Of course, it had much to do with the pilots of the RAF—Churchill’s famous “few”—who risked all at long odds to blunt the Luftwaffe’s talons. Key, too, was the workhorse Hawker Hurricane, which bagged most of the kills. There was also the show pony Supermarine Spitfire, which grabbed most of the glory, to the extent that German pilots would lie about being brought down by a Spit and not the deadly but less elegant Hurricane.

I would contend that the unsung hero is the world’s first organised radar early warning system, code-named Chain Home and strung like pearls around the British coast, with particular emphasis on the English south and south-east. It meant Britain could see the enemy coming and marshal our meagre fighter resources to best effect. Radar allowed us to vector our squadrons against the bomber streams and their escorts for, had we to rely on the “mark 1 eyeball”, as RAF pilots call it even today, or imprecise Royal Observer Corps listening devices that were more great war than great efficiency, suffice it to say the world would be a different and much worse place.

Soon radar was miniaturised and put aboard aircraft, and aerial combat was transformed, so that today it is less Biggles battling the Hun in the sun and more BVR—beyond visual range—spotting our enemy long before they spot us and taking them out at a remarkable distance. Airborne radar and comms are today’s air war essentials, as vital to modern air forces as the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines that powered both our Spitfires and Hurricanes in the second world war. But the RAF has a problem: a capability gap—and for capability gap read “credibility gap”—because it cannot offer the complete integral mission package.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate on the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme. A fortnight ago, our Defence Committee raised concerns about the E-7 programme with the Secretary of State and is looking to carry out further scrutiny. As the hon. Member just mentioned, there have been perennial procurement issues. It is wholly inadequate that there is a capability gap in the airborne early warning and control coverage, and there was a lamentable decision to reduce the fleet by 40% to save just 12% on the cost. Does he agree that somebody needs to get a grip on this programme, close the capability gap and finally deliver the capability that our fleet forces deserve?

[John Cooper]

As the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member is very knowledgeable about this subject, and I hope that we will tease out today much of what he raised—we may actually get some of the answers we seek.

As I was saying, the RAF has a problem: it cannot offer a complete package, and we could be reliant on NATO allies to give us extra cover. That is because the venerable E-3D Sentry aircraft has retired, so we entirely lack an airborne early warning command and control aircraft providing situational awareness of the battlespace—that is the real-time 360° view of what is out there, so that our top guns know who to salute and who to shoot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and agree with him about the importance of ISR capability.

[Mr Dhesi]

rose—

[Luke Akehurst]

I am coming to my conclusion, but I give way.

[Mr Dhesi]

The recent US proposal to scale back the funding for its E-7 Wedgetail programme raises serious concerns about the long-term viability of the programme. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence to show the House that its defence procurement strategy is robust, independent and in line with the recommendations set out in the strategic defence review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

Given the retirement of the E-3 Sentry and the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail and Crowsnest programmes, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Ministry of Defence must ensure that the capability gaps in the airborne early warning and control coverage must be urgently addressed in our defence procurement? Otherwise, it will lead to long-term issues for the defence and security of our country.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Of course I agree with the hon. Member—anyone in the Chamber would agree that the capability and credibility gap has to be overcome. We know where the threats are coming from, or at least the visible threats. To quote a former US politician, there are lots of unknown knowns, known knowns and known unknowns—I am sure I have messed that up, but hon. Members know what I mean. We have to be capable of delivering on that. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) said that there had to be focused delivery of this product; I echo and double down on that.

In conclusion, the issue is about jobs, which matter, and our security, which matters too. It is absolutely essential.

Afghanistan

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Although I welcome it and his intent to inject parliamentary transparency and scrutiny, this whole data breach is a mess and wholly unacceptable. As I mentioned to the Minister for the Armed Forces during our recent secret briefing, I am minded to recommend to my Defence Committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate it to ascertain what has transpired, given the serious ramifications on so many levels.

As things stand, notwithstanding the contents of the Rimmer review, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the Afghans affected, many of whom bravely supported our service personnel, will not be at risk of recriminations and reprisals?

[John Healey]

I can only recommend that my hon. Friend reads in full the public version of the Rimmer report, which I have published today. Rimmer sets out conclusions and an updated risk assessment, taking an up-to-date view, recognising that the situation in Afghanistan is nearly four years on from the point at which the Taliban took control and that the present regime sees those who may threaten the regime itself as a greater threat to their operation than any former Government official or serving official.

I recommend that my hon. Friend reads that report, and I expect that he, as the Defence Committee Chair, will want to take full advantage of this restored parliamentary accountability. I have always believed that our Select Committee system in this House is perfectly capable of, and better suited to, many of the in-depth inquiries that often get punted into public inquiries or calls for such inquiries. I hope he will have noted the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary also endorsed that view.

Military Helicopters: Blood Cancers

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered military helicopters and blood cancers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am here because of someone who joined the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm at the age of 19 because he had always wanted to fly. He always had the vitality to attack life and live it fully. He flew everything from Hawks to helicopters, and was a talented and committed pilot. By the time I met him, he was teaching new recruits to fly at RAF Cranwell, and was Navy snowboarding champion. In 2005, he went to Cornwall and was stationed at Culdrose, where he flew search and rescue on the old Sea Kings. I represent Truro and Falmouth. Cornwall is rich in forces personnel and veterans. Five and a half per cent of people in Truro and Falmouth have served, which is a much higher percentage than the national average of 3.8%. In Truro and Falmouth, 4,160 houses—more than 10%—have at least one veteran living in them.

He was living in Dorset when he suffered strange symptoms of blood clots in his lungs and legs in the spring of 2022. It took some time and persistence, but he was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare blood cancer that affects only 5,000 people a year in the UK and is most common in men over the age of 85. He was lucky to have some pioneering treatment in Dorset and later at the Royal Marsden hospital, and he was able to trial drugs that were not yet available in the UK. Treatment is developing for blood cancers all the time, and it is important that people in the UK have access to new treatments. The cancer, however, returned, and he died a year after diagnosis, not long after his 54th birthday. His was not an isolated case. Last Tuesday, in the Welsh Senedd, Julie Morgan led a debate very like this one about RAF winchman Zach Stubbings. Zach died from multiple myeloma at the age of 46, after working many hours on Sea Kings.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent, sterling efforts to advocate on behalf of serving personnel and veterans, seeking answers on the important matter of military helicopters and blood cancers. Does she agree that although the current in-house testing of in-service helicopters is welcome, we must ensure full transparency on the matter so that there is work done for those who have previously worked on those helicopters? The health and wellbeing of our serving personnel must always be front and centre.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree absolutely. The health of our serving personnel is and always must be paramount. I will move on to previous cases shortly.

I know of 180 cases with solicitors of crew working on military helicopters who have contracted cancers, many like those of the two people I mentioned. They worked on the Sea King particularly, but also the Westland Wessex, the Puma, and the CH-47 Chinook. Many of the crew affected were in touch with each other, as there seemed too many of them, and the cancers too rare, to be pure coincidence.

Last July, a report was written by the Independent Medical Expert Group on medical and scientific aspects of the armed forces compensation scheme, and was published in November last year. There was a section at the end on the potential link between exhaust fumes such as benzene from helicopters and blood cancers such as multiple myeloma. The findings were that the evidence and data available did not meet their threshold to establish a causal link between Sea King helicopter exhaust fumes or benzene and multiple myeloma, leiomyosarcoma, and soft tissue sarcomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Unfortunately, we do not have a timescale at the moment. The scale of the task is hard to define. In terms of where the records sit, no one keeps records on veterans when they leave, apart from the NHS. Those records are held in different buckets all over the UK. It is going to take some time to pull that together and analyse it, and to work out whether there are pockets of very rare cancers from one part of defence, another part of defence or from other industries. Unfortunately, we just do not know. I will endeavour to get back to my hon. Friend once the scale of the task, which is gigantic, is conceptualised into time.

I come back to some points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. On spreading awareness of a potential link, we work really hard to ensure that all service personnel have access to national cancer screening programmes. The MOD regularly runs health education campaigns—I hope that answers her earlier question—that encourage participation in national cancer screening programmes and raise awareness about cancers. Any veteran listening to this debate who has a cancer or a suspicion of cancer should please ensure they get it checked out and get the details recorded medically so that, if there may be a claim of any shape or form, that can be processed and they have the evidence, and it can get dealt with in the fastest and most efficient manner.

Educating GPs in places where there are clusters of personnel and veterans also goes back to data. There are clusters of veterans everywhere, ranging from 1,000 to 17,000, to 33,000 in Portsmouth. I will refrain from speaking about healthcare professionals any broader than the MOD in this forum, but I expect every defence medical service doctor to work in accordance with best practice, particularly National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, to identify individuals with symptoms that could be caused by cancer and to arrange the appropriate speedy follow-up for a specialist referral.

As well as signposting for veterans, a screening scheme for blood cancers could be set up for those who may be at most risk; that point was mentioned earlier. The current medical advice from IMEG is clear, but I am mindful that there is also no UK screening programme for multiple myeloma or other rare cancers. I have read some of the medical advice, and it looks like some of those screening processes can cause a percentage of harm—I will need to look at that in a bit more detail. Any harm from screening must be outweighed by the benefits of screening. I go back to causation, and a focus on getting data on who needs to be screened and who does not. This is a deeply complex problem. I am not trying to confuse or confuddle the debate. We need to get to the bottom of this, but we need to do it the right way, and in the speediest, most efficient way.

The real-life replication of testing conditions was also mentioned. I want to reassure hon. Members that the testing we do on aircraft mirrors real life. In some cases, it is on the sampling equipment that is carried on the person, on the air crew and indeed the ground crew as well, because not just the pilots are involved, but the broader group. On whether they should still be advised to take sufficient precautions, I should say that I have spent a large proportion of my career in helicopters and stood in the exhaust fumes, which often used to heat us up in cold environments, which I would not recommend. I can attest to the quality and professionalism of the air crew. Indeed, the air crew as a whole are absolutely prepared with both PPE and understanding.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for his clarification about the testing of helicopters currently in service. But could he clarify something? Are there any provisions to conduct tests or derive data on previous models and those not in service?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Several studies were conducted on the Sea King. In 2010 a study was conducted during operational flying in Afghanistan—I was out there at the same time and probably on them every now and again. It found notable levels of exposure to carbon monoxide and nitrogen monoxide. However, all exposures were below levels considered to be harmful to health.

In 2013, there was a study on search and rescue Sea Kings that found exhaust gases were below levels considered harmful to health. A 2014 study measured exposure to elements of carbon. That was found to be well below the German exposure standard; unfortunately, no UK standard existed at the time. The highest exposure was found to be at least less than a third of the concentration at which, based on the scientific knowledge, long-term repeated exposure could potentially cause ill health.

On the private companies and countries that still use these aircraft, the previous testing of the Sea King helicopters, which I just mentioned, did not have conclusive evidence that air crew were exposed to substances above UK-wide international limits—those German studies. Third party operators and countries may operate the aircraft differently and for different purposes, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth that they should ensure that they appropriately manage potential risks. I think we can help with that.

Although views differ, some of the evidence is over a long period of time. The subject group is huge, but it could be quite concentrated in some areas. I accept that we differ on some of the points today. I think we are united in our commitment to the health and safety of our armed forces and the protection of our people, our territories, our values, and indeed our interests, both at home and overseas. It is the most fundamental duty of defence. But that duty is only as strong as the people who uphold it. Our armed forces are not just a source of national pride; they are the lifeblood of our security, admired across the globe for their expertise, professionalism and unwavering commitment. Together we will ensure that the Ministry of Defence remains steadfast in its commitment to the health and safety of its people. Their safety is non-negotiable. Their wellbeing is not optional. It is an obligation.

I want to be clear that we are conducting testing now. We have looked at the reviews of previous testing, and there are options for understanding the broader cancer demographic among our veterans population. I have taken that on after the discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. We will do everything in our power to ensure that everyone who wears the uniform of this country is protected, respected and supported, because they deserve nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

UK defence companies need certainty from the Government in order to invest and plan with confidence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent efforts at the G7 and NATO summits, and his commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, including 1.5% on defence and security-related investment. Can the Secretary of State clarify how exactly that 1.5% will be measured? Will it involve new projects and investments, or will it merely be a reclassification of existing projects? Crucially, how can industry, public bodies and other stakeholders contribute so that they can help to achieve that goal?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend asks characteristically searching questions, so let me send him the NATO criteria that were published alongside the pledge last week, and let him and his Committee, when they interrogate me on Wednesday afternoon, pursue any further questions that they might have.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address.

I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation.

I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints.

I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office.

Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Strategic Defence Review

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Given the growing instability in Europe and beyond, and the fact that, among other things, the UK is the third most targeted nation on the planet by cyber-attacks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s intention to turn the tanker around and increase the focus on defence. However, the strategic defence review is only as effective as the spending review that will follow this month. To ensure that this SDR does not suffer the fate that has befallen some of its predecessors, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that his and the Prime Minister’s ambitions will be fully matched with a correspondingly ambitious spending review?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the scale and nature of the increasing cyber-attacks that this country faces. When I had the privilege of taking this job 10 months ago, I was taken aback to find that in the last year, defence across the piece had been subject to more than 90,000 cyber-attacks that could be linked directly to other states. That is why in this SDR, we pick up the recommendation to establish a new cyber-command, so that we can build on the pockets of excellence across defence and ensure that we can more effectively defend against and use offensive cyber to deter such attacks.

On funding, the spending review next week is an important moment for the Government, but the Prime Minister settled the funding for defence in his statement in February. The Chancellor has already put an extra £5 billion into the defence budget this year. We will hit 2.5% of GDP three years before anybody expected us to, and we have an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, we will spend what is needed to deliver the vision of the strategic defence review over the next 10 years and beyond.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for this chance to set out the Government’s total commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which has been the bedrock of our national security for nearly 70 years. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will shortly outline the details of the strategic defence review to the House, and that review will be underpinned by our nuclear deterrent, which is part of our blueprint for a new hybrid Navy, in which next-generation Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarines, and up to 12 SSN-AUKUS conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, will serve alongside best-in-class warships, support ships and new cutting-edge autonomous vessels, building on the £15 billion investment set out for the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme in this Parliament. This is not only a manifesto promise delivered; it is our most important military capability secured for generations to come. This investment will also deliver a defence dividend of highly skilled, well-paid jobs across the country. Our nuclear warhead programme alone will create and sustain over 9,000 jobs, along with thousands more in supply chains.

To ensure that the demands of our nuclear programme can be met, we are working closely with industry partners, and are aiming to double defence and civil nuclear apprenticeship and graduate intakes. That will mean 30,000 apprentices over the next 10 years; they will be part of this historic renewal of our nuclear deterrent and our communities across the country.

The first duty of every Government is to keep their people safe. In a more dangerous world, peace and security are best achieved through deterrence and preparedness. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I thank our outstanding submariners who patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe. We know that threats are increasing, and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression in particular. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security. The Defence Secretary will momentarily make a statement giving further details, but our proposals are possible only because of the Government’s historic decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2027—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Government have the will, the plan and the means to secure the nuclear deterrent for generations to come. We are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for his response, and your good self, Mr Speaker, for kindly granting the urgent question.

Following the report in The Sunday Times that the Ministry of Defence is looking to purchase American fighter jets that are capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential that the House gets clarity on the Government’s nuclear deterrent policy—an issue of critical national importance. How have the media got hold of such sensitive information on future nuclear deterrent plans, and what steps are the Government taking to investigate the leak?

If the Government are pursuing an air-launched tactical nuclear capability, that is a huge deal. It would represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. Indeed, it would be the UK’s most significant defence expansion since the cold war. This raises serious concerns about our sovereignty when it comes to nuclear weapons, about strategic coherence with our current doctrine, and about the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence.

Despite the defence nuclear enterprise accounting for around 20% of the defence budget, it remains largely outside meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, including by our Defence Committee. This must change, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how Parliament will be enabled to scrutinise changes to the UK’s nuclear programmes? Have discussions taken place with the US, and what role would it play in this capability? Will the Minister confirm that the UK will retain full operational control over any nuclear weapons? Given that tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, what assessment has been made of the risks of escalation? Will the Minister confirm that only the Prime Minister would have authority to use them, and only in extreme self-defence? Finally, has there been consultation with NATO allies on this potential shift? Decisions of this magnitude must be transparent. The future of our nuclear deterrent must be based on clarity, credibility and, above all, British control.

[Luke Pollard]

I do not want to eat the Secretary of State’s sandwiches, and I am acutely aware that the statement that he is about to make—

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his in-person briefing beforehand.

I am glad that our brave service personnel who were involved in yesterday’s strike have returned home safely, and that the precision sovereign strike has destroyed the drone factory with no civilian casualties. I agree with the Secretary of State that Houthi attacks since 2023 have tragically killed innocent merchant mariners, led to a shocking 55% drop in shipping through the Red sea costing billions, fuelled regional instability, and exacerbated the cost of living crisis here in the UK and across the globe. However, on the basis of current intelligence, how confident is he that following yesterday’s strike there will be freedom of navigation and that there will be no further loss of life because of the Houthis?

[John Healey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action that we took overnight. It was part of a sustained campaign—a US campaign that we are working alongside. There is no overnight solution to this, but according to the evidence reported by the US military about this new sustained, intensive campaign, it seems to be having an effect on the pace, the rate, and the threat that the Houthis pose. Our action last night was designed to reinforce that campaign, to support the push for regional stability, and to protect the domestic economy and protect against the impact of the disruption in international shipping and its effect on prices for ordinary people.

Ukraine Update

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Although it was saddening to hear about the continued colossal death and destruction in Ukraine, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Indeed, I welcome his leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, which by pledging a record €21 billion, has demonstrated that the 51 allies are firmly committed to helping our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need. He mentioned the many shorter ceasefires that were agreed and then broken, and the question we need to ask ourselves is: when President Putin says he wants a ceasefire, is that actually the case? However, if a much-needed ceasefire is agreed, how confident is the Secretary of State of convening and then keeping the coalition of the willing together?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the job he does in chairing the Defence Committee. One of the trickiest tasks in the work undertaken by our military planners is that it is not clear in what circumstances any forces may be required to be deployed, and it is not clear that the details of the negotiated peace deal we all want to see will be in place. He asked me a straight question, and when the deal is done, the peace is negotiated and the ceasefire is in place, I believe it will actually be easier, not harder, to hold together and enlarge the number of nations willing to be a part of the coalition of the willing. In the meeting I chaired at NATO headquarters 10 days ago—the first ever meeting of the Defence Ministers of the coalition of the willing—the 30 nations around the table, all participating in the detailed operational military planning that is continuing, were not just from Europe but beyond.