Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak on the Bill and proposed agreement, with particular focus on its defence implications. Given substantial other ongoing work and the fact that other Committees have looked into it, this is not an issue that our Defence Committee has investigated thus far. Let us not be under any illusion, however: this is a matter of strategic importance, financial prudence and moral responsibility.

The British Indian Ocean Territory and in particular the Diego Garcia military base have long served as a cornerstone of our defence and security capabilities, not just for the UK but for our allies in the US and across the Five Eyes community. That is why having their stated support for this deal, in addition to that of India and others, is so vital. The base’s role in disrupting threats to the UK, supporting counter-terror operations against ISIS and protecting us against hostile states must continue. Including the management of the electromagnetic spectrum satellite used for communications and the prevention of other powers operating on the outer islands without permission is vital for countering hostile interference. It is not just a diplomatic formality; it is a strategic firewall against encroachment by hostile states.

Maintaining US and UK autonomy on the base cannot be overstated. I note the Government position is that Mauritius will be expeditiously informed of activities. However, I look for reassurance that we do not need to provide Mauritius with advance warning about our operations. I would therefore welcome clarification on that point from the Minister to guarantee that all current and future operations can continue unimpeded.

[Dr Evans]

Given the importance of the Chagos islands to our defence, has the hon. Gentleman’s Committee thought about even doing a review into the Chagos islands and what this would look like? That way, such questions could be addressed directly in a decent period of time—we only have four or five hours tonight—and he could spend several weeks looking into the matter. Is that something he and his Committee would consider?

[Mr Dhesi]

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, given that various other Committees have been looking into this and that it has been extensively debated on the Floor of the House, and considering the other work that the Committee is undertaking, including an inquiry launched this week into the Afghan data breach, that is why we have not looked into this matter. However, I will give way to the Minister, who I hope will give me some sort of reassurance.

[Luke Pollard]

To reassure my hon. Friend, as I did the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) earlier, we are not required to give pre-notification of any military activities to Mauritius. That is important, because some people are erroneously suggesting that we are. That is not correct; we do not have to give pre-notification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for intervening and for that clarification. When I read the words “expeditiously inform”, I was left in a somewhat uncertain state as to what that actually meant. There must be no fettering of our ability to operate from the base.

[Richard Tice]

We have heard today that this deal—this supposed investment that is actually a liability—is essential to the defence of our realm. Yet the Defence Committee has not studied that investment or liability. I think the British people have a right to know why not.

[Mr Dhesi]

I have already stated, on two occasions, the various reasons why our Committee has not looked into this particular aspect. The matter has been given extensive airing in various other contexts, and we have been given assurances that there will be no fettering of our ability to operate from the base in the defence and security of the UK and its allies. I also point out to the hon. Member that during the Defence Committee’s recent visit to our most trusted and closest ally, the US, during various discussions and on numerous occasions when we raised the matter with very senior individuals in the US, whether on Capitol hill, in the State Department or at the Pentagon, they were supportive of the deal. I am sure that other Committee Members, when they discuss this, can attest to that.

[Sir Roger Gale]

We have been given an assurance from the Front Bench that no advance notice will need to be given about operational arrangements from the base. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) earlier indicated that there had to be Mauritian Government approval for the construction of facilities. How can we have the operational facilities without the construction of the facilities that back them up?

[Mr Dhesi]

The right hon. Member makes a strong point. Indeed, I hope that in the Minister’s winding-up speech, just as we have had clarification that we do not need to give advance warning about the operations of the US and our forces, he can give clarification about construction as well.

On the matter of cost, which is a concern rightly raised by hon. Members across the House, it is important to be transparent and precise. From my previous briefings with Ministers—I am grateful to both the Defence Minister and the Foreign Office Minister on the Front Bench for their time—I understand that that will be an average of £101 million annually over 99 years, with the United States covering all defence operations.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I should clarify that what I quoted from article 4 of the treaty does not apply directly to Diego Garcia; it only applies to an area beyond Diego Garcia and for the development of land territory that is on the archipelago but beyond Diego Garcia. I should have made that clear. I inadvertently misled the House, and I apologise for doing so.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for setting the record straight. I did not want to say anything on the Floor of the House that could inadvertently have misled the House, but my understanding was that all our operations regarding the Diego Garcia military base would be unfettered, so I am glad that he has given that clarification. No doubt I would have had to do more bedtime reading to catch up on exactly what was in the treaty.

While this arrangement will ensure that our strategic interests are protected, we must ensure that the cost does not spiral and that proper oversight is given to all the financial implications. Security and cost are not the only factors that we must weigh in evaluating this deal, however. We must also address the rights of the Chagossian people, including those who are in the Gallery today. I have raised these issues on the Floor of the House with the then Foreign Secretary, and I again urge the Government to ensure that all parts of this deal are carried out in line with international law and with full respect for the dignity and rights of the Chagossian community. I would welcome any comments from the Minister on ensuring that Chagossian voices will be heard.

One of the issues raised by the Chagossians, which the shadow Foreign Secretary also mentioned, is the protection of the Chagos archipelago, which is home to one of the most ecologically rich marine environments on the planet. I welcome the creation of a protection zone. This represents a significant step forward in our shared commitment to environmental conservation and biodiversity protection. It also provides a framework for scientific co-operation, marine research and community engagement, particularly with the Chagossian diaspora, whose cultural and historical ties to the islands must be respected.

I welcome the guarantees and stability that this agreement brings, but it is imperative that long-term stability is achieved and secured into the future. In an increasingly complex global landscape, we must act as a responsible global leader, ensuring that our national security and strategic interests are never compromised.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Minister’s announcement and advance sight of the Government’s defence industrial strategy, which rightly seeks to strengthen our sovereign capabilities and to bolster British defence businesses. One element of the strategy is offsetting, as set out on page 7 of the document, whereby contracts with overseas companies will lead to British jobs and novel technologies. The Minister will be aware, however, that while the practice is used in other nations, previous attempts have been abandoned, because they have led to increased costs and complex contract problems. How will the Minister ensure that the Government get the details correct, that the practice will indeed benefit British workers and that the costs are not merely loaded on to other contracts?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

The Minister has commented that he and the Government are considering using military barracks to house asylum seekers. While I thank him for his efforts to help address the small boats crisis by providing logistical planning support, I personally do not feel that operational responsibility for that should fall to our armed forces. The experience of Operation Isotrope under the Boris Johnson Government—widely criticised by the previous Defence Committee for causing confusion and reputational risk and for straining our already pressured military—serves as a clear warning. Can the Minister therefore issue iron-clad assurances to the House that any future MOD involvement within this field will be strictly limited, clearly defined and not strain our already pressured military?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. The Ministry of Defence is part of the cross-Government response to small boats. We are stepping up our support to assist our colleagues in the Home Office. The Home Office remains the lead Department, but as every Department can contribute something to this effort, it is right that the Ministry of Defence does so. We continue to protect the nation and deliver the changes as laid out in the strategic defence review. Our No. 1 priority remains to keep this country safe.

Ukraine

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I wholeheartedly welcome the historic frigate exports deal with Norway, and join him in paying tribute to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Radakin for his distinguished decades-long service to our country.

Recent Russian attacks across 14 different regions of Ukraine are not actions of peace. Words and actions must align, and it is abundantly clear that both from President Putin present a threat to us all. With such drastic escalation of Putin’s violence running concurrently with peace negotiations, along with Putin’s false reframing of his invasion as some sort of reaction to a Western-backed coup, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shed further light on what levers he has pulled to help enable a peaceful outcome?

[John Healey]

It is a truism that peace is secured through strength, and our task in countries such as the UK that strongly support Ukraine is to put it in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That means stepping up military support for Ukraine now, which we are doing, and will do further at next week’s UDCG meeting that I will co-chair. It also means stepping up economic pressure on Putin, which the House will have a chance to hear more about —the Foreign Secretary will announce further measures soon—and stepping up our preparations for securing any peace for the long term if Trump can help lead negotiations that will lead to a ceasefire and a peace agreement. That is the way that we support Ukraine now, and it is how we can help reinforce the steps towards the possibility of peace tomorrow.

I say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that I will ensure tomorrow that Admiral Radakin is aware of the kind comments from both sides of the House. I know that he will appreciate them.

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.