James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I respect the hon. Gentleman’s personal position, but can he explain why the leader of his party thought that the priority for President Zelensky should be to set a timetable for elections, given that Winston Churchill, when facing a dictator, did not hold elections because we were under martial law?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to have the opportunity to mark the grim milestone that is the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate, and I pay tribute to all the brilliant speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Above all, though, I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine. Without any provocation whatsoever, Ukraine has suffered vast casualties and a national trauma beyond our wildest imaginings, all forced on it by an aggressive dictator and bully. If we ask ourselves why this war has happened, surely Lord Acton had the explanation, when he famously said back in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There is a reason why Putin can murder on our streets, threaten nuclear war, harass our maritime and airspace, invade free nations, do away with his political opponents and care not a jot for a casualty rate in his own forces of more than 1,000 a day. It is because he is not constrained by the checks and balances of a democracy that holds him to account. He has absolute power, and he has used it destructively, regardless of the impact on his own people, let alone the people of Ukraine. Putin’s motive is the motive of so many despots and dictators down the centuries: power lust and hunger for conquest. He externalises his nation’s problems, which his corrupt oligarchy can never solve, and that ultimately leads to internal economic hardship and pain for all, bar him and his close elite. I am incredibly proud of the support that we gave in government to Ukraine; we provided the weapons to help it avoid an early capitulation, which would have been truly disastrous for Ukraine and the free world. In opposition, we have continued to stand resolutely with Ukraine, supporting the Labour Government to that end, as they supported us prior to the July election. We wish the Prime Minister every success in Washington and hope for a lasting peace, in which Ukraine can finally enjoy the security it deserves. For all the talk of peace, and for all our efforts to date, providing everything from tanks to Storm Shadow missiles, and despite the incredible bravery of Ukraine’s armed forces in defying the odds to push back Putin’s land and naval forces, the day-to-day reality in Ukraine is one of continued bombing, pain and suffering for its people. A key question for us in this debate is: what action can we undertake this day to support the ongoing fight? I turn to the subject of drones and rearmament, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in an excellent speech, but one aspect of rearmament speaks to our own need to rearm. Also, Ukraine will need rearmament on a far greater scale, whether a settlement is achieved or not. If there is no settlement, the ongoing war will require that rearmament. If there is, the need to give Ukraine security about its future will also require a continued ramping up of military industrial production, not least to deter Russia, so now that the Government have confirmed their plan for a sustained increase in defence spending, we must urgently unlock our domestic procurement to drive our defence industrial capacity and that of Ukraine. On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a brilliant UK defence SME, Modini, which is creating one-way attack drones and other capabilities for the British Army. When I launched the MOD’s first-ever defence drone strategy about a year ago, the plan was to procure drones at scale for Ukraine, as we have done, and to learn from that to build a domestic industry capable of arming our own military. It was frustrating to hear from Modini what I have heard from so many of our best defence SMEs, which is that procurement is largely on hold. En masse, our fantastic firms are like a coiled spring, waiting for the Government to press “go” on procurement at the scale and pace we have needed for months. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), I believe that a big step forward would be for our defence companies to urgently forge new joint lines of production with Ukrainian firms in the United Kingdom, honouring the pillar 1 promise in the 100-year partnership to “Establish stronger and closer defence cooperation and industrial bases.” That is so important because, for safety reasons, Ukrainian defence companies that I have spoken to want UK production, away from the bombing. They also know that partnering with UK SMEs will provide access to capital and ultimately a chance to feed into UK procurement. For the UK, that co-operation means access to the know-how and expertise of those companies with manufacturing capabilities that have succeeded in a war as it is being fought. For our armed forces and the MOD, it means realising the cultural change that we need—being less risk-averse in procurement, and rapidly developing capability to enhance the lethality and survivability of our armed forces in the near term. That will be particularly important should there be a peacekeeping force. Ultimately, conventional war that is sustained for a longer period is fought in terms of factory production capacity, which is linked to innovation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) about capital controls—I think there is enough capital—but he made an excellent speech about the need to boost capacity. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I looked at multilateral procurement with NATO partners. Whatever its current military capabilities, Europe has a vast industrial base that could scale up if there is the will power to do so, and if there is leadership from Governments. We led at the outset of the war, and with our greatest ally, the US, reasonably asking us and our NATO allies to do more of the heavy lifting in confronting the Russian threat, we will need to lead again. That requires leadership on industry and innovation in the UK and across Europe to massively boost our defence industrial capacity. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to accelerate partnerships with Ukrainian businesses that have delivered on the frontline, but which will be even stronger with British backing. That will create British jobs, and will deliver a far greater scale of production for both countries’ armed forces. We can and must continue to do everything possible to support Ukraine.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. They know how much it will cost; they are just not being transparent with public money. I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made an excellent point of order earlier, in which he made the point that the Minister had said—this is the crucial argument that they depend on—that the ITU could somehow threaten our spectrum at Diego Garcia. Yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Telecoms Minister was very clear in a written answer dated 12 February: “The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” That is bang to rights. The most extraordinary point that we have heard today from a galaxy of Government Back-Bench speakers is that somehow the Opposition should not be calling for this debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) all said that somehow we should be debating important issues, such as buses and so on, yet the argument from Ministers is that this is critical to national security. If that is the case, surely we should be debating it in Parliament. We are going to keep on debating it until we finally get some answers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an excellent point. Along with the shadow Foreign Secretary, I recently had a wonderful and very moving meeting with many Chagossians up in one of the Committee Rooms, and they were clear that they have had no meaningful consultation with the Government and no face-to-face meetings. That is absolutely shameful.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way or tell us how much?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He put the question about the waiver and it was ignored, like all the other questions we have asked. We have asked point-blank questions repeatedly—UQs, oral questions and debates—and the Government never answer any of them. I conclude with this: “Surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.” Those are not my words, but those of the former Labour Security Minister, Lord West. As Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute put it so rightly on Monday, the Prime Minister “should shelve his Chagos Islands deal—it is peripheral to the UK’s current security challenges and the money could be better spent on defence.” The Opposition 100% agree. We believe that this deal is bad for our security and that of our closest ally, the United States. It undermines a military base that is strategically crucial, particularly in the face of the growing threat from China, and above all, it involves the unacceptable notion of paying billions to lease back land we currently own. It is time that Ministers told us the truth about how much this deal will cost and where the money will come from. They cannot keep redacting when it comes to the cost of Chagos. This is public money, and the public have a right to know the truth.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to all colleagues who have participated in today’s debate. In a week when the biggest domestic issue has been defence spending, there was one thing that we needed from the Government today: transparency. Every penny involved in this terrible Chagos deal will be public money, taken from the pockets of hard-pressed taxpayers. The Government must be straight with the British people about how much money is being spent and on what. The fact is that after the Opposition have raised the cost of the Chagos deal and all the related issues in six separate Defence and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development oral questions, six urgent questions and multiple written questions, points of order and Prime Minister’s questions, we are still none the wiser about how much Labour’s terrible Chagos deal will cost and what its impact will be on the defence budget. The Prime Minister has led from the front on the complete failure to be open with taxpayers about where their hard-earned money will to go. Yesterday, before the Prime Minister made his statement on defence spending, the Leader of the Opposition was, as is the convention, given a copy of his speech in advance. However, as Mr Speaker made very clear is definitely not the convention, all the key financial information was completely redacted. As an Opposition, we had no chance before the statement to do the sums that would have shown that the claim of a £13.4 billion increase to defence spending was, in the words of Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, “playing silly games with numbers.” The Prime Minister continued to make that claim about defence spending today, despite the Secretary of State for Defence—who, after all, has to spend that budget—saying this morning that the figure is actually £6 billion. Even if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are at odds on overall defence spending, they are united with the rest of their Government in total silence about the cost of their Chagos deal. The Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) three straight yes-no questions today about whether the cost of the Chagos deal would come from the defence budget. Three times, the Prime Minister refused to give a straight answer. Why can the Government not answer that question? Is it because reports in the press are right that the total cost is between £9 billion and £18 billion, not including indexation—potentially three years’ worth of the entire additional defence increase, using the Secretary of State for Defence’s figure, not the Prime Minister’s figure? Or is it much simpler, and the Government know that if the truth about the actual spending figure came out, the public would be aghast? The public understand one basic truth: to lease back a military base for billions of pounds that we currently own freehold makes no sense at all.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are there any rules whereby the amount of transparency from a Government should be determined according to the size of their majority?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Why?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. Why can the Government not tell us whether the Chagos deal will come from the defence spending uplift? It is public money, not the Government’s money. It comes from taxpayers who are already overtaxed, so the Government could at least tell them where the money will come from. The Chagos deal may make sense through the eyes of internationally focused lawyers and officials responding with utmost caution to the advice they are given, but the Opposition believe fundamentally that sovereignty is not something to be lightly surrendered, including to the United States of America, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is doing well on getting a role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. This is Parliament. Ever since it started, Parliament’s constitutional role has been to approve money for the Executive, but it cannot carry out that role unless the Government tell Parliament the truth about how much money they are going to spend.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder. In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate. We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator? We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries. Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister said that the base “cannot operate”, he was referring to operations. That implies that there must be some kind of direct threat to satellite communications on Diego Garcia. The world will have seen that the Secretary of State has not defended that position—he is not leaning into it in any way—which makes us think this: given that the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and the previous Defence Secretary Grant Shapps saw the same intelligence and rejected the deal, which has since got worse and more expensive, is not the obvious thing to scrap it, and to spend every penny that is saved on our armed forces?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  You will know, Mr Speaker, the importance of secure communications, and this is Defence questions, so before I ask my question, may I say that Conservative Members were sent all the Ministry of Defence’s answers to our oral questions in advance? I do not know whether we should be grateful or concerned. We have been forewarned.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I thought that it would benefit the House to know that, given the importance of secure communications. I turn to my question, which involves secure communications. It says everything about the Government’s priorities that they are delaying increasing defence spending to 2.5%, but accelerating their terrible Chagos deal, at a cost of up to £18 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister justified the deal by stating that without it, “the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should”. No. 10 later briefed that that was a reference to satellite links. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that there is an operational threat to US and UK military satellite communications at Diego Garcia?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know all about the Unity deal because, as the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry said, I negotiated it. This is extraordinary complacency on tax from the Secretary of State. The Government are taxing not just the defence industry but the education of defence people’s children and death-in-service payments. The fact is that the Defence Secretary is under “a tax” from all sides. The question is: is that how the Government will pay for their Chagos deal?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing an excellent and very timely debate. If I may say so, as someone who ran an SME, was involved in public procurement, and was Minister for Defence Procurement, this is a subject that gets my pulse racing. Perhaps I am an anorak, but it certainly does—particularly considering the changing nature of warfare and its extraordinary impact on procurement, which he rightly mentioned. Of course, we are talking about Ukraine. There has been much criticism of procurement in recent years, and the Minister for the Armed Forces was pretty damning yesterday, but I am incredibly proud of what we did in government, uniquely in the world, in standing by Ukraine. That was one of the greatest procurement achievements in our country’s recent history. We shipped out there the NLAW—made in Belfast, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned —despite legal advice to the Government that we should not. Ben Wallace took the risk, with the full support of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and we stood by Ukraine. If we had not, it may have capitulated, which would have been terrible for world peace. That reminds us of the ethical importance of supporting the defence sector. Peace is the No. 1 ethical goal of the UN, but to have peace we need defence, and for that we need a thriving defence sector. Too often, we hear an ESG—environmental, social and governance—narrative that we should not invest in defence. As I understand it—it was in The Times —20 defence companies have either been advised against attending careers fairs because of safety fears or decided to cancel under pressure, which is shocking. I have two specific questions for the Minister on ESG. Can she confirm that, in reviving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, the Government will seek to strengthen how protest against defence companies is dealt with on campus? The Chancellor mentioned in a speech yesterday the importance of opening up investment in the UK from our pension funds. She is 100% correct about that, but can the Minister confirm that we will be clear to those pension funds that investing in defence is ethically positive because it helps support the security of our country and the wider world? Let me make a couple of economic points. When we talk about investment, we must understand the importance of laying out the pathway to 2.5% quickly. ADS, the trade body for SMEs in defence, is worried about the procurement freeze, tightening—whatever we want to call it—in the MOD, which is undoubtedly happening, and its impact on cash flow and confidence among defence SMEs, at a time when they are facing higher tax costs, regulations and so on. I hope that the Government can bring forward the pathway to give businesses the confidence to keep investing in the defence sector. Equally, there is much to be positive about. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was absolutely right to say that because war is changing, procurement needs to change, and SMEs must play a huge part in that. There are some features of the integrated procurement model I announced that I think are particularly important. One is export. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned the Jackal, and he mentioned the Czech Republic, where I made my first ever trade visit. The Jackal was proudly on display, and I sincerely hope that that deal is successfully concluded. That underlines how, to support the defence sector, we need international market success, because our market is not big enough to support our defence sector. Perhaps the most important point, which several colleagues referred to, is accessibility for SMEs. They can feel that it is difficult to penetrate the defence procurement system. As Minister, I spoke many times about the most uplifting experience I had in procurement, which was visiting an SME that had developed a drone that was being used in Ukraine. That is obviously very sensitive, but I can say that it had cutting-edge capability. When I was there, that SMEs was getting feedback within hours. To get that, there has to be access, at a secure level, to frontline data, so we wanted to develop far more engagement with defence SMEs at “Secret”. I strongly recommend to the Minister continuing to create that feedback loop between industry and Government, so that SMEs know what is happening. Finally, on dual use, I was determined to recognise—if I had had more time in government, perhaps I would have got further with this—that there are so many brilliant companies in our economy that probably do not think about getting involved in defence. We need to fire up that talent base and get them involved in defence procurement, particularly in areas such as software, because that is what will drive procurement going forward. If we get the funding in place, back our defence companies and send the signal that investing in defence is morally right because of the threats we face, then we can look forward to a bright future for our defence companies.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the specifics, I hope you will indulge me and allow me to say on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we join all colleagues today in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. May we never forget or be complacent about the lessons. Last Wednesday, the Defence Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and laid bare the extent of the Russian grey zone threat. This is not a distant threat, but one that has been lurking in our own waters, threatening the United Kingdom and our critical infrastructure. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and responded by confirming that he had our full support in standing up to the Russians. I said that this showed why we urgently needed to increase defence spending. But there is one big problem. The rest of us were listening, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not. Despite all the evidence before our eyes of the growing threat, we learned this weekend from multiple sources that spending 2.5% will be delayed beyond 2030. Can the Minister disown such talk, and specifically confirm that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament? The Treasury is not just failing to back more defence spending; it is hitting our armed forces with higher taxes on death in service benefits and education. The Secretary of State confirmed on Friday that the application of inheritance tax to death in service benefits for the armed forces would go ahead. We understand that to be causing deep alarm throughout the forces community. As for the education tax, we knew that the continuity of education allowance would not be uprated to 100% of the VAT impact, leaving many service personnel thousands of pounds out of pocket, so since the summer I have called for a full exemption for children of armed forces families. However, in a written answer to me in November on the continuity of education allowance and schools VAT, the Minister for Veterans and People said that “the new VAT policy does not offer any exemptions”. Yet on Friday we learned that children of US armed forces families serving in this country and attending British independent schools are exempt from VAT on their UK school fees. I do not begrudge them that—US forces are based in our country to defend us—but we want the same treatment for our people. Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will bang on the door of No. 11 to demand, first, that the tax on death in service benefits be dropped and, secondly, that British forces families be treated the same as their American colleagues and granted a full exemption from education VAT? Is it not time that Labour backed our armed forces with action, rather than just words?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of Government fiscal policy on defence.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady not only for early sight of her statement, but for her kind words in recognising my contribution to delivering this deal—Unity by name and by nature. As with the Annington deal and the UK-Germany barrel-making deal, I can safely say that this deal is profoundly to the benefit of our country. While I would have dearly loved to conclude those deals while in office, it is better that such deals are delivered under any Government than not at all, and I am delighted to be responding to the statement today. While it is unusual to have statements on a sitting Friday, I thank the Government for announcing this deal to the House today, because it speaks to its huge importance to our national interest. Before explaining why the deal is so important, may I first thank all those involved in bringing it forward: those at the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, and in particular the commercial teams, who have worked so hard to iron out all the complex details needed to get it over the line, and of course Rolls-Royce itself? On that note, I thank everyone in the defence nuclear enterprise, and, as the right hon. Lady said, we give particular thanks, as we always should, to those who crew our nuclear submarines, and in particular the 24/7 continuous at-sea deterrent. My personal experience—I am sure the right hon. Lady will have discovered this in the many international engagements in the export role that is so important to any Ministry of Defence procurement—was that Rolls-Royce was the single UK defence company, possibly only matched by BAE, that seemed to have greater success in penetrating major export markets. Visiting Raynesway last April to keep this project moving forward, I saw the sheer scale of Rolls-Royce’s commitment to apprenticeships and manufacturing excellence. That underlined how it is a domestic and international industrial success story for UK plc, and we should do everything possible to support it. The deal is economically crucial, helping sustain our sovereign defence nuclear industry, as the right hon. Lady said, and in turn sustaining thousands of skilled jobs. I was struck, while speaking to apprentices at both Barrow and Raynesway, that of particular appeal to them was the assurance of a long-term career pathway. Today’s announcement will underwrite not just a major corporate investment, but the life plans of thousands of young people, and I wish them all well. Skills remain a challenge, given the sheer scale of the nuclear undertaking, so will the right hon. Lady update us on how she is taking forward the work of the pan-civil and defence nuclear skills taskforce, which I launched together with the then civil nuclear Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in August 2023? This deal clearly builds on the good work done by the previous Conservative Government, who always backed our armed forces, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our defence industrial base, and who brought the mighty AUKUS partnership to life with the US and Australia. Can the right hon. Lady provide further detail on her very welcome confirmation that this deal will underpin AUKUS? In talking about the economic importance of this announcement, we should also be clear about its military significance. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the Secretary of State’s statement on Wednesday regarding the Russian spy ship Yantar and its grey zone activities in our waters and economic zone. I said in response that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government not just on Ukraine but in standing up to the Russian threat, which I still regard as by far the most immediate and serious in terms of the UK homeland. I urged him to lean into being more open with the country about the Russian threat, while of course protecting operational security, so that the country can understand the nature of the treat and what it will inevitably mean for defence expenditure. The strategic defence review is expected in the spring, and I hope that it will be published as early as possible—ideally in March—but whenever it is, it appears likely that there will be a particular focus on homeland security and missile defence. That is entirely right, but we must all understand a fact of military reality: there is one UK capability that matters above all in the Kremlin, and that is our continuous at-sea deterrent. There is a strong argument for reinforcing our conventional missile defence capability for the UK homeland, but that is not what deters Putin from striking our cities; rather, it is our potential to retaliate. For that reason, we must continue to give absolute priority to the deterrent in our defence budget, and that budget must be urgently increased. Whatever else is announced in the SDR, I hope the right hon. Lady will confirm both that investment in our deterrent will remain central to all future plans and that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament. While the deterrent is inevitably a multibillion-pound undertaking, it remains a way to guarantee our security for a fraction of overall public expenditure. Today has shown that it also offers a huge economic return to the country, underpinning manufacturing excellence. As such, and given the threats that we face, it has never been more vital that we continue to strengthen our defence nuclear enterprise.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence. I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today. I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents. A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO? Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom? I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities? In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place. To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the passage of the Bill and served on the Bill Committee. As I said on Second Reading, we recognise that the Government have a clear mandate for this piece of legislation, which has the worthy goal of improving day-to-day service life in our armed forces. We strongly share that goal and want the Bill to succeed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said, we also have performed the role of a critical friend of the Bill and have raised a number of specific issues. The shadow Veterans and Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised important points, which we have put forward in amendments. In fact, both relate to tax measures that have come forward under this tax-raising Government on death in service and continuity of education allowance, known as CEA. The key thing I would say on death in service, in response to what the Minister said on Report, is that of course we understand that a consultation is happening on inheritance tax, which expires tomorrow. What we want to know is that the Ministry of Defence has communicated to the Treasury that it opposes the measure and hopes that it will not be imposed on those who serve in our armed forces, because it would be a disproportionate and significant increase in inheritance tax. As my right hon. Friend put it in a moving speech about the impact it would have, I am sure none of us in the Chamber would want to see that, so we hope that the Minister has written to the Treasury and that it listens to his advice and cancels the proposal. There is a very simple reason why we moved amendment 10 on the continuity of education allowance. We want the Department to continue monitoring the impact of the new tax on those who serve in the military and choose to send their children to independent schools, not least because of the stability that those schools provide in a life that is subject to the opposite, particularly for those who are deployed abroad. The allowance gives them stability through access to schools at which their children can board, and of course most of that capacity is in the independent sector, which is now subject to a huge 20% tax imposition. We want that monitored by the Armed Forces Commissioner. If anyone doubts the reason for that, our office has received many emails from serving personnel—people in the Army, Navy and Air Force today—who are extremely concerned about the impact on them, and are having to weigh up their future. I will read an extract from one email that I received from the wife of an Army officer with two children in boarding school—one in junior school, and one in senior school. She says: “With the sudden introduction of VAT on school fees—something that was not foreseen when we made our decision—we will face an additional £14,500 per year in costs. This is simply not sustainable for our family, and my husband is now considering leaving the Army as a result.” This is not a minor matter. If we are worried about retention, surely the last thing any of us wants is for people like that to consider leaving. We are disappointed that the amendment was defeated, but the parliamentary arithmetic speaks for itself. Finally, on accommodation, which is an incredibly important issue, I remind the House of what I said on Second Reading. I said that, in my time as Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the defence estate, “I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate”. —[ Official Report , 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 78.] I am delighted that since I said that, the Government have concluded that deal. I started the negotiations on the deal when I was a Minister, following the successful legal challenges initiated by the preceding Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, and the deal was brought forward with huge effort in the Department—particularly, I must say, from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO has come in for criticism in some reports—in response to the winter problems that we had two years ago, for example—but my experience was that its leadership was as passionate as I was about getting that deal through, and we are now in a far better position. Why does that matter? Well, there are many welfare issues that the commissioner will have to think about, but as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, accommodation will surely feature prominently, and we now have the means to address that issue strategically, rather than through year-to-year sticking-plasters. I assure the House and Ministers that, given my role in driving that deal forward, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, who shares my passion for housing and armed forces accommodation, will seek to contribute to the plan to move forward to a better defence estate. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to engage on these matters as the Armed Forces Commissioner becomes a reality. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.