James MacCleary MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable. The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  Pricing is one of the biggest barriers to people using the railways. If we want people to use the railways and move out of their vehicles then we have to make it affordable for them. Speaking specifically about buses, for many families in my constituency they are not a lifestyle choice—they are the only way that a child can get to school or college. Yet, from Monday 16 February, East Sussex county council will increase the under-19 freedom weekly ticket from £15 to £20—a one-third hike in one go. For parents already juggling the cost of living, that is not a marginal change: it is the difference between a young person getting the bus and being priced off of it. Affordability is only half the problem. Too often, the network is unreliable and poorly designed. That is why I have been campaigning for a direct bus from Eastbourne to Lewes along the A27. None of this is a luxury. Rural and coastal communities cannot be treated as an afterthought in transport planning. Too often, the south-east has been neglected and forgotten when planning or improving transport infrastructure. In the Chancellor’s first Budget, every single major transport project in Sussex was cancelled. After London, the south-east is the most densely populated area of the country and its biggest economic driver. However, as we frequently get grouped together with London—who are rightly allotted a comparatively large amount of funding—our figure is augmented, and the south-east rarely gets the funding that we so desperately need. The A259 is, unfortunately, a perfect example for the south-east as an overcrowded region with insufficient infrastructure. There is a clear plan to improve it, but the Government have so far declined to release the funding, so it remains a disaster. The Minister kindly met with me on the issue of the A259 after I met with the Prime Minister, and maybe she will have some good news for me today. Who knows? Poor roads isolate people, unreliable rail makes it harder to keep and get a job, and unsafe roads cost lives. These are matters of public safety and economic fairness. I want to finish by extending an invitation to the Minister and her colleagues to come and visit my constituency. It is a very typical example of the transport challenges in the whole of the south-east—a primarily rural constituency with small and medium-sized towns and a collection of villages. There are lanes, railways and an international ferry service, and we are within striking distance of Gatwick airport; yet we remain poorly connected and served, and it is holding back growth in our area. If the Minister comes by train, she will experience at first hand the joys of a journey that is too often overcrowded and sets back Lewes commuters nearly £6,000 a year for a season ticket. However, if she prefers to come in the ministerial car, she will meet the potholes soon enough.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing forward this important debate. As a fellow A27-suffering MP, I can attest to the constant traffic problems around Chichester, and I will touch on the impact they have on my constituency. Over in East Sussex, transport is not a peripheral concern but the backbone of how communities earn a living, how people get to work, and how rural and coastal towns stay connected to the rest of the country. Right now, in a number of places in my constituency, that backbone is cracking. The A259 is the principal coastal route through East Sussex; it links Seaford to Eastbourne, serves Newhaven port, home of the excellent and valued daily ferry service to Dieppe, and connects two of the country’s key growth areas. It is an economic artery and it is under serious pressure. The most serious bottleneck is the Exceat bridge. This is a single-lane bridge originally built in 1870, and it has been a known problem for years. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State confirmed the compulsory purchase order in October 2025, and that construction of a new two-lane replacement is planned to begin in the spring of 2026. I will, however, be frank—the disruption that the work will cause will be very significant. The advisory diversions run through villages such as Litlington or Friston—with narrow lanes not designed for through traffic—and will be enormous. The official diversion is via the A27, but that is not credible. Particularly when traffic congestion reaches peak levels on the A27, traffic will divert through our small country lanes. We need a credible mitigation plan alongside a credible timetable, not one or the other. Beyond the A259, the condition of East Sussex county council’s roads is a genuine concern. I do not want to get all peak Lib Dem here, but I hear constantly about potholes across my constituency, whether on some of our bigger roads or the C7 small road that stretches between Lewes and Newhaven, which is in a shocking condition, to the extent where it lost some of its surface during recent flooding. Potholes, poor surfaces and patches that wash out within weeks of being laid all cost drivers money in vehicle damage and slow journeys, and on narrower roads create real safety risks, particularly when verges start to collapse, narrowing already narrow country lanes. Between 2022 and 2024, East Sussex county council paid out nearly £600,000 for vehicle damage caused by potholes. That cannot be a good use of taxpayers’ money. I also note that the county council elections in East Sussex, originally due in May 2025, have now been postponed for a second year. The effect is that voters have not had the chance to hold their county councillors to account at the ballot box for over two years. Councillors serving seven-year terms is not democratic. On road maintenance—squarely a county council responsibility on almost all our roads—that matters. I now turn to the A27, and I will be direct because lives are at stake. Just last week, on 28 January, a man was killed in a collision on the A27 near Falmer. Last September, an 18-year-old man died in a fatal crash near Wilmington. These are not isolated incidents; the A27 through this corridor sees frequent serious accidents, and the pattern is well established. I have spoken to Sussex police requesting a full breakdown of accident data on that stretch. I ask the Minister, does National Highways have a current safety review there, and if so, what is its timeline? Does the Minister plan to review the current up-to-two-year wait time for reports to be provided to National Highways following an incident by the police, which is causing a major lag in safety improvements, particularly where traffic conditions change—not least as they are affected by things such as housing developments? This delay creates a significant gap in the crucial data needed for road user safety. That brings me to the issue of rail services, or lack thereof. There is currently no direct train from Seaford, the largest town in my constituency, to London. Every commuter, student or business traveller must change, typically at Lewes or Brighton. For a town of Seaford’s size, that is a significant barrier. I recently heard from a woman who lives in Seaford and works in London, like many of my constituents. She used to be able to get a direct train to Victoria station. However, that service was removed during covid and has still not been reinstated six years on. It can easily take three hours to get to London, due to delays and tight connections at Lewes. She told me that her colleagues in Manchester find it quicker and easier to get to their office than she does. That is unacceptable, and lets my constituents down on a daily basis. The Seaford to Victoria direct service must be reinstated immediately. Over time, this kind of friction drives people and businesses elsewhere. I ask the Minister to engage with Govia Thameslink Railway and Great British Railways as it develops, to make the case for a direct service. I turn now to one of the most persistent issues during my time as an MP so far—parking in Polegate. The deeper problem is enforcement: Wealden district council has never decriminalised parking, so responsibility falls to Sussex police, who, understandably, have other priorities. The result is that pavement parking goes unchecked. That means that wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs are forced into the roads, pavements are damaged and the town centre feels less acceptable and less welcoming. That impinges on businesses and other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. Scotland and Northern Ireland have acted on this issue and Wales is moving, but England is stuck in limbo. I would welcome engagement from the Department for Transport on a deliverable plan for Polegate that includes clear signage and ticketing, sensible resident permits and proper local enforcement powers, because pavements are for people, not vehicles. Key to reducing traffic and congestion is getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, so often public transport is too expensive. That brings me on to buses.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Support for Defence SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Security Action for Europe Fund · Hansard source

  More

  It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Of course they would have to be repaid, and we have laid out this policy very clearly.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the question here is more about mass in the armed forces, and deployability.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  These are bonds issued to the public and to funds in the normal way, as all these vehicles are. They would be for people to invest in, so this would not involve cutting anything. It would be short-term borrowing that would fall within the Government’s existing fiscal rules, as we explained at the weekend. This is a serious proposal to increase defence spending in the short term, unlike the proposals from the Opposition, which, I understand, are for welfare cuts—a long-term measure that would fall on the most vulnerable in society.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is understandable that the Opposition are embarrassed about that. We need to get our troop numbers back up to a critical mass that will allow us to carry out our duties overseas. The Government’s decision to increase the upper age limit for reserves and cadets to 65 warrants serious scrutiny. Ministers must explain whether the change will genuinely enhance operational effectiveness, skills and readiness, or whether it is simply a mechanism to inflate headline recruitment numbers without addressing the underlying retention and capability challenges facing our reserve forces. That brings me to the important issue of defence spending, which, of course, underlies all of this. The Liberal Democrats support increasing defence spending in every year of this Parliament, and we will explain how to do it. We are calling for a clear, credible pathway to reaching 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, backed by cross-party talks to secure long-term consensus. As part of that plan, we have proposed the introduction of time-limited defence bonds—capped, fixed-term, and legally tied to capital investment—to raise up to £20 billion over the next two years. That would allow the Government to accelerate investment in the capabilities set out in the strategic defence review, strengthen deterrence now rather than later, and send a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike that Britain is serious about its security.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Those are important details, which I hope the Minister will take up in his closing remarks. Justice must be seen to be served wherever our service personnel are in the world. The measures in the Bill to support victims and strengthen protective orders are steps in the right direction, but they must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to accountability and cultural reform in our services. We must also be honest about what the Government are not doing. This is a technical renewal Bill, whereas what our armed forces need is a comprehensive fair deal; that matters profoundly for Britain’s security and our place in the world. The Bill is silent on the recruitment and retention crisis facing our armed forces. It says nothing about reversing the devastating troop cuts that have hollowed out the Army. It offers no plan to rebuild regular troop numbers back to above 100,000—a goal that the Liberal Democrats are committed to achieving.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to send the hon. Member a briefing if that would be helpful to his deliberations, but of course the money would have to be repaid. These are two-to-three-year bonds that would generate an immediate injection of cash to buy the kit that our armed forces need. In an increasingly dangerous world, standing still is not a neutral act, and warm words without funding will not keep our country safe. That is why I was relieved to see reports over the weekend that the Government are seeking to restart negotiations over UK access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund, which I hope speaks to a belated and dawning realisation that President Trump is increasingly posing a threat to Britain’s security and values. At the same time, I urge the European Union to approach these discussions with pragmatism, to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and to recognise that the UK is an essential security partner. This is not the moment for political point scoring, for putting domestic protectionism ahead of continental safety, or for setting the bar so high that shared European security is the casualty. A fair deal for our armed forces community means more than just equipment and strategy; it means treating service personnel and their families with the dignity and respect that they deserve in every aspect of their lives. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal commission for service personnel, veterans and families to review conditions comprehensively and recommend improvements in pay, housing, diversity and transition services. We would allow families of armed forces personnel access to military medical and dental facilities, and improve mental health support for the whole armed forces community. We would waive visa application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge and their families, and we would ensure that military compensation for illness or injury did not count towards means-testing for benefits. These are not fringe issues; they go to the heart of the covenant between the nation and those who serve. If we ask people to be ready to give their lives for this country, we owe them more than warm words. We owe them action. In respect of housing specifically, while we welcome the Defence Housing Service, we need to go further. We would require the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above minimum standards, and to give service personnel stronger legal rights to repair and maintenance. Our recent campaigning secured a Government commitment to assess family military homes according to the decent homes standard. That is progress, but it must be implemented properly and swiftly. We also support the recommendations of the Atherton report on women in the armed forces, and will work to establish better structures to guard against discrimination and harassment. The armed forces must be places where talent thrives, regardless of gender, and where everyone can serve with dignity. We owe it to our armed forces to provide certainty, which makes the continued delay of the long-promised defence investment plan all the more concerning. That plan must be brought forward without further delay. We cannot continue a boom-and-bust cycle of defence reviews that leaves industry in limbo, undermines long-term investment, and allows vital skills and supply chains to wither away through uncertainty. The Liberal Democrats look forward to engaging constructively with this Bill, and to scrutinising its provisions carefully as it proceeds through its remaining stages. We will not stand in the way of improvements that matter to service personnel and their families, but we will continue to press for more, because our armed forces deserve more and Britain’s security demands more. We will continue to call for reversing troop cuts, increasing defence spending to at least 3% of GDP, tackling the recruitment crisis and ensuring a comprehensive, fair deal for the armed forces community. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. They represent our values, defend our interests, and stand ready to protect us and our allies. They deserve a Government who back them with resources, strategy and unwavering support. The Liberal Democrats will always champion that cause, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those who serve.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For deployment overseas, so that we can achieve the objectives that we want to achieve. The Conservatives cut troop numbers during the last Government. It is understandable that you are embarrassed —that they are embarrassed—about that, but—

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our British armed forces represent the very best of us—courage, selflessness, and an unwavering commitment to protect our freedoms and our way of life—and they deserve nothing less than our unwavering commitment in return. The Liberal Democrats welcome significant elements of the Bill. The full enshrinement of the armed forces covenant in law, extending it across central Government, devolved Administrations and local authorities, aligns with our long-standing policy to strengthen the covenant by placing a legal duty on Government Departments. For too long, the covenant has been a promise without proper teeth. The Bill gives it the force of law that it has always deserved, and we look forward to supporting that as the legislation progresses. We welcome the establishment of the Defence Housing Service and the £9 billion defence housing strategy. Our service personnel and their families should not have to endure substandard accommodation while serving their country. The commitment to upgrade nine in 10 military homes is progress, although I must stress that it is the bare minimum that we owe those people who put themselves in harm’s way for us. That said, what will matter is pace, transparency and accountability. Given the Ministry of Defence’s long and unhappy track record of wasting public money on failed programmes, the House deserves clarity on how this strategy will be delivered in practice. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the debate, will respond to the following questions. Who precisely will oversee the new body, what will be its relationship with the Department, and where will ultimate accountability lie if targets are missed or standards slip? Without clear governance and rigorous scrutiny, there is a real risk that warm words and large sums of money will once again fail to translate into decent homes for service families. The reforms of the service justice system are long overdue, particularly the strengthened protections for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and harassment. Every person who serves in uniform deserves to do so in safety and dignity. However, the Bill comes against a backdrop of multiple deeply troubling scandals involving abuse within our armed forces, particularly the treatment of women. I do not doubt the commitment of any of the Ministers to combating it, but it is striking that the Bill contains no specific or targeted measures to address the systemic cultural failures that have allowed such abuse to persist. Without a clear attempt to confront these issues head-on, there is a risk that structural reform will fall short of meaningful change.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an unpaid director of the Newhaven Fishing community interest company. As such, I see at first hand what is happening to our local fishing industry, and I rise to talk specifically about the impact on our town. In Newhaven, we have a small but long-standing fleet, and our fishing heritage is under threat. We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of Newhaven, catching sole, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. Much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing, to all corners of the UK and beyond, before it ends up coming back to our plates. We are exporting those jobs, increasing emissions and missing the chance to build our local economy and invest in a small part of the Government’s growth agenda. I believe that has to change. We want our fish processed locally, and jobs created in coastal communities, rather than fish being shipped abroad and coming back again—and sometimes then going back abroad and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to Newhaven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but that needs long-term commitment from the Government, if it is to stick. In the meantime, we are losing our fishing community. The charter boat fleet that historically brought customers to Newhaven’s tackle shops, pubs and restaurants all year around has almost completely disappeared. A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in Newhaven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, but was promised that he could return. Now he has been told that he cannot come back, despite Government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. That is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses into receivership and brings generational businesses, like his and many others in our town, to an end, in some cases after decades or even hundreds of years of operation. When we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, including commercial vessels and charter boats that bring economic activity to our towns. Both are vital to a thriving coastal economy. We have been successful in attracting Government investment to support the local fishing industry in Newhaven, with some £12 million for new landing stages, and for processing and other facilities in the town. My thanks go to Lewes district council and my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who supported the bid for that funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in Newhaven a chance—just a chance—of surviving and thriving in the future. However, we need to do far more to support our fishing businesses if they are to be sustainable in the long term. Here is what is really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small independent businesses will disappear. They will be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega-trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fish stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many are flagged to the Netherlands. We will lose local jobs and an industry on which communities like ours depend. Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs, with one generation taking on the business from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taking the lives of two fishermen. It was a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats taking every day in unpredictable seas. I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, based out of Newhaven, and the volunteers at our local Coastwatch who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe. The Government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to see fishing as an attractive career choice is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we will continue to fund an industry that simply does not have the people to continue it, and it will end up withering on the vine. We want a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that is strangling our fishing industry and invest in coastal infrastructure—not just by building pontoons, although that is important for our town, but by ensuring that our infrastructure serves the communities that it is meant to support. We need to give coastal towns the power and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers, working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry but in many of our deprived coastal communities, where a skills base is lacking. They could take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments in our local fishing industry and others. We must put sustainability at the heart of everything we do. We need to work hand in glove with the fishing industry to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas and ensure that protections for sustainability do not cause catastrophic harm for the businesses that we seek to support. We must rebuild depleted fish stocks. In the distance, we can often see massive Dutch trawlers operating off our coast. They hoover fish out of the sea and deplete stocks, meaning that our own fishermen—predominantly line-and-pole fishermen—cannot catch anything when they go out to fish. That is soul-destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry. We must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny, as several hon. Members have mentioned. That is because the Conservatives’ Brexit threw our industry into chaos. Unfortunately, the Government let that happen again when they extended fishing rights to the EU for 10 more years—and for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line. Newhaven has fished its waters since the 1580s. Some fishing families have worked there for over 200 years; indeed, some of their names are known to pretty much everybody in the town. It is a close-knit community. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants and a community that wants to buy local catch, but right now we have a local fleet that is struggling even to stay in business. My coastal communities are not an afterthought. They are the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship and our cultural heritage. We must deliver a fair deal for fishers, with real investment and sustainable practices, working with Government. I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend the Minister an invitation to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven. Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in discussions about the fishing industry. In his excellent introductory speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned how fishing is sometimes treated as a homogeneous industry in which all areas are the same. Our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any other, but it can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about the larger industry. I want communities like Newhaven’s to have the power to control their own future, with a thriving fishing industry at its heart.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents in Yeovil and has raised this on a number of occasions. I absolutely agree: we run a real risk of not only losing the ability to build our own—

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I do; it is an extraordinary response. All we can conclude is that the Ministry means, “Yes, bonuses have been awarded—some of them quite substantial—but we would rather not tell you exactly how much people have been rewarded for presiding over this disaster.” The senior responsible officer for Ajax earns a salary in excess of £160,000—nearly as much as the Prime Minister—with the potential for bonuses of 25% to 30% on top, so we have people earning £200,000 or more while delivering a programme that has been stopped for a fifth of its existence and is now under multiple safety investigations. This is not merely incompetence; it is systemic failure. The 2023 review of the programme exposed precisely that—systemic and institutional problems. We need to know what progress has been made in fixing these issues, and we need to know what safeguards are in place to prevent further delays, cost overruns and, most importantly, threats to our soldiers’ safety. I ask the Minister directly: is the Ministry of Defence considering an internal investigation into how the programme could have progressed so far without those major issues being identified? Someone, somewhere, has been signing off on milestones and accepting deliverables when the fundamental problems are still unresolved. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a fundamental reform of defence procurement, and Ajax demonstrates precisely why such reform is so desperately needed. We would tackle these long-standing problems by replacing the current system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous review of security threats and evolution of defence plans. As has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks, the world does not wait for our periodic review cycles, and neither should our procurement system. We would ensure that defence procurement is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy, securing a reliable long-term pipeline of equipment procurement. Industry needs certainty, as do our armed forces, but the current approach provides certainty for neither, especially with the continued delay in releasing the defence investment plan. We would collaborate properly with our European and NATO partners on the development of new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training. We would make capital spending allocations more flexible to reduce what is called annuality, and focus instead on meeting the required in-service dates. We would invest properly in recruiting, retaining and training staff with specialist skills at the Ministry of Defence, reducing its dependency and expenditure on external consultants. The concerns about Ajax should raise alarm bells about the continuing poor state of procurement at a time when Britian must be rearming rapidly. The geopolitical situation demands that we get this right, and Ukraine has shown us what modern warfare requires. Our adversaries are not standing still, and we simply cannot afford these failures. The fact that the Army has paused the use of Ajax vehicles raises serious questions about the operational readiness of the units that rely on them. How does this disruption affect deployment plans at a time when our armed forces need to be fully prepared? What is the impact on training schedules? What message does it send to our personnel about how we value their safety? The Ministry of Defence has launched a safety investigation, citing an “abundance of caution”, but the public and this House deserve clarity. What exactly is being investigated, who is involved, and when will the inquiry conclude? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said: “It will be conducted at pace, but it will not be rushed.” Which is it? The armed forces deserve transparency and reassurance, and they deserve it now. This all sends a worrying signal to our adversaries, which is why it is vital that the Government outline how they will move quickly to resolve the issues and adopt our proposals for a wider overhaul of the procurement system. We cannot afford to lumber on with a broken system while the world around us becomes more dangerous. Difficult decisions lie ahead. The Defence Secretary has indicated that scrapping the programme in its entirety is possible. Given what we know—given the years of delays and billions spent, and given that soldiers are still falling ill in these vehicles—it is right to seriously consider that option. The mythological Ajax died of shame; one hopes that those responsible for this modern Ajax programme might feel at least some measure of that emotion. More than shame, we need action. The Ajax programme must not be allowed to fail in silence—too much is at stake. The most important thing of all is the safety and wellbeing of those who serve and being able to depend on them absolutely.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this timely and important debate. Ajax takes its name from the “Iliad”. In that great epic, there are in fact two Ajaxes—Ajax the Great, the famous hero of Greek mythology, and Ajax the Lesser. I think it is pretty clear, from what we have heard today, which of them this project most resembles. Ajax stands as perhaps the starkest illustration of everything that has gone wrong with defence procurement in this country.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. Let me be clear from the outset: the possible collapse of this multi-decade, £6.2 billion programme is deeply alarming. It demands answers, it demands accountability and, most importantly, it demands urgent action. The facts are stark and troubling. Just weeks ago on Salisbury plain, during what should have been a routine training exercise, more than 30 of our soldiers fell ill. They were not injured in combat or facing down an enemy on some distant battlefield; they were training on British soil in British vehicles built with British taxpayers’ money. They were vomiting, and they were shaking uncontrollably. Some spent 10 to 15 hours in these vehicles and emerged requiring urgent medical care. That is not the first time we have heard such reports. Indeed, the Ajax programme has been plagued by issues of noise and vibration since mid-2020. A stop notice was issued in June 2021 and all dynamic movement was halted. The programme underwent what was termed “a significant reset”. Training resumed in 2023, only to be paused again in 2025. Astonishingly, this programme has been on pause for 20% of its entire life—20%. What was the response from those in charge? In November, just before the latest incident, we were told that Ajax had achieved “Initial Operating Capability”. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry visited the General Dynamics factory in south Wales and declared that the issues were “firmly in the past.” He told us that he had been “reassured from the top of the Army” that the vehicle was safe. Indeed, the programme was apparently so successful that the MOD announced in November that it had just won an international award for mega-project of the year. Three weeks later, the Minister had to return to the House to confess that he had been misled—misled by the Chief of the General Staff and the then acting National Armaments Director. These are not junior officials; they are the most senior figures in our defence establishment providing assurances about safety that have proven to be utterly unfounded. I must ask, what kind of system allows this to happen? What kind of institutional culture permits such a fundamental failure of honesty and accountability? What does it say about the state of our armed forces that senior officials and officers declared initial operating capability when long-standing problems had merely been mitigated with new seats and earplugs in some cases, rather than actually fixed? The Minister must now be absolutely clear about what the Government’s contingency plans are if Ajax is deemed unsafe. Moreover, he must explain what the impact will be on our NATO commitments if Ajax is further delayed due to required upgrades or scrapped altogether. Our allies are watching, and our adversaries are watching, and what they see is chaos. This is not simply about one troubled programme, catastrophic though Ajax’s failures have been; this programme illustrates the deep-seated problems with defence procurement that have plagued our armed forces for years. They deserve better than the endless delays, cost overruns and capability gaps that have become the hallmark of how we equip those who defend us. Let us consider the litany of failures. Ajax was ordered in 2014. It was supposed to be fully in service by 2019. Here we are in 2026, and not only is it not in service, but we are now investigating whether it is fundamentally unsafe. The vehicle was originally designed for weights of up to 26 tonnes. Through what defence analysts politely call “scope creep”—the Army loading the programme with 1,200 separate capability requirements—the weight ballooned to over 43 tonnes. A single vehicle can now cost well over £10 million in its most expensive form, and what have we got for this money? We have vehicles that make our soldiers sick. We have a programme that has consumed vast resources and delivered nothing but embarrassment. We have General Dynamics winning awards for project controls while producing vehicles that cannot be safely operated. I note with interest that when asked whether performance bonuses relating to Ajax had been paid to officials over the last three years, the Ministry responded: “This information is not held centrally and therefore can not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.”

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the time for this debate on Ukraine today, as we meet at a key moment. American peace proposals welcomed by the Kremlin suggested demilitarised zones and buffer areas. Those phrases sound technical, but their consequences could be catastrophic. The Ukrainian people see such proposals for what they are: a ruse to circumvent Ukraine’s defences and continue the invasion later. Russia’s relentless assault in the east has intensified, despite it passing the grim milestone of a million Russian troops killed or injured on the frontline. Zaporizhzhia, a city of 670,000 people, is now under serious threat. Russian drones are striking the city. The emergency services have prepared a plan to evacuate a third of the population if fighting damages the nearby nuclear power station. That is the reality of Putin’s war. President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and disdainful of the rule of law—one need only look at his actions in Venezuela. Britain must take an active role in ensuring that Ukraine’s interests remain at the heart of all future negotiations, reinforcing collective deterrence and signalling that European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty remain non-negotiable. That also requires honesty about the United States. What concrete security guarantees have actually been secured, and can the Government seriously assure this House that those guarantees would endure beyond the next conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin? The United Kingdom and France have committed to the potential deployment of troops in Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed. Any discussion of UK or French troops on the ground must be about deterrence, not escalation, and limited in scope, tied to a political settlement and never an open-ended deployment. It is right that the Prime Minister has committed to putting any deployment of British forces to Ukraine to a vote in this place, but any such commitment must be credible. That means having the personnel, the equipment, the logistics and the funding in place not just to deploy, but to sustain a force over time. Serious questions remain about our current ability to do that. Will the Minister set out in clear terms how the Government intend to ensure that any future deployment to Ukraine will be fully resourced, properly equipped and sustainably funded, and not announced before the means to deliver it exist? The Government must increase the size of our armed forces, plug gaps in military capability and fix the broken procurement processes. The lack of a clear defence investment plan for our military undermines the credibility of announcements of overseas deployments. Alongside military deterrence, we must also apply maximum economic pressure. Yesterday morning, residents in my constituency were surprised to wake up to find various fruits and vegetables and cans of milk distributed across our beaches in Seaford and Newhaven. A container ship passing through the channel had shed some containers in the past few weeks, and those have now washed up. Another day, my residents could find their beaches covered in oil leaked from a sanctioned Russian tanker from the Russian shadow fleet also passing through the channel. That is why we must take every action possible to restrict the shadow fleet, not just to prevent the flow of money into Russia, but because it presents an active threat to this country’s economic, military and environmental security. We therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a ban on UK companies providing services such as insurance or maintenance to ships carrying Russian liquefied natural gas. That is a big step in the right direction and we genuinely welcome it. Carriers owned or insured by the UK have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products since 2022. We must do more. The Government’s recent oil price cap reduction is insufficient. Liberal Democrats believe that the cap should be lowered at least to $30 dollars a barrel, with stricter enforcement to ensure that no UK money supports Russia’s war effort. The Government should also be giving serious consideration to a total ban on Russian oil and gas exports. I think that many people would share my astonishment at the news that the UK still imports £1.7 billion-worth of goods and services from Russia, and that the figure actually increased in 2025. The most impactful contribution that the Government could make is pushing for allied action to unlock frozen Russian assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to enable billions in frozen Russian assets to be seized and the proceeds to be directed to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. It is also welcome that the Government are threatening legal action to secure £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea sale. Liberal Democrats have called for that for over a year. It should never have taken as long, but we welcome forward movement. Putin must be punished, not rewarded, and it was deeply disappointing to see the European Union fail to agree on a reparations loan using Russian assets. Britain must show greater resolve and make Putin pay—literally—for his invasion. We are all appalled by the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. That is a war crime. We support the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale School of Public Health’s humanitarian research lab, but those initiatives are in danger because President Trump has cut their funding. Again, frozen Russian assets could be used to fund the shortfall. Support for Ukraine also means doing right by Ukrainians here in the UK: Ministers must provide certainty on length of leave to remain and urgently resolve the status of young Ukrainians studying at our universities and colleges, who cannot be left in prolonged legal limbo. Russia continues to pose a profound strategic threat through its invasion, cyber-attacks and energy coercion. That threat extends far beyond Ukraine, to the Baltic states in particular, and deterrence must therefore be pan-European if it is to be credible. It would be wholly inappropriate to contemplate restoring Russia’s G7 membership, and the UK must oppose its readmission. The UK must also step up its contribution to European defence through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and deeper co-operation with our European allies, and must be unequivocal in defending the sovereignty of all NATO partners in areas including the High North and Greenland. Aggression and violations of sovereignty will not be rewarded. As we debate in comfort, Ukrainian soldiers man defensive positions in freezing conditions. Ukrainian civilians flee their homes; Ukrainian families live with the daily terror of drone and missile strikes. They are fighting for freedom, sovereignty, and their very existence. They are fighting for principles that we claim to hold dear: democracy, the rule of law and self-determination. Will we stand with them for as long as it takes, or will we allow fatigue and the bullying of autocrats to erode our resolve? Liberal Democrats are clear: we will not look away; we will not accept an unjust peace; we will push for the maximum economic pressure, for seizing frozen Russian assets, for proper support for Ukraine’s defence, and for democratic oversight of any British military involvement. The unity of this House, with one party a small but notable exception, reflects the strength of the British people’s commitment to our Ukrainian friends. They must be tired, but we must never tire of talking about them in this place. They are fighting for all our futures, and we must continue to stand by their side for as long as it takes.

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents. The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary. We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security. Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume? Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection. Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  There has been widespread speculation in recent days and hours about a possible US operation to seize a tanker that previously operated in Venezuela, which the United States has been pursuing and is now off the Irish coast. Any such operation would very likely involve UK air bases. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any deployments of US forces from UK bases, whether in relation to this tanker or other targets that it may define in Europe, are in full compliance with international law?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), does the Home Secretary not appreciate how worrying it is to hear about the numbers of young people leaving this country? These people are literally the future of this country. What measures is her Department taking to disincentivise young people from emigrating? Does she agree that a youth mobility scheme with the European Union that allowed young people to work in Europe without needing to take the drastic step of leaving altogether would help?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?