Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I echo the Minister’s rightful tribute to Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment, who gave his life for the cause of freedom while serving in Ukraine. His sacrifice will never be forgotten. There are things that we welcome in this statement, including the imposition of further sanctions and the provision of new equipment, including drones, missiles and in particular air defence equipment for Ukraine. We must not forget that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who has sanctioned the barbaric use of highly accurate cruise missiles against children’s hospitals in Ukraine. In particular, I agree with the Minister that no enduring settlement of the war can be reached over the heads of the Ukrainians. A world war one Admiral, Sir Jackie Fisher, once remarked, “Ultimately, all nations desire peace…but peace on their terms.” We cannot allow peace on Putin’s terms, as that peace would surely not last for long. It is also worth reminding our American allies that article 5 of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once—by them, in 2001, following the appalling attack on the twin towers. Thousands of Americans were murdered that day, as were several hundred Britons. When the Americans rightfully called for help, within weeks British special forces were working alongside their American counterparts, killing terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora. Alliances work both ways. For the record, when the call came, we turned up. The Minister also made reference to the coalition of the willing. However, if British troops were to participate, they would need to have modern, effective equipment. That brings me to the elephant in the House: where is the long-awaited defence investment plan? Prior to the summer recess, the Defence Secretary assured us that the DIP would be published in the autumn. As the autumn came and went, it slipped right, but Ministers remained adamant that the DIP would still be published before the House rose for Christmas. So where on earth is it? As there were multiple references to industry in his statement, let me say to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry that our defence industry will rightly be furious at this continued delay. To give just one example, we still have no decision on the new medium helicopter—a programme vital for the future of Leonardo’s workforce of thousands at Yeovil. Roberto Cingolani, the corporate CEO of Leonardo, said recently: “We cannot subsidise Yeovil forever”. That frustration will be repeated up and down our defence manufacturing base, from primes to fourth-tier subcontractors, the latter of whom struggle to subsidise anything at all. Is it any wonder that Mr Kevin Craven, the chief executive of ADS, said only yesterday in the Financial Time s that the “delay in releasing the Defence Investment Plan…is frustrating, to say the least”? If we are to defend the Ukrainians successfully, we have to be able to defend ourselves. At the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who as ever is in his place, told the Prime Minister: “the Government does not seem able to agree on the money involved. It cannot deliver the defence investment plan on time. It means that things are moving very slowly, rather than moving at pace, given the threats from adversaries.” Is it any wonder that his all-party Committee recently described the Government’s progress on increasing war readiness in Britain as “glacial”? We also welcome the ongoing financial commitment to Ukraine, which follows a similar path to our approach when in government. Would that we had such financial clarity at home. The three distinguished authors of the strategic defence review were adamant that it required defence expenditure of 3% of GDP to deliver it. But the Government cannot even give the year in which that will be reached because they are incapable inter-departmentally of agreeing it. Moreover, in-year—now—Defence Ministers are pursuing an efficiency savings exercise—“savings cuts” in pub English—of £2.6 billion in the Department’s operating budget, which is materially affecting our readiness for war and thus our ability to deter it. In summary, our commitment across this House to the brave Ukrainians remains unwavering, but as someone once famously said, “To govern is to choose.” Yet again, the Government have avoided making choices, moving key capability decisions even further to the right yet again. When it comes to the future procurement of vital military equipment for the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies, they have kicked the can so far down the road that we can no longer see the can at all—even with an Ajax. In contrast, while our Ministers prevaricate, our Polish allies are digging anti-tank ditches along the border with Belarus. The Romans had a saying: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” —he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. The Conservatives announced a £50 billion sovereign defence fund this morning to do precisely that.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of Operation Nova, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and assists veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system, so may I set her a theoretical challenge? Let us assume that an Op Nova veteran who fought in Afghanistan goes out one evening and is assaulted in a bar, perhaps by someone who does not like soldiers very much, but the situation is confused, and the soldier—the veteran—ends up in the dock. Should not that person, who fought for his country in a war zone and in this country’s uniform, be entitled to put his defence in front of a jury of his peers?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  That’s what the generals said.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused— [ Interruption. ] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  He didn’t say that!

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  What are you talking about, you idiot!

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as: “A direct threat to national security.” Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  That is not true. We had hoped to hear from the wannabe future Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), but as we have not— [ Interruption. ] He is not denying it. If what the Minister claims is true, how does she explain the recent comment by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said that the protections are “a meaningless insult and only become relevant once re-investigation is under way”? Respectfully, who knows more about defending our veterans: a brand new Minister or a former chief of the general staff who actually commanded them?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  For the avoidance of doubt, I am on this side of the Westminster Hall Chamber only because it is so packed that this was the only remaining chair. I have not defected to the Labour Party and I never will—nor to anyone else. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this policy was not in Labour’s general election manifesto, so it has absolutely no electoral mandate to extend the surveillance state over the people of this country with this gimmick?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  Tell us!

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, it was right that Loveday Ryder, the previous chief executive of the DVSA, had to resign because of this terrible ongoing problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need new leadership at that organisation, to grip this problem with alacrity? We must particularly address the problem of bots sweeping up the tests, as there is not much point in increasing the number of tests if the bots capture them. We are then back to the 6 am problem of parents dialling in, which he has articulated so well.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Homelessness Strategy: Housing First · Hansard source

  More

  We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Transport Infrastructure Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  The lower Thames crossing—or the late and tardy crossing, as it is now known in Essex—is the second largest piece of infrastructure in the country after High Speed 2. When will the work actually commence, when will the crossing be open to traffic, and—this is my third time asking the Secretary of State this question at the Dispatch Box—specifically which banks and companies will fund it? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe it is never going to happen.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Flooding: Monmouthshire · Hansard source

  More

  Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements? We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as “a direct threat to national security”?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable. First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light. Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons. Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome. Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release. Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans: “If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.” What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently: “If potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their Government will stand by them, when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why risk joining at all?”. Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a “direct threat to national security”. If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless. When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan: “We must reverse it as soon as possible”. The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill. In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023. Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I. Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army. When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, ma’am. This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service. One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant. Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit. For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot. Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy · Hansard source

  More

  John Downey.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument about a blended force of Typhoon and F-35, but does he accept that one of the drawbacks of the F-35 is that we are effectively at the mercy of the joint programme office in the United States? That has led to serious delays in the integration of the Meteor, a highly capable air-to-air missile, into the F-35 because American systems have been prioritised. That is a bit of a problem, is it not?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, as we debate the important role that the Typhoon programme plays in our nation’s defence and industrial strength. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this important debate. Since he entered the House almost a year and a half ago, he has proved a doughty champion for his constituents, for the defence industry in the north-west more generally and for his constituents at Warton for whom the Typhoon programme is crucial in particular. He made a very good speech to open the debate, and I know that he will continue to fight tenaciously for his constituents’ interests as this Parliament plays out. I also take the opportunity to pay a personal thank you related to air defence. Recently, I turned 60 and, as a memorable birthday present, my local Conservative Association generously clubbed together to pay for a 30-minute, two-seater Spitfire flight in aircraft No. MT818 out of Biggin Hill, including overflying my constituency. I warmly thank the pilot, Barry, and all his colleagues at FlyASpitfire.com—who do what it says on the tin—for a wonderful day. At this time of remembrance, it brought home to me just how brave the few—some of whom had barely 10 hours on type—were in flying that iconic aircraft in mortal combat during the battle of Britain. I am deeply grateful for that truly unforgettable experience. It will literally live with me for the rest of my life. Returning to the present, I also congratulate the Minister on the fact that the Government have now sealed the deal to export some 20 Typhoons to Turkey. For the record, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), when he was the Minister with responsibility for procurement, spent a considerable amount of time promoting that deal, as did Ben Wallace, the then Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say well done to the Government for capitalising on those previous efforts and bringing the arrangement to fruition. That being so, I have some specific questions about the deal for the Minister which I hope that the House will welcome. First, can he confirm what tranche of Typhoon the new aircraft will be, including what variant of radar it will carry? That has implications not just for BAE Systems at Warton, but for our national radar manufacturer Leonardo, based in Edinburgh. As for MBDA, our missiles champion, is the Meteor missile also part of the sale to Turkey? Secondly, a suggestion has been that Qatar will sell its older Typhoons to Turkey as part of the arrangement and that that might yet lead, in turn, to further Typhoon orders at Warton. Is that the case and, if so, what can the Minister tell us? Thirdly, is the Minister able to say anything more about other potential Typhoon sales internationally, in particular to Poland or Saudi Arabia? A Typhoon order from Saudi would be a significant achievement and, indeed, negotiations to that effect have been under way for several years already. That, too, would be of great interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, so I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to say anything further about that this morning. As the debate is entitled “Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability”, I also take this opportunity to press the Minister on the future of the Typhoon in Royal Air Force service. The RAF has recently retired some 30 of the older tranche 1 Typhoons, and has been in the process of effectively cannibalising them in order to keep the more modern tranche 2 and tranche 3 aircraft flying. In terms of combat mass, that represents a worrying reduction of about a fifth of the entire RAF Typhoon fleet. The few remaining tranche 1s in service are now the fleet of Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant. Will the Minister confirm that when they retire some time in 2026-27, the RAF will provide replacements of either tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft to maintain the air defence of the Falkland Islands, not least for the peace of mind of the Falkland Islands Government? That would leave about 107 tranche 2 and 3 aircraft in RAF service. The tranche 3 aircraft are optimised to accept the new future generation of electronically scanned radar, now generally referred to as Radar 2, which has been under development at Leonardo in Edinburgh, in association with other European allies, for more than a decade. Tranche 2 aircraft can also be modified to accept Radar 2, but both tranches of aircraft require an important electronics update, known as P4E, in order to fully utilise the important new capability of Radar 2, including its crucial electronic warfare suite. However, as I understand it, the MOD has still not placed an order for the final development and installation of P4E, crucial though it is to Typhoon’s future. Although Radar 2 has now been fully developed—indeed, I was privileged to see a prototype of it on a shadow ministerial visit to Leonardo some months ago—the MOD has still not placed a production order even for an initial batch of Radar 2s. That too represents a very important part of the UK’s Typhoon sovereign capability. Without an effective radar, much of the other investment in Typhoon is nugatory. Can the Minister say anything positive today about the future orders for Radar 2 and the associated P4E upgrade to the UK Typhoon programme, given that both—and we need both—are due to be in operational service by 2030? BAE trade union colleagues, whom I met recently at Samlesbury, have been pushing hard for a further domestic order of Typhoon aircraft, not least to maintain key skills at the Warton site. They have no greater champion than my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde—“Tory MP backs trade unions to the hilt”. I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for Ministers to take, and that it must be considered in the context of the wider mix of potential combat air system, as several hon. Members have said. In that regard, to date the UK has ordered some 48 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variants for both the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force, almost 40 of which have now been delivered—minus one, which had an unfortunate accident leaving an aircraft carrier. However, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of the slow build-up of the Lightning force. Can the Minister say anything more encouraging about that? The Government have intimated that they intend to buy another 26 F-35Bs, making 74 in total out of an originally planned order of 138. However, this summer they announced their intention to substitute 12 of those aircraft for the F-35A variant, which is capable of carrying the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, both in our defence of the United Kingdom and as part of our commitment to NATO. What more can the Minister tell us about how many F-35s the MOD still intends to buy, and what mix of variants that will comprise, in addition to Typhoon? A crucial future part of our sovereign air capability is represented by the global combat air programme, which aims to develop a world-class, sixth-generation combat aircraft—a system of systems, potentially including autonomous adjuncts. It is being built with Italy and Japan, and is to be known in RAF service as the Tempest. As the Minister knows, the putative initial operational capability for GCAP is 2035, partly driven by a very hard in-service date for the Japanese air force. An industrial consortium called Edgewing, headquartered in Reading, has recently been formed to manufacture the aircraft, but there are already worrying rumours of delays. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that GCAP/Tempest remains on schedule, and that Tempest will still succeed our oldest remaining tranche 2 Typhoons from 2035? The Typhoon is a fundamentally important part of the air defence of the United Kingdom and of our allies, and is likely to remain so for decades, even allowing for the gradual introduction of Tempest. As the Minister will appreciate, for those aircraft to be used most effectively, especially in the air defence role, they need to be closely integrated into the UK’s wider air defence network. We now have a major gap in that capability, however, following the withdrawal of the Boeing E-3D AWACS aircraft in 2021, because of the frustratingly delayed introduction into service of its vital replacement the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. The delays to Wedgetail are a disgrace; the aircraft is years late and has flown only a relatively small number of test flights. Rumours are circulating within the industry that this is due to a mixture of factors, including the integration of the MESA—multi-role electronically scanned array—radar and serious problems with the UK E-7’s bespoke command and battle management system. A respected former procurement Minister, Sir Jeremy Quin, was recently appointed chairman of Boeing UK. I hope he can bring his experience to bear to sort out this debacle. What can the Minister say today about Wedgetail and when it is finally likely to enter operational service with the Royal Air Force? In short, when will the aircraft be ready to fight, rather than just conduct air displays as it did at the Royal International Air Tattoo this summer? We await the Government’s long-promised defence investment plan, including details on the future of Typhoon. We were originally promised the DIP by the autumn. With the leaves already turning, I ask the Minister a straight question: is Christmas in the autumn? Can he guarantee that the DIP will be published in full by the time the House rises for the Christmas recess on 18 December, just over a month from now? In addition, can the Minister assure us that the DIP will contain a similar level of granularity to the previous, well-established equipment plans that were published annually under Conservative Governments? They gave a considerable amount of detail so that the defence industry had a fighting chance of planning. The Minister will know that a bunch of major programmes are awaiting their fate with the publication of the DIP, including the phase 4 enhancement and mark 2 radar, the new medium helicopter and the wider combat air mix referred to earlier. After all this time, yet another Ministry of Defence policy document, with a bunch of glossy photos but not much detail, will not suffice. Perhaps the Minister can provide some reassurance this morning. Finally, can the Minister guarantee to deliver the DIP, including for Typhoon, given that the MOD is now embroiled in a massive in-year cost-saving exercise, including efficiencies—spending cuts, in pub English—of £2.5 billion in 2025-26 alone? That is happening this financial year, right now; if that is not true, I will give way briefly to the Minister to deny it. Silence speaks volumes. I will finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde on securing this important debate. I hope that we will get clear answers to the straightforward questions that he and I and others have put to the Minister this morning. Typhoon is vital to our future, and we all want to know what will happen to it.