UK-France Nuclear Partnership

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I suppose I should say that I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence only quoted half the sentence—if indeed that is the case—but he is probably not the first Opposition spokesperson to do that in the history of Oppositions in this House. I agree with my hon. Friend that what we have here is a strengthening of the deterrent across Europe, which will help to deter potential adversaries from conducting themselves in a way that might threaten the future of our nations.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement of strengthened collaboration with France, although reading between the lines, it sounds like “co-ordination” is actually submarine patrol deconfliction. Our aerial participation in the NATO nuclear mission is still a decade away, with the completion of F-35A delivery not scheduled until 2033, according to the Government, but both the French air force and marine nationale are armed with the air-sol moyenne portée amélioré—ASMPA—medium-range supersonic nuclear-tip missile as part of their force de dissuasion. Is that nuclear strike capability within the scope of this agreement? If so, how will it be incorporated into our own nuclear doctrine? Will it be an escalation step prior to the use of Trident? Does this form an interim solution while we await the capability to fully participate in the NATO nuclear mission? How will command of it work?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman complains about the amount of time it has taken this Government to do things in respect of defence, but we had to pick up the mess that was left by his Government, who were in office for 14 years. It is a bit of a cheek for him to complain about delay, when the reality is that his own Government did nothing for 14 years. I have made it quite clear that our defence nuclear posture is not changing, and that we are not seeking to acquire new and different nuclear weapons, but if the vital interests of the UK and France are engaged and threatened, we will co-ordinate our nuclear response as a result of this agreement, and that provides a greater deterrent.

Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 and place on record my wholehearted support for our armed forces and the role they play in providing national security and defence of this nation, both at home and deployed on operations across the globe.

As a new MP last year, the first Delegated Legislation Committee I sat on considered the previous continuation order. I was very proud to be able to do that. As a veteran and now the MP for a constituency in Huntingdon with British, US and wider NATO forces, I know first hand how vital political support for our military is today. Although we have moved past the period of kinetic operations that typified my generation of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world feels more dangerous today than it did at that time. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 precipitated a sea change in the nature of warfare. The manoeuvre warfare of old that we saw during the initial invasion, unchanged in a generation and familiar to those of my generation and several before that, has been replaced by cyber, drones, grey zones and subthreshold activity that feels like warfare but not so long ago would have been the preserve of science fiction or an episode of “Black Mirror”. That is the thread that must run through the strategic defence review and it is in such areas that we must ensure our armed forces are equipped to compete in across domains.

I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment in wishing to increase defence spending to ensure that we remain a credible and capable NATO ally, and that we continue to punch above our weight on the world stage. As an island nation in a notionally geographically safe part of the world, the legacy of our imperial past is one of world policing, post-colonial responsibility and expeditionary warfare. Our decentralised, persistent nuclear capability ensures that we are a nation that continues to be taken seriously, but my concern is that we are in danger of being benched, as those NATO allies closer to the fray, who feel the threat from Russia on the eastern flank and the High North most keenly, will, with their vastly increased defence budgets and whole-of-society approaches to defence, make us a second-tier nation.

The pledge to uplift defence spending to 5%, with the claim that we will achieve 4.1% by April 2027, is simply not credible. This smoke and mirrors approach reflects the fact that the sums do not add up. We saw only yesterday that the Government’s botched welfare reform has left a £4.5 billion gap in the spending plans, which is coupled with a further £1.25 billion from the winter fuel U-turn. Where will that money come from? Spending cuts or higher taxes are now inevitable, and growth projections look at best sluggish.

Meanwhile, the Government claim that they can reach 2.6% on defence plus security, but they refuse to break down the quantum of that spending. How much of that 2.6% is actually on hard defence, and how much is on the intelligence services? By our estimates, the number is somewhere in the region of 0.15%, which suggests that the real defence budget as a proportion of GDP is only 2.45%. If we bear in mind that a sizeable proportion of that figure is solely our continuous at-sea deterrent, the figure for our conventional forces drops to somewhere in the region of 1.7%—a long way from the numbers that the Government are putting forward.

The 4.1% figure that the Government are now puffing their chest out about includes 1.5% on national security and general resilience. This contains everything from UK arts spending to rural broadband. Under the chapter on pursuing asymmetric advantage, paragraph 25 details that the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough plays a part regarding understanding environmental changes in the Arctic ocean, which means that Boaty McBoatface is included in the Prime Minister’s defence spending figures. Do we honestly think that Russia and China will take that seriously?

The huge capability commitments that we see in the SDR and in the forthcoming equipment plan far outstrip our spending power. We are quite literally writing cheques that we may never be able to cash. Not only have we pledged to create an entirely new domain in cyber, but we are about to embark on an essential modernisation process which now simply does not look funded.

The global combat air programme—a project not due to be delivered until the back end of the next decade, but one that runs the risk of being outpaced by technological change—is exquisitely capable, but in 20 years’ time, will a sixth-generation fighter need to be crewed? It may be crewed in 2040, but GCAP’s out of service date is likely to be beyond 2070. Do we honestly believe that crewed aircraft will be relevant by then? Furthermore, how will we deliver the loyal wingmen in the system of systems that it forms part of?

Drones are clearly the future of warfare, and although we continue to use Ukraine as the proving grounds for a new capability against a near-peer adversary, the British Army should be on the front foot, rapidly equipping and training with drones, rather than using e-sports as the only drone warfare training of note. I see the Minister taking notes. While he is writing stuff down, let me suggest that a two-stage warhead a la Javelin on an FPV—first person view—drone is surely the next generation anti-armour capability that we need, thus consigning enfilade fire from a defilade position to a thing of the past, despite my own anti-tank roots.

Meanwhile, Project Grayburn means that we will replace 150,000 SA80A3 rifles by 2030—a significant logistical commitment, in terms not just of changing the weapon system, but of possibly changing the nature of the ammunition as well. Although that will increase stopping power, it will also remove the purpose of 5.56, which I am sure we do not need to go into in the Chamber today, and everything that goes with that, including rifle racks, ammunition pouches, magazines and mag chargers. This is the nitty-gritty of changing a weapons platform that really does take its toll on exactly how we would implement that. We also intend to replace nearly 6,000 Land Rovers by 2030, which is another significant logistical commitment in terms of training soldiers to drive them, putting those vehicles out, and making sure that we have the logistical trail in place to be able to service those vehicles. These smaller but still resource-intensive tasks place more and more strain on our personnel.

Only today, I understand that the Ministry of Defence police have cut 1,500 roles. With the Military Provost Guard Service under-resourced and unable to replace them, the burden has fallen on regular soldiers to augment their guarding tasks. Such additional tasks with weekend guards erodes goodwill and continues to contribute to retention problems.

Only a few weeks ago, I was in Poland visiting the RAF conducting the NATO air policing role, interdicting Russian penetration along NATO’s border. The personnel there were rightly extremely proud to serve, but at the same time the strain that the current operational tempo was placing on those in specialist roles was immense, requiring them repeatedly to spend long periods away from home. Incredibly, the additional penalty that they pay is a financial one, with all but those on the highest LSA bands finding that the pay they receive for being separated from their families is often, at best, negligible and, at worst, a financial hit. Second-order effects mean that an individual who may be being paid more to be on operations is not physically at home to help with the tasks there; that means having to pay for a babysitter rather than having their spouse look after the children. They have to pay for a dog walker rather than being able to leave the dog at home, for when the spouse returns. Those costs add up, and they simply are not factored into those extra payments that people receive for being on tour.

Meanwhile, we continue to see those who have already served their nation questioning whether they continue to enjoy the support of those they have risked their lives to serve. The concerns around the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans leave Operation Banner veterans rightly very concerned about their futures and about being held accountable for actions from over 50 years ago. Without clarity on whether protections will be guaranteed for those who serve their country, future recruitment could suffer hugely. People serving their country will lose confidence under this Government that they will not one day be treated as a criminal. It raises questions over my own service and that of my peers. The goalposts could one day move for us, and I know that that applies to former service people on both sides of the House. I see the Security Minister on the Front Bench who served so proudly in Afghanistan.

I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, and I was proud to play my small part in the history of one of our finest institutions. I recognise and acknowledge the sentiment and intent of Defence Ministers to deliver for our service personnel; I do not call that into question for one second. However, I wish to place on record my concerns that the limitations placed on them by Treasury accounting and the smoke and mirrors approach to hitting our NATO pledges will put the cross-party consensus on defence at risk, and the fiscal rules and botched legislation will reduce the Chancellor’s spending power in a dangerous new world. This Government must demonstrate their front-footed commitment with tangible results, not just pledges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

We have had a good debate—lively at times—about an important subject. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support the order, which I am sure the House will pass without the need for a Division.

We have had some very good speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). He recalled his time serving as an infantry platoon commander. I had that same honour, although in my case it was as a cold war reservist rather than as a regular, like him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines now that the Government have flogged off most of our amphibious shipping. He asked for confirmation about timings on the MRSS class and about what happens to the Royal Marines now in their amphibious role. Perhaps the Minister will provide the House with some reassurance. If it is true that the Royal Marines will lose their amphibious role, at least in the short term, will he say whether the Parachute Regiment was consulted on that decision? [Interruption.] I see that Hansard must record that the Security Minister is chuckling at this point.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I see the Security Minister chuckling away. I, too, would like confirmation that, as part of the big three, the RAF Regiment was also consulted on this decision.

[Mr Francois]

I think the RAF Regiment has had other things on its mind lately.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on raising the important issue of Northern Ireland. That takes me to the point on which I would like to conclude. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions about what will happen to our Northern Ireland veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart lies on this. I cannot recall whether the Security Minister served in Northern Ireland—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.

I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.

I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.

I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

On the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we have to procure an icebreaker to increase our footprint in that region?

[Luke Pollard]

I knew he was tempted to go into polar nerdery! I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about some of those aspects. Clearly, when it comes to the provision of our ships and capabilities, it is not just an MOD matter; it is one that we share, in particular with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, but I am happy to pick up those points with him.

I am not certain that the hon. Member is right on everything he said on drones, but none the less, he is certainly right that drone warfare has fundamentally changed how warfare is conducted. I am proud that we have a plan to return to 2.5% spending on defence—a figure not met since 2010. We do need to spend more on defence because we live in more dangerous times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to speak about the sacrifices that armed forces families make—it is something that we should not forget. Indeed, that is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we deliberately extend the powers of the commissioner to have a requirement to engage with the family members of our people who serve, which is important.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her contribution. We do indeed have a Government who honour the service of our armed forces every day, and I am proud to serve within it. She is also right to raise LGBT veterans. She will know that the prioritisation we have decided as Ministers is that the initial payments, as we stand up the system to make payments, should be directed at those who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation in the first instance, so justice can be done for those folk who may not see many more days. We are now standing up that wider system so that we can process that wider set of payments that we have committed to do, and we will continue to do so.

Finally, in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the future commando force strategy published under the last Government moved away from full commando assault to small raiding parties. That was the extant policy of the last Government and, because of that, I would be happy to speak to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines and to the multi-role strike ship, as set out in the strategic defence review, and I would be very happy to speak to him about that further. I have a Royal Marine base in my constituency, as he has in his—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The Government have made it very clear that our support for our independent nuclear deterrent is solid and is not changing. We are investing in new submarines, we are investing in the base in Faslane, we are investing in new nuclear reactors in Derby, and we are backing the people who keep our country safe with that guarantor of our security, the nuclear deterrent.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Since 14 June, an F-35B from the Prince of Wales carrier strike group has been stranded on the runway at the Thiruvananthapuram civilian airport in India. What steps are the Government taking to recover the plane, how much longer will that take, and how will the Government ensure the security of protected technologies on the jet while it is in the hangar and out of view?

[Luke Pollard]

We continue to work with our Indian friends who provided first-class support when the F-35B was unable to return to the Prince of Wales when on a flight mission, and I am certain that the security of the jet is in good hands because Royal Air Force crew are with it at all times.

Armed Forces Day

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more: that is so important. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, but many of our defence debates have been about kit, platforms and—if I have anything to do with it—frigates. We talk about the equipment, but we need to talk about our people. At the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government’s policies, is talking more about the families of those who serve. That is why I hope that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will become law soon. It puts an emphasis on allowing service families to access the commissioner to make the case that it is the whole defence family—those who serve in uniform and their family members who back them in their service—that needs to be valued by this nation. I believe that view is shared on a cross-party basis, and we now need to ensure that it is featured in our legislation and in the day-to-day operations of our military. There is more to do on that.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On the selling off of military homes and the buying back of them by the Labour Government, will the Minister acknowledge that the negotiations for that deal started in May 2024 under the Conservative Government and were completed by the Labour Government?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, and when the announcement was officially made, I recall standing at the Dispatch Box and thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here today, for his work on it. It was a terrible privatisation—truly awful. It represented the worst value for taxpayers and it has doomed many of our forces families to appalling accommodation for far too long. Now that that privatisation has ended and we have brought those homes back into public control, we can invest in them. We need to do that at pace, because people are living today in accommodation with mould and damp. That is not good enough. We need to proceed at pace, and the Minister for Veterans and People who leads on this work in the MOD is as impatient as I am to see the improvements—as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, as someone who represents a military constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that the pledge is made in action and deeds, not just words. If we look at the implementation of the armed forces covenant across the country at the moment, some areas are exceptional and have embraced not just the words of the covenant but the spirit behind it, and others are perhaps a little further behind on the journey. When we look at central Government compared with local government, there is a distinction between the services and the offer. That is why we are putting it fully into law. I hope that one thing we will be able to do in having a debate on putting the covenant fully into law is to share the best practice we see in local councils up and down the country.

In this place, there is sometimes a temptation to believe that all good ideas must come from the Dispatch Box. I certainly do not believe that, when I can see brilliant councillors of all parties making the case for improving the lives of veterans, those people who serve and, perhaps most importantly, their families. Where the covenant grips most successfully is where we can improve provision for children who may suffer disadvantage because their parents who serve move around so frequently, which means they sometimes do not get the same access to educational support, special educational needs and disabilities support and other aspects. When that debate happens—it will probably be later this year or the beginning of next year—I hope that all hon. Members will be able to participate and take something from that debate to amplify the work of their local councils. Probably each and every Member in this place will have something good to share about the work being done in their area.

We owe a substantial debt of gratitude to all those who have served their country. The Government have an enduring duty to recognise their extraordinary contribution and to support them after service. The majority of veterans go on to have successful careers and lives. We are helping them to make the best use of the diverse skills and experience that they have gained—for example, through the career transition partnerships and Op ASCEND—but a minority do not find the transition easy and may need extra support. We are creating a new £50 million network of Valour-recognised support centres across the UK to give veterans easier access to essential care and help.

Just today, we launched the Valour pilot in the north-west region, at the Imperial War Museum North. We have announced £75 million to recognise the historic wrongs experienced by LGBT veterans in the armed forces, which is significantly above the level recommended in the Etherton review. We have also committed additional funding to maintain veterans’ homelessness support programmes, ensuring that those at risk of homelessness have continued access to specialist help.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I appreciate that the Government are working on this issue, but could the Minister update us on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth service personnel?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member will know that the Ministry of Defence recently published a written ministerial statement on how we can improve recruitment from the Commonwealth. It is not just about how we expand the pipeline coming into our armed forces; we also need to recognise and support those who might be at the end of their service to get the support they need. We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretary about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.

The magnificent VE Day commemorations, as well as the equally historic 80th anniversary of VJ Day in August, have been widely acknowledged as perhaps the last major opportunity to thank those who fought in the second world war. But we are also slowly losing the generation who did national service after the war and, with them, the living bridge they provide to our armed forces. We need to reconnect society with our armed forces and widen participation in national resilience. This weekend’s festivities are a great way to kick-start that process, but, as our strategic defence review made clear, we have to be much more proactive as a country about rebuilding those connections, particularly with young people.

Half of the Army’s current crop of regimental sergeant majors were once cadets, so we will boost the cadet forces by 30% by 2030, creating opportunities for 42,000 more young people to be a cadet. We will introduce a voluntary gap year scheme for school and college leavers and develop a new UK strategic reserve by 2030—a fitting objective considering that yesterday was Reserves Day, when we were able to thank the many thousands of reservists who serve this country. They greatly bolster our capability at times of crisis, serving across defence, from the back office to the frontline. They give us the skills, scale and ability to meet the threats we face at home and overseas in a cost-effective way, as the Minister for Veterans and People can attest after serving alongside them on various tours.

I have seen personally the enormous benefits that experience with our armed forces can offer people, particularly young people: purpose, adventure, social mobility, and a unique sense of camaraderie and self-achievement. For many people, it is a route to a much better life. We want to make many more young people aware of the opportunities on offer and the chance to see where service life can take them.

As I noted earlier, we are taking decisive action to address the recruitment crisis that we inherited. The tortuously slow process that caused so much frustration is being transformed. For example, we have eliminated more than 100 outdated medical recruitment policies and we are slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours. Our objective is to reduce the time of flight from application to starting at a training establishment. The new 10-30 policy introduced by the Secretary of State, which means applicants will get a decision on a provisional application within 10 days and a start date within 30 days, is a good step towards improving this process, but we know there is much more to do.

Army recruitment has been completely restructured, and we have acted to keep hold of valued staff who are most at risk of leaving—for example, by introducing retention payments for Army privates, lance corporals and aircraft engineers. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up by 19% and outflow is down by 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruitment target, and Royal Air Force applications are up by a third compared with early 2024. Applications to join the Army are at their highest level for seven years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I want to speak in the debate today to recognise the contribution of all those who serve in our armed forces and those who stand beside them in support. It is Armed Forces Week, and I will be attending the Huntington Armed Forces Day on Saturday at Sapley playing fields. I pass on my appreciation to Anna Dutton for her efforts in organising the day from a standing start. I also thank Andy Phipps of Cambridgeshire army cadet force for his efforts.

For a region with strong links to the armed forces, it is wonderful that our armed forces personnel and families, both British and American, will have the opportunity to participate locally. I say that as an MP who is very proud to have military bases in his constituency, whether they are British with RAF Wyton, the home of UK defence intelligence, or RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury, which are both run by the US air force. We have an extraordinary number of US personnel in and around our villages, which always takes people by surprise when they hear those American accents.

Armed Forces Day is about the recognition and celebration of those young men and women who give up the best years of their lives to serve their nation in a uniform. It is also about those who stand behind them, who sacrifice their time, their careers and their ability to make a home in order to support their partners, mothers and fathers to realise their career ambitions.

I spent the best part of a decade in the Army. Although I rarely, if ever, mention it, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life, particularly now that, through the passage of time, I have all but forgotten how bad some of it actually was. But I did love it, and I do miss it. The camaraderie, the experiences and the opportunities are all unique elements that make being a part of the armed forces so special. You forge bonds with those who serve alongside you, and the unspoken shared experiences allow you to meet a fellow veteran and bond over a shared love of spinning dits. Sadly, it would be inappropriate in this place to recount most of those dits, if not all.

I served in the armed forces during the highest tempo of kinetic operations since the Korean war. It placed a strain on our armed forces, the likes of which we have not seen since. I know that those on the Labour Benches often like to recall that the last time we spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government, and the PM even mentioned it in his statement earlier today. What they do not often mention is that that operational tempo just about broke the Army.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire): in my experience of serving during the same period, we went through kit and equipment very quickly. With the pace of change that we currently see on operations and in warfare, we would do well to remember—I know the Minister is listening—that we cycled through different types of body armour. In a four-year period, I think we had three different types of body armour and three different types of helmet. We changed our entire camouflage pattern, and we had to bring in urgent operational requests to have vehicles that could withstand roadside bombs. We went from patrolling in berets and enhanced combat body armour in Iraq to patrolling in helmets, and with metal detectors, in Afghanistan only a couple of years later. The pace of change is something that we must consider.

[Alice Macdonald]

I hesitate to interrupt what is a marvellous speech and a great testament to the hon. Gentleman’s service, but he mentioned the urgent request for vehicles that could withstand roadside bombs. I thought this might be an appropriate moment to mention that, in response to that, a new type of steel was developed in the UK: ballistic steel, which was invented at the University of Cambridge, developed at our steel research institutes and produced in south Wales. That was a great national response, and it demonstrates the importance of not only our steel industry, but our industry in general, in providing a rapid response to the requirements of those in the field.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur. Although I do not know anything about the detail of that steel and the armour it provided, it is worth bearing in mind the pace of change and our ability to react. We have heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the capability that we intend to buy, but we have to remember the old adage, which is so true: no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. That is probably truer now than it has been for many a year.

We take our armed forces for granted. Although the jingoistic applause, the veterans’ discounts and the “Thank you for your service” is not for us—it is too gauche; we are, after all, British—the flip side is that there is certainly some middle ground to be occupied. We need greater societal recognition of the value of serving and an inculcation that service to one’s nation is something to be proud of, something to aspire to, and something that benefits not just the country, but the individual.

We too often look to our armed forces as a default civil emergency force and the first port of call. If there is flooding, we ask them to deliver sandbags. If it is snowing, we ask them to clear the runway at Heathrow. If firefighters go on strike, we ask our armed forces to man the fire trucks. We also ask them to provide security at the Olympics. Even the bin strikes saw the Army brought in to help. Although I appreciate that there is a specific process by which the help of the armed forces is enlisted, I wince whenever I see it activated. We should not need to rely upon a force of barely 100,000 or so available service personnel to cover everything. They should not be the default bailout for Government or local government ineffectiveness.

Our armed forces deserve better. They deserve to be paid properly, so that they do not have to take a pay cut when they are deployed on operations, as was recently explained to me by some of the personnel on NATO operations in Poland; to be housed properly, so that defence contractors do not paint over the mould on the walls because treating it is not on the contractors’ checklist, as I have been informed is happening in service family accommodation in my constituency at the moment; to be posted sympathetically, so that families do not end up split apart if both parents are serving personnel, as I have seen happen to my good friends who are still serving; and to be supported and granted stability, so that service personnel’s children can receive a stable home and education.

I could go on, but the point I am making is that the treatment of our service personnel is not good enough. Frankly, it was not good enough when I served, it was not good enough under the last Government, and I do not think it is good enough now. While I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment, I retain little confidence that the situation will drastically improve, despite the promises. We in this House often stand in this Chamber and wax lyrical about our armed forces, recounting stories of their bravery, courage, commitment and sacrifice. But they are more than just a backdrop for an announcement, and I encourage those of us in this House to remember that.

I will make one light-hearted final point. As we Members of Parliament return to our constituencies this weekend to participate dutifully on Saturday and attend the events and parades, spare a thought for those young men and women. As much as I am sure that they value and appreciate the recognition—I remember this well from my own Army experience—the irony is that the best way we could show how much we value them is by not making them work on a sunny Saturday afternoon in June.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. We have had strong support from our allies in NATO. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), I read out the response of the Secretary-General, who was full of praise.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Minister is well aware of my interest in the F-35 programme. Lockheed Martin manufactures around 150 jets a year, and there are nearly 600 on order by everyone from Switzerland to Singapore. On top of that, there are 1,200 still to be delivered to the US air force, so whereabouts are we in the queue? She mentioned that we would expect the first deliveries before the end of decade, but are we cutting to the front of the line? Given that the orders from some allies are not due to be fulfilled until 2032, will delivery of all 12 planes be completed within a decade? On refuelling, will she clarify that we have no sovereign air-to-air refuelling capability outside of a NATO mission?

[Maria Eagle]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in these matters because I have to answer all his parliamentary questions, and I welcome that interest. As the Secretary of State said this morning, we hope that we can start receiving delivery of these planes before the end of the decade. The hon. Gentleman is right that any manufacturing capability has queues, but orders are subject to contractual discussions and arrangements can be made, so that is what we are aiming for. Obviously, we will keep the House informed of how we get on.

National Armaments Director

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I start by thanking everyone in our armed forces who serves, who has served, and who has fallen. Our country is safer and better because of their service.

In assessing the financial necessity of meeting our defence needs, it is important, first, to look at the state of our world—not only our real adversaries but our potential adversaries, our allies and the most powerful country in the world, the United States. In our country and across the world, there is an assumption that the foreign policy of the current President will be a blip, and I do not believe that to be so. For my constituents and for the House, it is important to reflect on that reality as the country and the Government set their path towards a long-term investment in the defence capabilities that we so desperately need.

The 2017 national security strategy of the United States, released by President Trump, said:

“After being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition returned.”

In 2022, the national security strategy released by President Biden said:

“The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy.”

In 2017, the era of co-operation, which had defined multiple US presidencies in the post-cold war era, was declared dead by President Trump. In 2022, the era of competition that had defined the Trump era was given new life by President Biden—two contrasting presidencies, two sides of the same coin.

As Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, a sovereign, democratic country, and China made clear its designs on Taiwan, a sovereign, democratic country, those two autocracies have deepened their ties, and they have collaborated more closely with other UK and US rivals. It is clear that the consensus that has been emerging in the beltway was accurate. The main priority of American foreign policy as great power competition is clear. The aspiration of the outcome that the US stays ahead of the pack is clear.

We in this House will debate the motivations, character and behaviour of President Trump. They will be open to interpretation, but, in some important ways, his worldview has a more settled nature. With him and Biden as presidents and the United States as a great power pursuing US interests in a world where competition is the enduring and defining feature, our American ally has for some time now been telling a story about how it sees itself and the world, and we would be foolish to see the current presidency as a blip. It is the continuation of a tradition.

Of course, there are differences between the two presidencies: in their approach to diplomacy and how nationalistically it should be pursued; in their assessment of American interests and how aggressively they should be pursued; in their adherence to American values and how devotedly they should be upheld; and in sum, whether to collaborate with countries with which it has always collaborated, such as the United Kingdom, either as an end in itself—to reinforce and sustain an American-led order of democracies—or as a means to an important end, which is to pursue an economic strength and a national security that traditional democratic allies would seek, too.

The presidencies and presidents do not differ in their assessment of the international system and the need for competition. That is a critical point that will define UK defence decisions this year and in subsequent years. I obviously have a preference for a particular style of behaviour. I would much prefer President Biden’s form of foreign policy, but the outcomes that are being pursued are clear. This prompts the question: will whoever succeeds President Trump deviate from or continue his foreign policy? I argue that it will be a continuation.

If the priority of the US, our closest ally, is to stay ahead of those autocracies in the long term, and we have stronger ties and shared values with the United States as it becomes more competitive with those rivals, it is in our interest to do all that we can to counter the rise of those rivals, to mitigate against their worst behaviours, to minimise their risk to our security and to militate against their threats to our values—with the United States wherever possible, and with other democracies that make the same assessment of our threat. That is why it is so important that we invest in our defence capabilities.

We are making the largest sustained increase to defence spending. We have boosted defence spending by £5 billion this year, and we are committed to spending 4.1% of our GDP by 2027, and 5% by 2035. I commend that strongly given the international circumstances that we face. It is so important that we achieve that, and we must educate our constituents about why that is. In this House, it is important that we bring the right scrutiny to our defence decisions.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

No, I will not. Please sit down.

It is important that we bring the right scrutiny to our decisions and our defence strategy. It is important, too, that across the House we conduct ourselves in an appropriate fashion. In advancing our defence and security, with the decisions that are pursuant to that, the House should be united. Given the ways in which our society has been disunited, we need as a House to come together and find solutions in a cross-party way.

This year we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day; 80 years have passed, but memory is not enough. Imagine a world without victory in Europe—a world where tyranny had triumphed and darkness endured. Now look at the world today—a world where autocracies dominate, divide and deceive, and where freedom is retreating. We all owe those who fought and those who fell more than remembrance, and we owe those who carried that loss nothing less than vigilance. That means vigilance against those autocracies and against the risk of misjudgment, miscalculation and misadventure.

All of us in this House have an important role to play in the defence decisions of this Government. That means being a strong democracy, cohering our society, strengthening the institutions of our state, growing economically, securing our clean home-grown energy, investing in new technologies and equipping our military with the tools and technologies that it needs. It means being a true ally and telling our allies around the world when things are not working. It means giving them reasons to listen by growing in strength and purpose. We must speak with the affection and wisdom of an old country that has known what it is to rise, to navigate uncertainty, to be attacked at home, to know the blessings of freedom being imperilled, and to decline from great power but none the less to work with allies and partners to secure freedom in our world against very difficult circumstances.

UK Military Base Protection

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

In my hon. Friend’s short time in this House, she has become a real champion of our armed forces—not just in her constituency, but across the country. She is right to pay tribute to SJC in Aldershot; General Charlie Collins is a superb leader of that part of our armed forces. The SDR makes it very clear that we wish to further enhance and upgrade the capabilities of UK homeland defence, and we will do so.

In relation to the security improvements that the review will seek to identify, that work will be based on the incident at Brize Norton, but it will also look at the threats that we face not just at that particular RAF base, but at all UK military establishments. I am certain that I will be back in the House to report on progress in due course.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Given the manner of infiltration at RAF Brize Norton, I am concerned that the MPGS across the defence estate is neither resourced sufficiently nor given the authorisation to engage potential saboteurs. The scope of its role allows lethal force to be used only if there is a direct threat to life. RAF Wyton in my constituency, which has the same issue, is protected by the MPGS and augmented by serving personnel. Given the sensitive information that it provides as the home of defence intelligence, can the Minister offer a guarantee that security levels there will be ramped up? Furthermore, RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury are both in my constituency. As USAFE—US air forces in Europe—bases, they operate under US rules of engagement, so lethal force is permitted at a far lower level. Why are US bases in the UK defended to a higher level?

[Luke Pollard]

In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I praise the hon. Gentleman for making a huge contribution to the way in which we look at defence in his short time here. We have made no cuts to the MPGS since taking office; indeed, the opposite is true: we seek to enhance and further support it. The review that the Defence Secretary has commissioned will look at all military bases, at what lessons can be learned from this incident and at how we can improve. To date, there has been a lot of focus on article 5 of the NATO treaty and how we will come to the aid of others if attacked, but we should have an equal focus on article 3 and how we ensure our own homeland defence. That is something that the SDR makes very clear, and this Government take implementing it very seriously.

Points of Order

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary:

“In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?”

Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—

Strategic Defence Review

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We will indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case for that organisation, but it is one among many. We are involving the voices of forces families in our defence housing strategy, and we will do the same in other areas, which will help us to put forces families and forces personnel at the heart of our defence plans.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan, published earlier this year, outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions, and we have not yet committed to a second tranche. What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A, despite the decline in its fully mission-capable rate with the US air force, and—following on from my many written questions—what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR, which would also extend their range and therefore increase their survivability in a near-peer conflict?

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman’s question comes from a heartfelt and personal belief in nuclear disarmament. On this side of the House, we support international disarmament obligations to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. I gently say to him, however, and to all hon. Members, that we are facing increased nuclear threats as a nation not just from established nuclear powers, but from the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, especially as that technology becomes more mobile, portable and miniaturised. It was precisely for that reason that that featured as part of the strategic defence review that the Defence Secretary will detail further shortly.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are not due to hit 2.5% of GDP for two years, and 3% is by no means guaranteed. With the continuous at sea deterrent ringfenced, spending on conventional forces is well under 2% and in the bottom third of NATO countries. Introducing an air-launched nuclear weapon into our arsenal is a significant change to our doctrine and might fundamentally change the way that all our forces operate. We spend less on defence than other NATO nations with a nuclear deterrent, so when will we achieve parity regarding spending on conventional forces specifically?

[Luke Pollard]

I am normally reasonably impressed by the hon. Gentleman on defence matters, but let me say politely that we have £5 billion extra in the defence budget this financial year thanks to the decisions by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. By 2027, we will have over £13 billion more in cash terms compared with the situation that his party left. When it comes to increasing defence spending, we are doing it three years earlier. It is worth reminding him that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government. It is something that his party never achieved for a single day when it was in power.