Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member has just said, and I thank him. However, all I am highlighting is that, on past performance, going from PowerPoints to ships at sea in nine years with several classes of ship seems extremely risky. Moreover, the DIP sets aside only £1.3 billion in the first funded period to set up those ships. The remainder of the investment falls beyond 2030. I want to move to autonomy because it is the right thing to do, but that seems like an incredibly risky bet.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Martin]

I will make some progress because I am having eyes made at me by Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DIP commits £8.6 billion to the global combat air programme, which is the sixth-generation fighter jet that we are building with Italy and Japan. Realistically, we will get the jets in service sometime after 2040. They are manned fighter jets. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds forward to beyond Putin’s death—he will probably be buried by that point—and ask themselves whether, in 2040, humans will be flying fighter jets. I think the answer is no. The Minister is a former pilot, so he will always argue for humans in fighter jets, but I will present my argument.

When we dig into GCAP, we find that it is a crewed rather than an uncrewed system because that is what our Japanese partners wanted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about cultural change as much as adopting technology. If we were to adopt even the very simplest AI models now in how we do procurement, and move on to the next generation, we would find that the system speeds up, efficiencies are made and the right kit gets into the right hands far quicker than it does now.

Ultimately, rearmament is not about preparing for war because we expect it; it is about ensuring that war never happens in the first place. The purpose of rearmament is deterrence, and deterrence rests on three foundations: capable armed forces, political resolve and the industrial capacity to sustain both. If any one of those is missing, deterrence becomes far less credible when faced with an autocratic nation with huge industrial resilience. As we discuss rearmament today, let us think beyond platforms, procurement and spending lines. The defining lesson of modern conflict is that warfighting readiness is not simply a military condition; it is a national condition.

[Calum Miller]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a unique position to advise the House on his assessment of the DIP as published. Can he give us his view on whether the quantity of funds provided and the certainty of the period over which they will be provided are sufficient to achieve the kind of industrial step change that he is advocating in his excellent speech?

[Al Carns]

I have been clear, since several weeks ago, that I was not content with the funding for the DIP or the transformational nature of it. I have been really encouraged in the last couple of weeks by the speed at which it is moving. We need to move more, and I think the spending review in due course will round that off. My perspective is that we must not underestimate the level of change that is required. This is systemic within the Department and within the single services, and it has to move a quantum leap forward—no pun intended—if we are going to deliver the change that is required.

If Britain wants armed forces that are capable of fighting and winning, we must build a country that can endure, adapt and sustain them. In modern conflict, as Ukraine has taught us, the line between the military and civilian worlds has all but disappeared. That is what true readiness looks like, and that is the challenge before us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

There has been an abhorrent loss of life; children must never be the victims of war. We have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Licences are kept under continuous review. For operational security reasons, we do not offer comment on or information relating to foreign nations’ routine military movements.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Local residents, including service personnel living in my constituency, are deeply concerned by the proposal to create a new asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, who is currently in his place on the Front Bench, promised me last week that there would be absolute transparency for the affected communities. Will the Minster clarify when MOD officials first began speaking to the Home Office about the proposal; whether any—and if so, how many—contracts have been issued by the MOD to assess the site; and whether any serving personnel, MOD staff or MOD contractors are under non-disclosure agreements in respect of the proposal?

[Luke Pollard]

The Prime Minister asked all Departments to step up to support the cross-Government mission to close asylum hotels. The Ministry of Defence has done so, making available a number of sites that we no longer use for military purposes. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with my colleague, the Minister for Asylum, to discuss this further.

Armed Forces Bill

Calum Miller Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?

[Calum Miller]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I quite agree with him that the work of our brave service personnel in the bomb disposal units and those who train them—as I say, at the Bicester garrison in my constituency—deserve to be celebrated. I would resist the temptation to say that I hope everybody’s Armed Forces Day go off with a bang.

The skill and commitment of our armed forces reflect the best of us, and it is a privilege to speak today on this Bill. I believe there is much in the Bill that should be welcomed and that deserves our support. Crucially, it renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty across Government, introduces a Defence Housing Service to oversee and implement improvements in the quality of accommodation for our troops, and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has energetically taken the Government to task for their spending pledges, yet I regret that the Conservatives did not apply the same energy to supporting and protecting our armed forces during their time in office. The scandalously poor quality of service personnel housing serves as the clearest evidence that they allowed a dogmatic commitment to outsourcing to blind them to how they were failing our armed forces.

[Matt Turmaine]

I recently visited a 92-year-old constituent in Watford who had been terribly concerned about the state of the housing provided for her grandson, which is obviously a consequence of the previous Government’s tenure. As a result of the work of this Labour Government, his housing situation is greatly improved. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the trajectory is at least in the right direction?

[Calum Miller]

It is important that we sustain progress in that direction. The Defence Housing Service, to which I have referred, must do that, and I will come on later in my remarks to comment, in common with others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, on some of the challenges that might be faced if the right capital is not provided.

If we are serious about reversing the calamitous decline in recruitment and retention under the Conservatives, we must renew and reinforce the covenant with service personnel and their families.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Calum Miller]

I will not for the moment. I will, if I may, make a bit more progress.

It is equally vital, however, to give our armed forces confidence that the Government are serious about expanding our military capabilities, and we cannot do that without a credible defence investment plan. The outgoing Prime Minister allowed his office to brief that this document would be published before the NATO summit on 7 July. Today, Labour appears more concerned by who gets a seat at the Cabinet table than about actually governing the country. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether that commitment to publish the plan in the next fortnight is made by the Government, or merely by the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street?

Once the DIP is finally published, it is critical that Ministers can be held to account for its implementation, and for the costs that the delay in its publication has already caused for UK businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises are desperate to contribute to our national defence, but their survival has been jeopardised by delays to the DIP. New clauses 21 and 22 would guarantee this necessary transparency, requiring the Government to produce two reports a year to provide an update on the delivery of the DIP and a report on the impact of its delay on business.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

We should not let everything that is happening in Westminster today distract us from the urgent need to safeguard our national defence. New clause 22 would highlight the result of the defence investment plan being long overdue. Does my hon. Friend agree that our understanding is that we still expect the defence investment plan to be delivered before the NATO summit and before the selection of a prospective new Labour Prime Minister?

[Calum Miller]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. As I was underscoring, he is quite right to say that so many in the defence industry are holding on for the announcement of the DIP. There are many companies in the supply chains whose very survival depends on it, and I urge the Government to recommit to publishing the DIP before 7 July.

Turning to the wider Bill, there are several important areas for improvement, and I will start with how we recruit and retain service personnel across our military, how we treat those who have left, and how we strengthen our understanding of the reasons why they have left. This priority requires a long-term plan. That is why our new clause 13 would mandate the publication of a retention strategy, alongside the Bill, outlining the Government’s plan to ensure we can attract and keep talent in the military for longer. Our new clause 14 would also require an independent review to identify and examine factors such as diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing.

On housing, I am pleased that Ministers have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to bring service family accommodation under the decent homes standard. We were troubled, however, to hear that delaying the implementation of this commitment was one of the Treasury’s ruses to help fund the DIP. I am sure the Minister agrees that that would be short-sighted, so I invite her to recommit to achieving the decent homes standard for SFA properties before the standard comes into force. We also want the Government to take the next step by applying the same standard to single living accommodation, too. That is what amendment 13 would do, helping to deliver for about 80,000 single and unaccompanied service personnel.

[Ian Roome]

It is a big misconception that single living accommodation in the forces is primarily for those who are single; it is not. Even at the flag-raising ceremony here in Westminster today, most of those in uniform told me that their wives live in a different part of the country, and they are living in single living accommodation. They are not living in family accommodation, but they do have families. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this investment, we should be upgrading single living accommodation, too?

[Calum Miller]

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I see nodding their heads those around the Chamber who, having served in our armed forces, know this accommodation better than me. It is critical that our service personnel, whether they are single, living away from their families or living in family accommodation, have a right to decent housing, and I hope the Government will stand by that commitment.

[Alex Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Calum Miller]

If the hon. Member does not mind, I will make a bit more progress.

Let me now turn to veteran support. Service personnel transitioning out of the forces and into civilian life need vastly more support to ensure a smooth transition. In my own constituency, I have heard just in the last six months from two families deeply affected by the abject failure to link up military and civilian medical records. Two of my constituents were denied, as veterans, the care and support they deserved for physical and mental health damage sustained in fighting for our nation. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) has been assiduous in responding to me and I am in no doubt of her personal commitment. However, I think she would agree that such cases highlight system-wide problems that must be tackled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful if there was a specific requirement, written into the Bill, for the classification of domestic abuse offences? I refer to my new clause 24 on this very matter.

[Calum Miller]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for her excellent point, and I endorse her advocacy for new clause 24. It would indeed have that beneficial effect, bringing the service justice system in line with that in the civilian courts.

The amendments I have spoken to do not seek to unravel the Bill, but rather to encourage the Government to go further. I hope the Minister will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant and that the Government will support them.

[Luke Akehurst]

The Bill is perhaps one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that Parliament regularly debates, as it renews the mandate for a standing Army on a five-yearly basis. It has therefore been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee established to scrutinise it.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for pointing out the convention that one should address the opening speech, and the new clauses moved in it, because that gives me the opportunity to say—I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not in his place, because it would have been a delight to cross swords with him metaphorically—that I am really quite flabbergasted that in new clauses 1 and 2 the right hon. Member has managed to insert issues relating to the middle east into a debate that is primarily about the welfare of the armed forces here in the UK. It was extremely imaginative of him to manage to do that, which perhaps indicates a degree of dedication to one particular policy area that is in some ways commendable and in other ways slightly disturbing. I am sorry he is not here, because I would have been delighted to have taken an intervention from him on that subject. Just in case he scrutinises what I have said, I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I once again pay tribute to the armed forces community across the North Durham constituency. As I have noted at every opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, North Durham is home to a considerable number of veterans, as well as the families of service personnel. It was an honour yesterday to speak at the flag raising ceremony in Stanley Front Street for Armed Forces Week. We are so into Armed Forces Week in North Durham that we have two ceremonies—one at the start of the week and one at the end of the week—and this year it was my honour to be at the one at the start of the week. I pay tribute to Stanley town council and the Durham Light Infantry Association for their role in that ceremony. You could really see the pride that people in North Durham take in their connection to the armed forces. I am always seeking to use my platform here to advocate for those who serve our country, and I have taken every opportunity, such as serving on the Bill’s Select Committee, to play a role in advancing policy that helps our armed forces community.

The Labour Government introduced the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on their pledge to renew the contract between the state and the armed forces community. The Bill will deliver for veterans, serving personnel and the next generation of our armed forces by making key strides forward on the covenant, housing and service justice, as well as bolstering our defensive capabilities by changing reservist criteria—at the request of reservists, I might add—and giving the Government powers to tackle drone activity. I believe the parliamentary scrutiny the Bill has had, by the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, will make it even stronger than it was at the start.

I pay tribute to the Government for engaging so constructively with the Bill Select Committee and for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations, resulting in 81 Government amendments to further strengthen the legislation in Committee of the Whole House. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) for their tireless work. They have consistently stood up for what is right, not only for our armed forces community but for our country. From their service as Ministers to making the case for the increased defence spending to adequately protect the British people and, ultimately, to the very honourable decision they took to resign, I hope their decision will have encouraged the Government so that when we finally see the defence investment plan, the quantum and content of it will reflect the political sacrifice they have made in standing down.

I welcome the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), with full confidence in their ability to step up and continue to do the right thing by serving personnel and veterans. All of us in this House should wish them well. They are doing hugely important work on the final stages of getting agreement on the DIP. Whatever the politics going on in Whitehall around that, we wish them all the very best in that process. They are taking on huge responsibility at a time when this country faces really severe threats. I repeat that I pay tribute to their predecessors, but I also pay tribute to them for stepping up and taking on these hugely important responsibilities at a time when it could not be more important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it.

I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK-based companies.

[Calum Miller]

The Minister has just said that the Government intend to keep the House regularly updated on these matters, but she declined the Liberal Democrat amendment that would set out that commitment in the Bill. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box that the Government will report, within six months of the enactment of the Bill, on the delays caused by the delay to the DIP, and the impact that they have had on the economy?

Defence Readiness

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I know Members across the House will join me and the Prime Minister, who did so earlier, in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, a gifted soldier and horsewoman who died on Friday—a young leader, a young life taken too soon.

His Majesty opened his Gracious Speech with a warning:

“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.

As we debate our response in this Chamber, our armed forces are on missions across the world, facing down those threats, strengthening our alliances, defending our overseas bases and overseas territories, and preparing for missions to the High North, the strait of Hormuz and a post-ceasefire Ukraine. Our armed forces are working around the clock, protecting our homeland, our allies and our interests, equipped with some of the most advanced capabilities in the world.

The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz is hurting all our constituents right across this country. They see it in their newsfeeds, feel it at the petrol pumps and pay for it through rising bills. This Government are determined to do all we can to end that pain as soon as we can. We have stepped up to lead a multinational response. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have built and co-chair a new 40-nation coalition, united in our mission to secure the strait of Hormuz as soon as a lasting ceasefire is in place. The UK’s armed forces are leading the way, deploying advanced autonomous minehunting equipment and new uncrewed boats and drones, and working alongside the heavy metal of HMS Dragon deploying to the middle east with its cutting-edge Sea Viper counter-drone system. That is because innovation, hard power and the ability to sustain it are the currency of our more dangerous and unpredictable age. Hard power is the essential building block of effective deterrence, and our deterrence is our insurance policy against the growing threats we face as a nation. That is why this Government are investing in hard power—investing over £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. Defence innovation is working twice: once for national security and once for British industry. That is the Labour way.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Minister makes a strong case for hard power, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the investment in British defence. However, he also knows that generals on both sides of the Atlantic have made the case that investment in development is necessary to prevent conflict. In fact, they say that prevention is better than military intervention. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no further cuts to the international development budget in the forthcoming period?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member knows as well as I do that we have a commitment to get back to 0.7% of GDP on international aid when we can, but I remember his party in government cutting defence spending as well. I appreciate what he is trying to say, but let us unite now in understanding that the threats we face today require investment in defence and an increasing defence budget, and that is what this Government are delivering.

Investing more in our armed forces and those who wield the hard power is this Government’s approach; investing more in our defence industry that develops and sustains it is this Labour Government’s approach; and investing more in our alliances which multiply that hard power is this Labour Government’s approach.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world.

While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required.

As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure?

The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?

Middle East: Defence

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right to underline the statement and the commitment the Chancellor made this afternoon to this House. He is also right to point out that while the US may be our closest ally, as the Prime Minister has said, it is for the Prime Minister and the British Government to decide what is in Britain’s best national interests.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I listened very carefully to what he had to say about the authorisation for the US to use UK bases and his confirmation that there are UK personnel embedded with US operations in the region. With that in mind, it seems all the more important that this Government are entirely clear on the limits of the consent they have given to operating with the US. On Monday last week, US Defence Secretary Hegseth mocked the idea of rules of engagement and said that he wanted to seek “maximum lethality”. On Saturday, President Trump then said that new areas and groups of people would be under serious consideration for “complete destruction”. What confidence does the Secretary of State have that the US is following the same rules of engagement that he believes are legal for the UK?

[John Healey]

I have the fullest confidence. These arrangements for access, basing and overflight are well established. The relations between the US and the UK are very close. We have operated them together before, and we are doing so now.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said?

Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer I just gave to the Chair of the Defence Committee about the procurement process. As I set out, the decision was made by the Secretary of State alone; he has been clear about that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK has a strong security and defence partnership with the United States. We are clear that we will continue to invest in that strong security and defence partnership, while we deepen partnerships with our European friends and allies further afield. On data, UK defence data used and developed in Palantir software remains sovereign to the UK and under the control of the MOD, and it resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear, contractual controls in place to ensure that, and we have control of the data system that Palantir software sits on. No change can be made to that without the consent of the MOD.

Russian Ship Yantar

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

May I begin by joining the Minister in thanking our service personnel for their bravery and dedication? The use of lasers in this instance was a brazen act of aggression by Russia that endangered the lives of RAF pilots. Have the Government identified the Russian officials and military personnel who gave the order to engage so that they can be held accountable and sanctioned? What assurances can the Minister give that Russia understands the consequences of repeating this aggression towards the UK?

This episode has shown once again the lengths to which Putin will go to undermine Britain’s defence. It follows the reports of Russian sabotage of Poland’s civilian railway this week. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations Ministers have had with fellow European Ministers to agree a collective response to Russia’s hybrid attacks, including to protect Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure? Recognising also that our Ukrainian allies are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression, will the Minister take forward my private Member’s Bill, which calls for the unilateral seizure of Russian assets in the UK so that they can be used to fund Ukraine’s defence?

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member brings up a really valid point: the Yantar and the GUGI programme is not just a UK issue; nor are the asymmetric threats that we collectively face across Europe. They are international issues. GUGI vessels operate all over the world. We will collectively work together to gather evidence and show Russia that we know exactly what it is up to, and indeed expose any nefarious activity. I would like Members to be in absolutely no doubt that we will hold people, states and organisations to account should any of our critical national infrastructure be threatened in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

We have already heard about the sentencing last week of Warrant Officer Michael Webber for the sexual assault of Gunner Jaysley Beck, and I am sure that all who heard them were deeply moved by the dignified words of Jaysley’s parents as they described how that abuse and the failure to address it contributed to her death five months later. Will the Minister for Veterans and People, whose personal commitment to these issues is not in question, update the House on the implementation in full of the Atherton report’s recommendations, and specifically on creating a fully independent complaints procedure and providing access to civilian courts for sexual abuse offences?

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

As the hon. Member will be aware, the Ministry of Defence accepted 33 of the Committee’s recommendations, partially accepted a further four recommendations and noted 13 points that were conclusions rather than recommendations. There are three recommendations that we are not implementing, but it must be stressed that we are instead taking action to address the underlying concerns of those recommendations in other ways. The remaining 33 recommendations have been addressed through both Defence and single service activity delivered over the past two years.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by warmly welcoming the announcement of this deal. It will generate jobs for a skilled and dedicated workforce here in the UK and generate much-needed growth, while contributing to the security and deterrence capability of the NATO alliance. The Government are right to see Türkiye as a key strategic partner in the Black sea and, as a NATO member, as an essential partner in our collective efforts to contain Putin’s imperial ambitions by defending our eastern flank.

Yet even as we recognise our shared security interests, we must be clear on Ankara’s actions when they depart from our values and standards. The continued detention of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, which is widely believed to be politically motivated, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Türkiye. Can the Minister confirm whether he or the Prime Minister raised concerns about Mayor İmamoğlu’s continued detention while concluding this deal, and if not, will the Minister call on the Foreign Secretary to raise this with her Turkish counterpart at the earliest opportunity?

This deal speaks to the strategic imperative of deepening ties with our security partners across Europe and our alliance network. In May, the Government trumpeted their new security framework with the European Union—a move that the Liberal Democrats welcomed. However, five months on, it is not clear what progress, if any, the Government have made to flesh out the substance of the framework. Can the Minister please provide an update on what steps have been taken since May to strengthen security ties with the EU? In particular, will he commit the UK to membership of the European Defence Agency to support a joined-up approach to collective rearmament with our European allies?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome of this deal. The message that goes out loud and clear to the workforce of not just BAE Systems, but the entire supply chain, is one of cross-party support for their work that this statement has announced.

On the question of the Istanbul mayor, it is not for the Ministry of Defence to comment on individual legal cases in other countries. Our defence engagement with Türkiye is focused on shared security interests and NATO co-operation. However, I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will ask the Foreign Office, which leads on that matter, to update him.

I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister, at this Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions today, remark on the importance of the EU reset deal, our commitment as part of that deal to defence and security arrangements between the UK and the EU, and the progress we are seeking to make in forming closer ties with the EU. The hon. Gentleman will know that those negotiations are ongoing with our EU friends, and we hope to have updates shortly. However, let me say very clearly that our EU friends are also our NATO allies, and there is real common cause and a common opportunity to strengthen our collective defence by working together.