Gurkha Veterans

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.

I rise to speak on the subject of support for Gurkha veterans and their dependants. As I speak, Ghanendra Limbu is in hospital, where for two weeks, he has helped me put together this story in a manner that I hope will be befitting. I hope the House will join me in wishing him a swift and full recovery.

Nepal is a country smaller than the UK, bordered by global giants China to its north and India to its south. Its highest point is Mount Everest, and it is from Nepal that for over 200 years, the UK has drawn some of its most resilient, courageous and loyal soldiers. Ghanendra was born in the mountainous village of Khamalung, which has a population of 900, on 27 January 1960. Like many across Nepal, he grew up in poverty, despite both parents working long hours as farmers. His ambition was to one day join the Gurkhas and serve alongside the British Army, as some of his uncles and cousins did—it would be a route out of poverty and into a life of expedition—but it was an ambition shared by hundreds of thousands of young Nepalese.

At school, Ghanendra excelled in football and basketball, but his English was also exceptional, which would soon prove pivotal to his future. In 1977, he travelled to the recruiting centre near Kathmandu and applied to join the Gurkhas. The recruitment process was robust and highly contested; there were tens of thousands of applicants to join a brigade only 8,000 strong. Ghanendra was the only person from his village to pass selection. His parents were immensely proud of their son, but his success meant that he would soon leave his family behind to travel to Hong Kong and begin 11 months of training. In Hong Kong, Ghanendra—with his rural background—learned how to survive in conflict and operate various weapon systems; that included learning how to wield the Nepali kukri in hand-to-hand combat. His field engineer training then took him to Kitchener barracks in Kent, where he trained as a driver and a field engineer.

Throughout this period of training, Ghanendra and his fellow Gurkhas were vaguely aware of the increasing tensions between Argentina and the UK over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. On completion of his training, he was assigned to the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, which provided the British Army with builders, plumbers and electricians. Ghanendra was selected to train as an electrician, but before he could begin his specialist training, on 2 April 1982, Argentina seized the Falkland Islands, 10,000 miles from Nepal. As Ghanendra recalls, he could barely identify the islands on a map. Britain declared war, and Ghanendra’s platoon commander immediately reassigned him to pre-deployment training.

On 12 May 1982, eight days after HMS Sheffield was sunk with the loss of 20 personnel, the British ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 embarked for the south Atlantic, carrying Gurkhas, Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Later, at Ascension Island, 21162121 Sapper Limbu and his fellow engineers boarded, and he recalls being ordered to prepare to fight immediately on arrival into theatre. Most of them had never travelled by sea, and were constantly sick over the next 11 days. Until 14 June, over the course of the war, during which Britain lost six ships, Ghanendra and his engineers remained aboard the QE2, knowing day and night that they too could be attacked. They remained aboard long after the war ended, to clear ordnance, which littered battlefields across the islands, but Ghanendra states that he was never trained in minefield clearance.

On 1 December 1982, Ghanendra was attached to 49 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers, and was deployed by helicopter to Two Sisters hill. Members of 49 EOD located an unexploded Russian anti-aircraft rocket and began to initiate a cordon. Ghanendra was closest to that rocket when it detonated. He regained consciousness at Port Stanley hospital, several hours after evacuation, where he was told by a doctor that he would lose his eye, and that his hands and legs were badly injured. He was told, before he passed out, that he would be returned to the UK for treatment.

Ghanendra was first moved to Ascension Island on 4 December, where he received further treatment, and he remembers being unable to pass urine. He remembers being given another injection, before regaining consciousness at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich. He was blind in both eyes for two weeks, during which he was operated on by Colonel Youngson, who told him he was lucky to have survived at all. Following six months of treatment, Ghanendra lost one of his eyes, but retained sight in the other, and he kept limited use of his hands and legs.

Throughout those six months, Ghanendra cried day and night. His hopes of a long Army career as an electrician were over at 22. “The Magician”, as he was described by his team-mates on the battalion basketball team, would never play basketball again, and his days on the right wing of a football pitch were over, too. After his discharge from hospital, Ghanendra returned to Kitchener barracks, wanting to seek legal advice, but he was ordered not to leave camp. In 1983, he was told he was no longer fit for the Army and was flown back to Hong Kong. He was physically and psychologically broken, and would have nothing to offer back in Nepal. He was offered a partial pension by the UK Government, amounting to 40%. It was worth 500 rupees—less than £2.50 in today’s money. The UK sent this man, who travelled 10,000 miles to serve the UK in the Falkland Islands, back to Nepal with one eye, a walking stick and £2.50 a month. Shame on us.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The hon. and gallant Member is making an excellent speech, and the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans must never be understated or sidelined. The treatment of Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans in regard to their pensions has been deplorable. The UK Government have rightly recognised veterans’ bravery and their achievements, but that must be translated into respect for their pensions. Does he agree that the UK Government must work at pace and collaboratively with the new Prime Minister of Nepal to resolve these long-standing issues of long-suffering veterans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed contribution. I fully agree, and I will further state that Gurkha veterans, as well as all veterans and members of our armed forces, are lucky to have him as the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and gallant Member on bringing forward this debate. In the time he has been in this House, he has made a significant contribution on Army, Navy and RAF matters, and we thank him for that.

When I was a wee boy—that was not yesterday—I used to read about the exploits of the Gurkhas in magazines or newspapers. I was always moved by their bravery. I never met a Gurkha until I was on an exercise with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They were not that big, but my goodness, they were strong and courageous. The Gurkhas have given their all for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often at great personal cost, as the hon. and gallant Member has outlined. Does he agree that it is only right that we ensure that every veteran, regardless of when they served, receives the dignity, the pension equality and the welfare support that they earned on the battlefield? Does he not agree that words of thanks are just not enough? What they need is practical support, and the Government must demonstrate that in this debate. Today is the first stage in the battle to make that happen.

[Cameron Thomas]

As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his meaningful contribution, and I fully agree with him. It gives me an opportunity to recognise that the Gurkhas’ service boosts the morale of all our armed forces. My prevailing memory of serving with the Gurkhas is that they were constantly smiling, which always lifted the morale of everybody they worked with.

In 2004, Ghanendra’s first application to return to the UK was rejected because he had retired prior to 1997, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign continued to fight for equal settlement rights for all Gurkha soldiers. On 29 April 2009, a Liberal Democrat motion to deliver equal rights to settle for all Gurkha veterans delivered Gordon Brown’s Government a shock defeat. Within one month, the then Home Secretary announced that all Gurkhas who had served for at least four years could settle, but it should never have taken such a prolonged and public campaign, with the backing of Opposition MPs and Labour rebels and only one year out from a general election, to deliver this piece of justice for our veterans.

Ghanendra was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2012, and he moved to Aldershot. He is now 66 years old, totally disabled and clearly unable to work. He survives through food bank donations and the support of Farnborough church members. Notwithstanding the fact that but for a parliamentary anomaly, this country would have kept him hidden away in Nepal, this is a shameful injustice. Ghanendra is tired, desperate and ill. He told me that he wishes he could have his time back—that he could be 22 again, with the use of both of his eyes and his body. I cannot give him that, but I am honoured to be able to speak for him today.

This week I met several other Gurkha veterans in Portcullis House, and all feel a continuing sense of injustice, which I share. A retired warrant officer class 2 of the 10th Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21154152 Phurba Sherpa, told me that he served this country for 20 years and 119 days, yet the years that he served in Asia prior to 1997 were not factored into his accrued pension. A retired infantryman in the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21167476 Bhimraj Tumbahangphe, told me that 18 years of his national insurance contributions, collected by the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas, are not recognised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His pension does not factor into those contributions, and his fellow veterans report the same anomaly. It was further reported to me that the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas sidestepped pension contributions by paying Gurkhas through local overseas allowance while they were based in Brunei and Belize.

Since 2006, Gurkha pensions have been aligned with their comparative armed forces pension schemes—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15—as they always should have been, but service prior to 2005 returned a paltry figure. Bhimraj retired after 18 years in 2003, before the alignment, and the lump sum that his pension accrued amounted to only £3,000. He receives less than £400 a month. The lump sum issued to those on armed forces pension scheme 75 for comparative service, which included Bhim’s brother, a retired staff sergeant, was £78,000. He receives £1,200 as a monthly pension payment.

My Gurkha friends recounted this week that, at the conclusion of the Borneo confrontation in 1966, thousands of Gurkhas who had fought for and served the UK’s interests found themselves superfluous and were discharged from the Brigade of Gurkhas. They were left ineligible for a pension. Those who had served over nine years at discharge were issued a single payment of £360, and those who had served for less than nine years were given £250. Today, thousands of the descendants of these warriors live in the rural regions of Nepal, because they cannot afford to live in Nepalese cities—the dependants and descendants of our veterans, who have been left with barely even a historical footnote.

I was told by my Gurkha friends that the Home Office, under this Government, almost exclusively refuses visitor visas for relatives of Gurkha veterans living in the UK. I was told that, since 2019, Department for Work and Pensions rules state that those receiving benefits may leave the UK for a maximum of only 28 days continuously. This timeline is especially prohibitive for Gurkha veterans wanting to visit their families in rural Nepal; it can take over a week to reach these regions as, having transited the airbridge to a major settlement, doing so demands journeys of hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain by road and foot.

I have some questions for the Minister, but I will put them forward at a later point, because I am conscious of time. In closing, I want to recognise the dedication of the Gurkhas, as I have observed, on behalf of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nepal, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). She apologises that she cannot be here this afternoon, otherwise she would, I know, have contributed with a genuine and heartfelt speech.

I thank the hon. Member for organising a marking of remembrance at the memorial to the Brigade of Gurkhas in November 2025. She offered me the honour of laying the wreath at that service, which I proudly accepted. When I placed the wreath, I took a moment to read the inscription beneath the feet of the Gurkha Soldier. It reads:

“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”

I want to believe that comment is genuine, and that the reasons for the injustices are that they are so numerous, so complex and so historical that they persist not through lack of will, but through lack of understanding. I want to believe that the relationship between the UK and the Gurkhas is one of friendship, not one of exploitation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have seen very well-mannered contributions from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and DUP Members, including the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), with her ode to the Gurkhas. We heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—history will remember him as a man who stood on his principles—and from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph).

We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who is also a fan of Gurkha cuisine. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), is a student of military history, and he always expresses himself with such character. I always enjoy my conversations with the Minister, and I am thankful to him for turning up today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was perfectly short and sweet.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.

Defence

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

There was no question in that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that the Government need to get on and deliver the defence investment plan. To be fair, MPs from across the House have said so, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. We all know that it is in the national interest for the DIP to be published.

After all, the defence investment plan being delayed has consequences, the most serious of which are for our military personnel, who we want to have the best equipment for their job. In taking the decision to pause urgent procurement and instead boil the ocean, the Defence Secretary walked into a Treasury trap. Procurement has been on hold ever since, and the Ministry of Defence has been forced to focus on in-year savings, including £2.6 billion for this year alone. Such penny-pinching explains why, until HMS Dragon finally arrived on the scene, we had no warships in the middle east for the first time in decades.

One of the most critical consequences of the delay to DIP is the Sea Viper Evolution procurement. The fact that a US destroyer intercepted at least one of the missiles that Iran fired at our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia underlines how important it is that our Type 45s are able defend against the most advanced threats. For the UK, that requires the Sea Viper Evolution upgrade for our Type 45 destroyers.

In my own SDR submission as shadow Defence Secretary, through numerous speeches in the House and in many written questions, I have repeatedly urged the Government to accelerate Sea Viper Evolution as a priority for our munitions plan. I am sure that members of the public who are watching this debate, worried about Iran’s attack on Diego Garcia, would expect such a capability to have been ordered as rapidly as possible. However, in a written answer this January, when I was once again chasing this critical upgrade, I received the inevitable response that continued progress on Sea Viper Evolution remains

“subject to the defence investment plan.”

That is the problem in a nutshell—the impact of Labour’s procurement freeze in real time. The reality is that Sea Viper Evolution is not due to reach full operating capability until late 2032.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

At Defence questions last week, the Secretary of State said that the delay to the defence investment plan was not holding up important investment plans, which came as a surprise to me, given that right now there are UK personnel on NATO’s border with Russia without specific equipment that would otherwise have been procured in my own constituency. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the delay is in fact having significant impacts on defence procurement?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a gallant gentleman who served in the Royal Air Force, knows exactly what he is talking about. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is having a real impact, and it is not just me saying that.

The serious consequence of this paralysis is our brilliant defence industry hanging on by its fingertips. This morning, I addressed a roundtable attended by many defence primes and small and medium-sized enterprises in Westminster. They are the experts at the coalface, and they spoke of British defence companies going abroad or even having to close because of delays to the defence investment plan, and a defence industry under strain when it should be firing on all cylinders.

When it comes to consequences, on a personal basis, what I find most disheartening of all is the impact of this paralysis on our ability to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine. I am incredibly proud of how, in government, the Conservatives stood by Ukraine even before Putin invaded.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I hope that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and will perhaps review that decision in future.

Reducing certainty for British defence companies is not what we need to be doing right now, which is why we need a defence investment plan. We are eroding our sovereign capability, weakening the supply chains, putting skilled jobs at risk, and ultimately undermining our national security. There must be no more hesitation and no more delay. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before the end of this Session? The Minister should need no reminding of the need for urgency, given the collection of threats that we face. Trump has cast doubt on NATO’s article 5 and trampled on international law, with illegal attacks in Venezuela and Iran—attacks that the Conservatives and Reform have backed uncritically.

[Cameron Thomas]

President Trump recently derided the UK as cowards for not joining his directionless operation in Iran—a pretty hollow statement for a draft dodger who understands neither courage nor calculation. Regardless, does my hon. Friend agree that, based on comments from the Leader of the Opposition just a month ago, under a Conservative Government we would now be engaged in offensive operations in a war for which there seems to be no plan and without the preparedness that this motion calls for?

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

It would be a chance to back our armed forces, our security and Britain. We know that properly funding our nation’s security is critical to meeting the threats of this new and unprecedented era, and we also need to ensure that defence funding can generate wider growth in our economy. That is exactly what those bonds would deliver, supporting jobs and an expansion of our defence industrial base across Britain.

Do not just take my word for it; we need to listen to the voice of British industry, academics and financial institutions. In the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ September 2025 green budget, it was clear that borrowing for defence could lead to higher growth, particularly when that additional defence spending is investment heavy. We also need to recognise that the long-term regeneration of our armed forces will require even higher and sustained increases to defence spending—up to 3%. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to commit to cross-party talks to agree a shared approach to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will be open-minded about those talks.

We must look to secure and expand the UK’s involvement with financial instruments that offer cheap, new access to defence finance. That is why the Government must re-examine the negotiations to enter the Security Action for Europe fund. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a direct role in getting British access to that. Will the Minister update us on negotiations for access to that fund?

[Cameron Thomas]

Given the virulence of threats and chastisement from Washington towards European allies—including the UK—and, further, given the UK’s lack of access to the EU’s SAFE fund, which would otherwise support our rearmament, does my hon. Friend recognise that leaving the European Union was a historic mistake that has gravely undermined UK sovereignty?

[James MacCleary]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The SAFE fund is a good illustration of what it means to be outside the club.

The Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces for a decade; now they want struggling families to pay for the repairs. What we need is a serious plan. The Government must publish a defence investment plan, back it with defence bonds and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Our armed forces have been let down for too long by Conservative cuts, by Government delays and by a failure of political will. They deserve better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Let us be absolutely clear: any money lost to fraud is money that people have taken away from our national security and our national defences, and that is unacceptable. The Department is looking at how we can continuously improve our anti-fraud measures, and we will continue to do so. As we roll out increased defence spending, it is even more important that we spend the money wisely.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to ensure the autonomy of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

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

The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent—only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons, even if they are deployed as part of a wider NATO response—and £15 billion is being invested in the sovereign warhead programme over the course of this Parliament.

[Cameron Thomas]

If the Government want to make inroads into the EU Security Action for Europe fund via Emmanuel Macron, they could do worse than recognise the foresight of Charles de Gaulle, whose suspicion of the United States has been fully vindicated by Washington’s national security strategy. The French nuclear deterrent is the only truly independent nuclear deterrent. What steps are the Government taking to minimise the UK’s reliance on the US for nuclear deterrent servicing?

[Luke Pollard]

Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. It supports thousands of jobs up and down the country. We will continue to invest in the skills and technologies required to keep our continuous nuclear deterrent at sea. We will continue to invest in that sovereign capability, but we will also continue to participate across defence programmes with our partners, both in the United States and in Europe.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The programme was paused under the last Government when problems were identified in relation to noise and vibration, and I think it was right that they made that decision to pause it in order to understand what had happened. They then commissioned work to establish what had gone wrong and what mitigations were required, and it was on the basis of much of that work that I was given an assurance that the platform was safe. In view of the injuries sustained by our service personnel, we are looking at what has been provided to us, in terms of accuracy and timeliness but also to understand what has happened in relation to this incident. I shall be able to say more in due course, when the reviews report.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Under the last Government, the Conservatives signed a contract for £1.5 billion with Boeing to order five E-7 Wedgetail aircraft. The order reportedly circumvented the MOD’s established procurement system, and the RAF is still without an operational platform. The Ajax scandal has dragged on for even longer, and last week a General Dynamics manager used social media to ridicule Army leadership and those personnel who had suffered from excessive noise and vibration while using the Ajax platform. What is the Government’s contingency plan in case this £6.3 billion investment collapses, and, regardless, will they launch an inquiry into both platforms?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Wedgetail. There was a very good debate in Westminster Hall only a few months ago during which a number of the issues relating to the Wedgetail procurement were raised, and the first test flight happened shortly after that.

As for Ajax, it is right for us to take an evidence-based approach that involves looking systematically at the experience of both the vehicles that were potentially causing injuries and those that were not, so we can understand what has happened, and on the back of that we will make a decision on how to proceed. I think that that is the right approach, to be taken calmly and coolly but also professionally. I want the engineering reports to be the priority, and I want those who are working on them to have the time that they need to produce a thorough set of recommendations in respect of what has happened and what needs to happen next.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is, as always, an honour to speak under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward this important debate. I hope the House will join me in recognising my friend Ryan, who is currently coming to the end of his training pipeline, flying solo on Typhoon. That training pipeline included three months sharing a room with me—it has been tough for him.

As a product, the Typhoon is the backbone of our ability to project air power, and the sharp end of the United Kingdom’s quick reaction alert. Beneath that product lie desperately stretched engineering forces at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby. I owe it to those who, not long ago, confided in me to tell the Government clearly that they must prioritise those who sustain our platforms and aircrew, if they are rightly to expand the RAF as it faces the challenges of the coming decades.

Beyond the Royal Air Force, the Typhoon programme has, for decades, sustained UK aerospace engineering, supporting thousands of skilled jobs across the country, including many in Gloucestershire, continuing our rich aerospace heritage. The project, among others, has preserved UK expertise so that we can continue to design, build and upgrade world-leading systems here on our islands.

The Liberal Democrats commend the Government on this deal with our Turkish NATO allies. I extend recognition to the previous Government for initiating the deal. It will create jobs and stimulate much-needed economic growth in the UK, while enhancing NATO’s security and deterrence in this crucial region. Turkey plays a crucial role in our collective effort to defend against Putin’s imperial ambitions, serving NATO as a strategic ally on the Black sea. Eurofighter Typhoon is also, of course, a flagship for European co-operation. As my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have continually raised, it is vital for Britain to have a comprehensive security and defence agreement with our European allies.

We are pleased that the Labour Government have taken steps to secure this deal but, to the surprise of nobody, we call on them to go further. Do the Government consider that the Typhoon expansion will play a part in UK economic growth over the coming decade? Will the UK offer Typhoon to our eastern European partners as a means to access the €150 billion Security Action for Europe defence procurement programme? How are the Government working to broaden UK businesses’ access to skilled engineers, manufacturers and technicians? What are the Government doing to shorten the pilot training pipeline for fast jets?

Although we recognise our shared security interest with Turkey, we must be mindful of the challenges and complexities in our relationship with Ankara, as well as with other strategic allies. The continued detention of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, widely believed to be a politically motivated attack, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Turkey. Will the Government make it clear today whether they raised the issue in negotiations? If they did not, they must raise it with their Turkish counterparts at the earliest opportunity.

As I mentioned during the ministerial statement at the end of last month, I express gratitude to my many constituents who work in GE Aerospace in Bishops Cleeve. They have supported the Typhoon programme from its inception, with cockpit displays and fuel system equipment manufactured in my constituency. I also commend the defence industries across the nation whose innovation and endeavour safeguard our country. Large and small businesses have played an integral part in the process, and it is important that we recognise them all. The Liberal Democrats note that only 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to small and medium enterprises, despite a Government drive to integrate them into procurement: 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers.

Small and medium enterprises are crucial to the UK defence industry, providing flexibility and innovation, and creating a vast network of high-quality jobs across the UK. However, they face unique challenges that limit their potential to contribute fully to defence capability and UK prosperity. The Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for small businesses, starting with more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system.

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats support the deal. We continue to press for further collaboration with our democratic European allies. We would strengthen co-operation through security and economic partnerships, and that should include a customs union with the European Union.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

This Sunday past, remembrance ceremonies and parades were held in Winchcombe and Bishops Cleeve, joined by Scout groups, cadet forces, armed forces personnel, veterans and members of our various branches of the Royal British Legion. It makes me particularly proud to see so many children of all ages marching with our annual parades, just as I once marched, as a cub scout, to a service at St George’s Church at RAF Halton. For the second time as Tewkesbury’s Member of Parliament, I observed a typically moving service at the abbey, led by the great Reverend Nick Davies, before our small but proud town encircled the cross at the top of Church Street and paid its respects, as it always does with such poignance.

I am certain that the act of remembrance is important for those of us who recognise that most noble of traits: selflessness for the benefit of others. In the case of remembrance, we recognise immense courage, facing down one’s own mortality, to defend against tyranny. However, not everyone feels the same way. Three years ago, after attending a remembrance event in Tewkesbury, I joined the family of a close friend for a drink in a restaurant beside the cross. Three of the younger members of his family felt opposed to the act of remembrance, as I recall, owing to its increasing politicisation and the misconception that it was a celebration of conflict. My friend George Porter invited me to explain to them what it meant to me. I recall stating that remembrance is not a celebration of war; the opposite is true. I told them that when I stand before the cross in the centre of Tewkesbury, or the Cenotaph in Westminster, I will be thinking of seven-year-old Shirley Trenchard.

Shirley was born to Royal Navy Petty Officer (Supply) Charles William Staddon Trenchard in 1935. When war with Germany was declared in 1939, he sailed aboard HMS Illustrious. On 10 January 1941, Illustrious suffered sustained bombardment by German aircraft near Malta, and although she remained afloat, she suffered many casualties. My great-grandfather succumbed to his wounds two days later. I think of his service, and of his sacrifice. I try to imagine his war, and how he might have felt during the bombardment of Illustrious. Mostly, though, I imagine a child learning that her father was not coming home, and I reckon with the cost that that war continues to draw from my grandmother, 84 years later. I think of my own daughter, and I hope that we can spare her that torment.

Finally, let me say to this anyone who would heed the words of a washed-up veteran: try not to judge another person for the presence or absence of a poppy, much less for whether the leaf is turned to face 11 o’clock, or to judge a person for whether he or she wears a white poppy. It is the act of remembering itself that is so important. Lest we forget.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I will have to refer to as the Member for valve valley from now on. He raises an important issue about the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to access defence. Over the last decade, the amount of direct MOD spend with SMEs has fallen from 5% to 4%. We have set an ambition to spend an additional £2.5 billion directly with small businesses by 2028. As part of that, we will be opening our office for small business growth at the start of the new year—a one-stop shop for small businesses to access MOD contracts and navigate the procurement system. At the same time, we are seeking to cut the contracting time, which favours large companies with bigger contract teams over small enterprises, to give more small businesses a shot at some of the increasing defence spending that the Government are making available.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

For over 20 years, the Eurofighter Typhoon has showcased the merits of European co-operation and the marvel of UK aerospace engineering. I commend the Government on this deal with our Turkish allies, which will secure British jobs, maintain our expertise in this field and park a squadron of multi-role-capable strike aircraft just south of occupied Crimea. I register my disappointment that the Government’s press release neglected to credit the contribution of many of my constituents who, working with GE Aerospace in Bishops Cleeve, have supported the programme since its inception. Will the Minister take this opportunity to recognise them now?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing his workforce. One of the things that makes this House stand in contrast with some other places around the world is that we can, on a cross-party basis, support our defence industry and the people who are working hard to keep our nation safe, including those who work at GE Aerospace. I will be happy to work with him to thank not just his constituents, but all those in the supply chain who have made such a big difference to securing this deal. I also thank all those people working in sub-prime areas—not in one of the large defence companies—without whom we would not be able to produce the cutting-edge capabilities that our armed forces and our allies rely on. Millions of parts go into each of those platforms and every single one is important. Without them, we would not be able to fly those Typhoons, so the contribution of companies big and small is so important.

Support for Disabled Veterans

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister wants to champion disabled veterans, so does she agree that Mark deserves support now?

Sadly, Mark is one of the many veterans across this country facing systemic challenges. Veterans report feeling unprepared for civilian life after medical discharge, as the system is unclear and inconsistent.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I recently spoke with Gloucestershire resident and British Army veteran Chris, who has been confined to a wheelchair since a jungle warfare training accident in 1998. He spoke of the obstacle of pride, and of how too many personnel decline to seek help until a point of crisis, if ever. He would have benefited from a regimental or service advocate, who could intervene either early on or post discharge to motivate and support those affected before it was too late. Does my hon. Friend agree that such support could help bridge the feeling of abandonment that injured veterans often feel after discharge?

[Liz Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Too often, the system fails to provide a simple, supported handover to civilian healthcare, or advice on housing, employment and benefits. Charities and veterans’ groups are calling for an independent review of the medical discharge process across all services to make it consistent, compassionate and genuinely supportive, so that no disabled veteran falls through the cracks, or is left without the best possible support.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie]

That point was covered before. We have already seen scaremongering from the Opposition about the other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. I hope that the Conservative party will reflect on and apologise for that.

None the less, the previous Government knew that a deal would keep Britain safe. They knew that without a deal, international courts could effectively make the base inoperable, and they knew that that could plant China right on our doorstep. Now, they cannot even say why it was important. They cannot say why they even started the negotiations; several Government Members have raised that point, and not once have the Conservatives been able to say why, other than hiding behind the fact that they are being entirely politically opportunist. They knew all that, and they now pretend that none of it matters. They are playing politics with Britain’s safety.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is rare that I find myself aligned with the Conservative party, but I share its concerns for the structure and veracity of this deal. That being said, does the hon. Member share my bewilderment that the Conservative party has chosen this particular hill to die on, given that the Bill is as much a product of its work as it is of Labour’s?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. At the beginning of the intervention, I was going to point out that there were five years during which the Liberal Democrats were very close to the Conservative party, but I will remove that thought from my head and agree with him. This does seem a very strange hill for the Conservative party to die on, but I am not surprised by the level of hypocrisy we have seen from some Conservative Members.

That is the real hypocrisy. The Conservatives have attacked the cost of this deal, but they will not reveal what their own deal would have cost. Government convention means that their numbers are locked away—secret, hidden, unable to be scrutinised and compared. They will hide and hide. Would Conservative Front Benchers like to give any figure, in any currency of their choosing? What was their number? How much was it going to cost? What was the number on the bottom of the piece of paper after 11 rounds of negotiations? The truth is that this Government secured the deal that the Conservative party knew was critical for our national security, but could not deliver.

While we are talking about costs, let us put this into perspective. As the Minister said in his opening speech, France pays €85 million a year for a base in Djibouti, one that shares a fence with a Chinese naval facility and enjoys none of the security that comes with this Government’s deal on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger, more secure, and delivers unmatched operational freedom for the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what this treaty delivers. It secures Diego Garcia; it locks in control of the land, the sea and the electromagnetic spectrum; and it shuts out foreign militaries from the outer islands. That is a serious deal—a deal that represents value, one that the Tories could never close, but now choose to attack from behind a shield of secrecy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.

It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.

I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.

Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.

The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.

The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.

The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am not yet on the Chinese Communist party’s sanctions list, but perhaps I will be shortly. Does the right hon. Member share my concern about the 99-year lease of the islands, given that some of our adversaries across the world plan and strategise over the very long term, and 99 years is actually a short period of time?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Chinese Government have a long-term plan. In fact, they are very clear about what they wish to do. If anybody does not think that China poses a threat on all these issues, what were they doing last week when, on our television screens, we saw President Xi, with the North Korean dictator on one side and the Russian dictator on the other, talking about a new world order? That continues to be the Chinese Government’s purpose. They should have been taken into the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Why are they not there? My suspicion is that this was not done because it might well have ended the whole negotiation on the Chagos islands, as there would have been huge interventions, and we could not possibly have done aught else but stop the negotiation.

In conclusion, I honestly think that the Government need to pause this, go back to the drawing board, and say, “We got it wrong”, but I say this in answer to the endless briefing they have given Labour Members on what the Conservative party did about the Chagos islands in government. I have reached the conclusion that no matter who is in power, I am in opposition, so I can categorically tell the House that, whatever else happened, this was quite rightly ended by Lord Cameron when he became Foreign Secretary. Some of us made it very clear that this should not have gone ahead for many of the reasons that I have laid out. I end by saying to the Minister that it is no good coming back later and saying, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) did, that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.

The Battle of Britain

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank all those who will contribute to this debate and the Veterans Minister, whose presence is always greatly appreciated.

In 1940, the six-week battle of France saw British soldiers, including those of the Gloucestershire Regiment, fighting side by side with Belgian, Dutch, French and Polish soldiers against the advancing Nazis. Eventually pushed back to the edge of the western front to the beaches at Dunkirk, British troops were evacuated alongside their valiant but defeated allies to Britain over the 10 days to 4 June. With France lost to the Nazis, Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill declared on 18 June 1940 that

“the ‘Battle of France’ is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.”

He continued:

“The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.”—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Within weeks, this very Hall had been struck by German bombs, as had the Elizabeth Tower and the House of Lords, while the House of Commons lay in ruins.

Over the almost four months of the battle of Britain, this island suffered sustained bombardment as the Nazis, through the Luftwaffe, desperately—and in vain—tried to destroy the Royal Air Force and break British morale. They failed, and the battle of Britain stands proudly alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo among our greatest military successes, but it is so much more. Every day across these isles, the legacy of the battle of Britain is lived. Modern culture and, to a significant degree, our national identity have been built on it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this debate and his magnificent introduction. I am sure he spent some time preparing it, and it is a tremendous introduction. Would he agree that what he is outlining, and I think we all have to commit ourselves to this, is not just that our generation remembers the tremendous sacrifice made all those years ago, but that the coming generation—those born in the past 25 years—remembers, so that we never repeat any of the mistakes of the past and that we achieve victories such as the one he is describing?

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Member speaks acutely to the point of this debate, which is that we must not forget what this country both suffered and achieved, and that we must support our current generation in the challenges it faces.

One toils to resolve any other historic snapshot that so well encapsulates the British mindset: the gradual withdrawal of liberty across western Europe before, on this small outpost, those forces—British, Belgian, Czechoslovakian, French, Irish, Polish, Commonwealth and even a handful of Americans—came together for Europe’s final stand to halt the fascist advance in its tracks and set the stage to push the Nazis back across Europe.

The iconic airframes of the battle of Britain memorial flight remain the most celebrated of fly-pasts at air shows and ceremonies throughout the year. I love a Eurofighter Typhoon as much as anybody, but, respectfully, I am really waiting to hear the Hurricane, Lancaster and Spitfire. I recall waiting for Iron Maiden to take the stage at Download festival in 2013, when the audience roared for the Spitfire fly-past, which Bruce Dickinson had squared away through his friends at the BBMF. Even at a festival where I had seen Motörhead and Queens of the Stone Age for the first time, the Spitfire remains the standout memory. Through those historic exploits of the Royal Air Force, air power is today one of Britain’s most recognised and celebrated brands. On the shoulders of the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Hawks of the Red Arrows spearhead British soft power across the globe, not just a display team but a diplomatic force all their own.

In commemorating the battle of Britain, the greatest tribute we can pay to its victors is to apply those lessons that can be learned from it. The stage is already set. As they did following the interwar years of the 1920s and 1930s, our armed forces, following years of diminishment, once more face the likelihood of a kinetic war against a battle-hardened and well-resourced aggressor. By July 1940, despite popular belief to the contrary, the RAF had ramped up production to such an extent that RAF Fighter Command was more than a match for the Luftwaffe, and held a minor numerical advantage.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the preparedness of the RAF being much more than what was perhaps seen by the public. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurricane pilots of 602 and 603 Squadrons, based in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who conducted the first interception of world war two over the firth of Forth, which borders my constituency, when Junkers 88 aircraft sought to attack HMS Hood in the Forth? The action resulted in the death of 16 civilians on the ground and three German aircrew, but it showed how prepared the RAF was even at that early stage of the conflict.

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is an excellent ambassador for his constituency and its heritage. We absolutely should celebrate the achievement of those brave pilots and the nation that supported them. I have a question for the Minister on preparedness. If the Russian war in Ukraine breaks out into Europe within five years, will the RAF be so well equipped?

If we strip away some of the folklore that has been built on the battle of Britain, the fact is that a British victory was almost inevitable. Crucial to the outcome was the Chain Home radar and the Dowding system within which it operated, delivering early detection of Luftwaffe aircraft to Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. Three factors ensured the resilience and continuing serviceability of the Dowding system: redundancy, misdirection and interconnectivity.

Thanks to that system, the Luftwaffe would routinely reach Britain with just enough fuel remaining for a few minutes’ flight time, only to be met every time by Fighter Command, which had seen them coming 100 miles from the coast: numbers, formations and direction. Furthermore, every Luftwaffe pilot or crew shot down over Britain became a casualty or a prisoner. Every RAF pilot downed simply knocked on the nearest front door and returned to circulation.

The picture from the Führer bunker in Berlin, now under a nondescript car park on which I have proudly scuffed my shoes, was hopeless. I have too often seen Hitler unduly recognised as a strong leader; he was anything but. He was superstitious, paranoid, vengeful and feared by his officers, who were afraid to report their losses upward. His war in Europe was ultimately doomed by his leadership and that of his cabinet, comprising obsequious pleasers and party loyalists. The Nazis could never have won on or over British soil. Churchill knew that, as would have any rational leader.

That inevitability of British victory takes nothing away from the exploits of our courageous aircrew, the genius of our codebreakers and the resilience of the British people. What was achieved was a heroic, decisive national victory of liberty over fascism, and it needs no exaggeration. Britain’s victory is best commemorated with due recognition of the contribution of over 500 foreign pilots under Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. In fact, that evidences my assertion that Britain is at its best not standing alone but when it leads in Europe, and that Europe is strongest with Britain at its centre. I will shortly conclude.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.

[Cameron Thomas]

What a wonderful intervention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it. We must never take for granted the sacrifice that so many made so that we may today live in peace.

I would like to contextualise the battle of Britain alongside Britain’s near future. Today, in 2025, we understand with absolute certainty that the Geneva convention will not be adhered to by the Russian military, nor by its unbadged operators of the hybrid war that it has been conducting against our country for over a decade. I remind the House that Putin deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. We must not blind ourselves to the significant likelihood that this hybrid war will go kinetic within the coming decade. To our adversary, civil infrastructure will be viewed as a viable target.

In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately and consistently targeted energy infrastructure in a bid to break Ukrainian morale and undermine its ability to replenish its armaments. The Russians have failed to recognise a lesson learned by Hitler in 1940 that trying to bomb a population into submission only strengthens its resolve.

Nevertheless, Britain must be ready to face such tactics in the near future. Just as redundancy ensured the resilience of the Dowding system, Britain can build redundancy into its energy infrastructure and industrial capacity by increasing our production of renewables and ramping up the installation of that technology to reduce reliance on the national grid. The introduction of peer-to-peer energy sharing within localities would be a game changer for UK energy resilience, public services and bill payers.

Once more, I thank you, Sir Desmond, and I look forward to welcoming the contributions of Members from across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We cannot talk about those heroes often enough in this place, as far as I am concerned, so I thank him for his contribution. In Hatfield Heath, which is in my constituency, we preserve living links to that history. Prisoner of war camp 116, which was established shortly after the battle of Britain, housed Italian, German and Austrian prisoners. Despite the ravages of time, it remains one of the most complete surviving internment camps in the UK, offering us a window into the human stories of the war.

We also remember the 1944 B-26 Marauder crash, slightly after the battle of Britain and not far from Hatfield Heath, which claimed the lives of three American airmen. The memorial, which was unveiled in 2021, ensures that their sacrifice, and the deep bond between our communities and the wider allied effort, will never be forgotten. I will mention their names: Howard H. Noland, Jacob E. Crider III and Warren E. Terrain. I thank local historian Mark Ratcliff for championing the need to recognise those brave airmen. They came from a foreign land to fight for us, and they lost their lives in my constituency.

I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for mentioning the foreign airmen who joined forces with the RAF, across our skies and across the channel, to fight fascism. It is not particularly relevant to Harlow, but I pay tribute to the 303 Squadron of Polish fighters, who were some of the bravest and most successful—if that is the right word—pilots who fought in that battle.

[Cameron Thomas]

In his 1941 report on the battle of Britain, then Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding wrote that the other commands, the Commonwealth countries and four allies contributed unstintingly to meet the emergency, but

“Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle would have been the same.”

[Chris Vince]

I know that a friend of mine who sadly passed away, Paul Walentowicz—whose father fought in the battle of Britain as a Polish fighter—would be very proud to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, so I thank him.

When commemorating these events, it is important to look back. It is about honouring the courage of the RAF, the allied forces, and the local men and women whose work, diligence and sacrifice made victory possible. However, let us recognise that RAF and Army personnel still serve and protect this country. We have an hon. Gentleman in the room today, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who we should mention in that same breath. We should recognise them at every possible opportunity.

Ultimately, the events and the information that I have shared today connect our local identity, educate future generations, and preserve the heritage that connects national history to everyday lives. I put on record my thanks to Hatfield Heath parish council and Hatfield Regis Local History Society for their work. I recently joined them for their VJ commemorations, and saw the effort that they make to preserve that history.

Let us remember that the story of the battle of Britain is not just about the pilots in the sky; it is the story of Essex, of Hatfield Heath, of Matching and of every community that stood together to defend our country. We must ensure that the courage, determination and sacrifice of those who came before us continue to inspire and guide us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke bravely of the dangers that nationalism might replace patriotism today, as it did in Europe throughout the 1920s and ’30s.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke passionately about his father’s extraordinary service. I am so glad that the House was able to hear that. I also thank him for the astonishing rallying cry with which he concluded.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) ensured that in remembrance we do not forget those who served on the ground, nor our gallant allies who fought for freedom alongside us; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well represented Devonshire’s refusal to bow to Hitler; and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke well of his righteous pride in representing the home of Sir Hugh Dowding.

The hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke eloquently of the importance of continuing to reflect on past conflicts, and of supporting our veterans and saluting their personal sacrifices. I am grateful that the contribution of Northern Ireland to the battle of Britain was included in our debate.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), a fellow retired military police officer, ensured that today we honoured the many who so diligently enabled the few. She also spoke of the importance of telling the local stories as well as the national legend.

The right hon. and gallant shadow Minister is a self-described aviation devotee, and I hope he will take it sincerely when I say that there is nobody I would rather have had at the Opposition Dispatch Box today. I wish his constituents well in their refurbishment of a Hurricane. I hope that one day he will inform me that tail number Zulu-5134 has seen completion. He spoke glowingly of the genius of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, who used his assets sparingly, often outnumbered three to one, which itself led the Luftwaffe to underestimate the strength of Fighter Command. I thank the gallant Minister for Veterans and People, who spoke sincerely of the threat recognised and faced by Britain—a threat that, through tireless resilience, innovation and courage, was defeated by the Royal Air Force, the world’s oldest independent air force and the most celebrated. As the Government look to the defence industry for growth, I hope they will look at Tewkesbury and at Gloucestershire to contribute. Once more, thank you so much for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.