Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on helping to secure this debate. Others have already spoken about rearmament and the focus on budgets, procurement and force structures, and while those things definitely matter, there is another question that I believe we must confront as well. As touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), it is the question of whether we are honest enough with the British public about the nature of the threat that we face.

I have repeatedly argued in this place that the United Kingdom should regard itself as already being in a sustained confrontation with the Russian state—not a conventional shooting war, but a prolonged campaign of hostile activity directed against our people, our infrastructure, our economy and our democratic institutions—and that raises a fundamental question. We often hear the term “sub-threshold”, but what exactly is the threshold, and when are we going to give an indication to the British people of where that threshold is? The answer to that question matters, because it is the hard line in deterrence and absolutely key when we are considering rearmament.

I would not expect the Government ever to provide a precise answer to the question, but in a written answer this week, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), said:

“We cannot provide detail on how the MOD would respond to certain activities versus others as this would assist our adversaries.”

Rather than burden the Department with a load of additional written questions, can I ask the Minister some very specific questions? Is using a cyber-attack to steal the electoral register sub-threshold? Is stealing the email addresses of Foreign Office diplomats sub-threshold? Is using ransomware to disrupt NHS patient care, contributing to the deaths of UK citizens, sub-threshold? Is using lasers to threaten the safety of RAF pilots sub-threshold? Is targeting a major UK business with a cyber-attack costing hundreds of millions of pounds and meaningfully impacting Bank of England interest decisions sub-threshold? One has to assume that the Government consider all of these to be sub-threshold, because Russia has undertaken all of these activities.

Let me go further. Is poisoning UK citizens on UK soil sub-threshold? Is firing shots near a civilian yacht in the English channel sub-threshold? Is launching drones from a shadow fleet vessel to monitor UK air bases and critical national infrastructure sub-threshold? Is recruiting activists on Signal and having them commit arson attacks against property sub-threshold? Is endangering a UK aircraft carrier by dropping sonar buoys in its immediate vicinity sub-threshold? Is attempting an arson attack against the British Prime Minister sub-threshold? Once again, Russia has undertaken all of these activities. We are not alone, and for anyone who wants to track this activity across Europe, Emma Burrows from AP News has a fantastic website with up-to-date information.

At what point do Governments say enough is enough, and at what point, crucially, do they tell the British people that a line has been crossed? The Kremlin does not view these kinds of activities in isolation. It sees them as different tools being used in the pursuit of the same objectives: to weaken our democracy, undermine confidence, gather intelligence, create division and test our resolve. While we may not be the only country this is happening to, I am concerned that our public might be the least aware of these co-ordinated actions and the effects they have on their daily lives. This is why warfighting readiness is about much more than what sits in the inventory of our armed forces; it is about national capability and public awareness.

In a recent article written with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), we argued that politics too often becomes obsessed with targets instead of capabilities. We must show Russia that we have the capability to effectively respond and to deter these kinds of attacks. The Government must begin to attribute these attacks directly to the ultimate perpetrator in the Kremlin, to trust the British people with that information and to ask for their help in building the necessary capabilities to defend against it.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a superb speech, and it is an honour to listen to it. I was at Bournemouth War Memorial Homes on Friday helping to open the new bungalows for our veterans, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) had toured when he was in post as a Minister. I was speaking with the veterans there, and they are under no illusions. They are aware of the threat posed by Russia. In talking with constituents, however, I understand their concern that we have been on a rollercoaster as a country since 2008 at a minimum. There is a feeling that because our psyche is somewhat low and that, spiritually, we feel somewhat deflated, to talk about the threat from Russia is to add to that feeling, but actually, as a constituent said to me on the doorstep, “It is fine to talk about the fear and talk about the plan. Talk about how you will meet the fear, and then we will come with you.”

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the ways we can go about building trust in the Government and in how they respond to a crisis is by trusting the people with the information. The people will be the ones who can press us to take the action that they know requires to be taken, if we give them the information. We must use our secrets more effectively and bring the British people along with us.

The central question cannot just be whether we spend 3%, 3.5% or some other percentage of GDP. The real question must be: what capability are we creating? This is where I believe the Government deserve a lot of credit. Although the DIP was delayed, what we are seeing in it is a commitment to fighting the next war and not the last one. That includes the improvements in pay and support for serving personnel and their families and in housing, which is leading to increases in recruitment, retention and morale. That is all a vital part of rearmament and deterrence, showing our adversaries that our armed forces are ready to fight tonight, as was mentioned earlier.

Alongside the human infrastructure, the Government have also invested in physical infrastructure. I know that it is attracting some scepticism and questioning from across the House, but the leap to hybrid warfare is the right thing to do. That is why I welcome the decision to build six common combat vessels and ensure that we are building ships more quickly, to give us flexibility on the capabilities that we need. I hope we make progress on that very quickly indeed. It is something I have raised with the Department since the publication of the DIP.

On future infrastructure capability, I will be slightly parochial and ask the Minister to respond to a couple of questions around submarine infrastructure when he is winding up. First, we know that to bring Dreadnought into service as quickly as possible we need a contingent docking facility. The Royal Navy has said that that would have to be at Rosyth, and with time moving on to get that operational, can I ask the Minister for a progress update? Secondly, on the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines that remain tied up at Devonport and Rosyth, occupying valuable dock space, can the Minister update the House on when the next part of this programme will commence, releasing capacity in both the dockyards and strengthening our sovereign capability?

Preparedness for war is not warmongering. Warfighting readiness begins long before the first shot is fired, but it must start with an honest assessment and acknowledgment of the threats that we face, and with making clear to the public and our adversaries what we mean by sub-threshold. Rearmament, preparedness and public clarity are the best way to ensure that Vladimir Putin and those around him never conclude that Britain lacks either the capability or the determination to defend itself.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

As the Member of Parliament for Devonport, where we not only base-port but refit Type 23s, I know that many of those ships that have given decades of service are no longer able to provide the capabilities we need. That is why we are accelerating the out-of-service dates for a number of those platforms while still investing in accelerating shipbuilding on the Clyde, where we are building the Type 26s, and investing in the hybrid Navy. We are delivering more uncrewed vessels, which will be especially active in the anti-submarine warfare era. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we have set out the defence investment plan, with an increase in defence spending, and we will be using that to support our Royal Navy to be more lethal and larger.

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

I welcome the move to commit to the procurement of six common combat vessels in the DIP. I hope that they will be based on the hull of the Type 31, which is being built by the very skilled workforce at Rosyth in my constituency. Will the Minister take immediate action and work with me to progress the CCV programme so that hopefully we do not see a gap between the end of the Type 31 programme and the start of CCV construction?

[Luke Pollard]

I say seriously to the House that my hon. Friend has been an incredible advocate for Rosyth. I have met him on a large number of occasions, and he has been absolutely determined to talk not just about the potential of Rosyth, but about the professionalism of the men and women who work there and the opportunity for young people to have a career in shipbuilding. The common combat vessel is a huge opportunity for us to expand the number of our hulls in the Royal Navy and build the latest capabilities not just in air defence, but as a mothership for our hybrid Navy opportunities. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Defence Spending and Readiness

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is both gracious with his time and entertaining to listen to. I thank him for that.

I begin by thanking all armed forces personnel who are protecting our country at the moment. Importantly, this debate is taking place in Armed Forces Week; I give credit to the Opposition—this once at least—for bringing forward this debate today, though I am not sure that we have quite reached the level of consensus across the House that we might hope for on defence.

[Mr Francois]

Perhaps we can achieve some consensus on this: yet again, we are debating defence, our armed forces, and the people who keep us safe, but the plastic patriots of Reform cannot be bothered to turn up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who wrap themselves in the flag should at least turn up to debate the future of the people whose job it is to defend it?

[Graeme Downie]

I was slightly concerned that I was going to have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage, but I absolutely agree with him. Any politician who wraps themselves in a flag, without there being any substance to their reason for doing so, is not worthy of leading any constituency or party—and certainly not any country.

As I have mentioned previously in the House, I grew up in Berlin from 1987 to 1990, and I was there when the Berlin wall came down. That gives me an unusual insight for someone of my age. I grew up hearing Russian artillery one mile away, and seeing Russian helicopters testing and firing. I was there when Rudolf Hess died, and I saw the various security measures in place. That makes me unusual among people who are my age or younger, most of whom have not seen what a cold war threat is. Most have been used to a safe world, and have not seen the necessity of increased defence spending, unless they have a member of the armed forces in their family, or have served in the armed forces themselves. The majority of people in this country who are my age or younger do not know what a threat from Russia, or indeed any other country, looks like.

I have said before that I believe that the UK is already in a conflict with Russia. Not only that, but we are a frontline nation and should always consider ourselves as such, whether we are talking about our RAF jets taking off from Lossiemouth or Coningsby to defend our airspace, or our Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Force aircraft in the High North protecting our subsea cables from Russian threats. This country is in conflict with Russia, and Russia considers itself to be in conflict with us. We must always respond accordingly. The attacks extend into cyber-space. Every day we see thousands of attacks, whether on private businesses or on our defence and energy infrastructure. The threats are there. We also see misinformation peddled online that seeks to undermine our democracy. This country is in conflict with Russia. In order to respond effectively to that, the public need to understand the direct implications for them. They must recognise that a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover has consequences for our economy. A cyber-attack on Marks & Spencer has consequences for people’s ability to buy a jumper, and for the staff working there as well, but these attacks also have a direct impact on our economy and society every single day.

It is always slightly daunting to be in the Chamber for debates like these—there are Members present who have served in the military, and who know far more than I do—but I believe that there is a conversation that we must have across this House. We must, wherever possible, draw lines between the threats that we face, and the detailed military programmes that we talk about, and what they mean for the day-to-day lives of people in this country. Otherwise, those people will not grant any Government the licence to increase defence spending and capability in the way that Members from across this House want.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman always speaks on defence matters. He has a unique passion for them, which I very much respect and admire, as a result of his upbringing near the Berlin wall. It has just been reported by the BBC that No. 10 has said that no new major policy or spending decisions will be made until the new Prime Minister has been appointed. If that is the case, how can the defence investment plan be delivered before the NATO summit? Does he agree that that question now has to be answered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

That is not something I want to be drawn on in the Chamber. I have not seen the news report, and I believe that the answer to that question would have to come from the Government.

As well as making sure that we are speaking to the public about the things that matter to them, we must broaden out the conversation. When we talk about national security and defence readiness, we are not only referring to Ministry of Defence budgets; we should also be talking about what it means for energy security, food security and everything else that makes our country safe—from economic security to delivering the skills and apprenticeships that we need for the future. We must engage the public on why this subject matters to them. If we say that we must spend more on protecting our North sea or national grid infrastructure, we must also say that if we do not, it will put up household energy bills by even more and cause blackouts—those are the consequences. When it comes to, say, energy infrastructure, we must always be clear that some things cost money. If we want a more energy-secure, resilient nation, people will be asked to pay more, in one way or another. That is the nature of defending our nation properly and effectively.

I am very proud of the steps that this Government have taken to prepare our armed forces for the future, having been left a hollowed-out armed forces when they took over. The Conservatives have talked about parties across the House not spending on defence since the end of the cold war, and to a point I agree with what they are saying, but the threats were there in 2014 and beyond, and there was no mass drive from any party in government to increase in defence spending. The warning signs were there already. It is this Government who have had to pick up the mantle, move forward and make the kind of changes that we need. We have awarded 1,400 major defence contracts since July 2024. In Scotland, we have a £10 billion frigate deal with Norway that will secure jobs on the Clyde. We have been pressing for the £8 billion Typhoon deal with Turkey, and for the upgrading of Typhoon jets.

We must look after our people as well, so I am very proud that this Government are updating recruitment policies, and making sure that we have better recruitment and retention. As the Minister mentioned, recruitment is up and pay is increasing. We are turning around the decade of decline under the Conservatives; there has been a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024—the largest on record—and new recruits are receiving a pay boost of 35%.

[Jim Shannon]

I see the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), in his place. We need to ensure that our veterans are looked after. Many have mental health issues, and I regularly come across people who are affected by what they have seen during their service. It has affected them physically, emotionally and mentally. When it comes to the spend that is necessary, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a commitment to ensuring that those veterans who have served and are suffering are looked after?

[Graeme Downie]

The hon. Gentleman always picks out the issues that really matter to our people. The Ministry of Defence’s Op Courage does exactly the kind of work that he is talking about. I am sure that Members from across the House see correspondence on that in their constituency mailbag all the time. We must make sure that we are properly protecting our veterans. Not only is it important because of our responsibility to them, but it is how we ensure that we have effective recruitment and retention in the future. We must be a nation that looks after our serving soldiers.

I have mentioned that I believe we are already in a conflict with Russia. I praise the focus of, and work done by, the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), on the joint expeditionary force in the High North. We are a frontline nation, and our frontline is in the North sea—the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. We need to tackle the threats we face there. We have a partnership with Norway on the Type 26 frigates; that is exactly the type of capability that we must focus on, as well as focusing on the other work done with joint expeditionary force nations.

I want to ensure that the debate about defence in the House, and about budgets, does not become focused solely on a number. We must not think that just because we have hit a particular number by a particular date, our country is safe. It is not. The country is safe when we have the right capabilities in each domain to fight against the threats that we face, be it in the air, on land, at sea, in cyber-space or in any other domain. In our discussions, we must focus on capability. If we have the correct capabilities to defend our nation, we will have spent the amount of money we should spend to defend our nation. I believe that amount is higher than what we are spending at the moment, but the discussion must stay on capability, and should not be about spending money for its own sake. The Government are doing a good job on defence procurement, and on turning issues over to ensure that is not the case, but I urge hon. Members from across the House to please keep that point in mind when we discuss defence spending.

When it comes to defence spending, I hope that we will continue to focus on consensus, where possible, and protecting our nation. I end by again thanking those serving in the armed forces, and all those veterans who served in the past.

Defence Readiness

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) in what has been a constructive debate with a lot of cross-party consensus. I welcome the Minister’s speech about the measures that were included in the King’s Speech, such as the Armed Forces Bill and the commitment to support drone testing, which is something that—as we have heard from Members across the House—is very much required.

I will make three points in my speech, which are about defence priorities, the threats that we face, and the need for long-term thinking. We heard from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who is no longer in his place, about the need for the British people to understand the threats that this country faces and what warfare looks like in a modern context. I am one of those who believes we are already in a conflict with Russia and should take action along those lines; indeed, I believe that in the High North, not only are we in that conflict but we are a frontline nation. Just this week, we have seen the threat we face in reports of Russian submarines in the north Atlantic and attacks on energy infrastructure, and indeed the threat to subsea cables. Those are things that I see and hear about all the time as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia. I was privileged to visit Estonia earlier this year to see some of the work it is doing to prepare not only its military, but its society.

This week, there was an article in Foreign Policy by Franz-Stefan Gady that I highly recommend everyone reads. It was regarding the threats and weaknesses that NATO faces, not only on the military front but on political decision making. In that article, Mr Gady describes how he defeated NATO while playing a war game. It was not actually about military strength; it was about the need for quick decision making. He describes the UK forces in Estonia as well as other NATO forces in Lithuania. When the Secretary of State sums up, will he provide some reassurance about Cabrit and the fantastic British forces in Estonia, the speed of their response, and the operational decision making that is in place to make sure we are not delayed by political stasis in the event of Russian aggression through hybrid warfare? Russia’s experience in Ukraine indicates that once Russia controls the battlefield, that makes a counter-attack by NATO or anyone else very hard.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about Estonia. Britain has troops deployed in Estonia providing a tripwire, as he well knows, having no doubt spent some time with them recently. Will he join me in encouraging the Government to make every effort to arm and equip those troops with the capabilities necessary simply to survive? Does he agree that at the moment, those troops do not provide much deterrent force at all, and will not do so until we give them the technologies that have been standard in modern warfare for multiple years now?

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that if we are to have an effective deterrent in the Baltics, it must be operationally ready to fight the threat that he identifies, not just look good on paper.

I will move on to the role of information and how we are informing the British public of the threat. I have made the point before that we must trust the British people with more information about the threat that they face, whether that is in relation to cyber-security or subsea cables and energy infrastructure. Unless the British people fully understand the threat that they face, they will not put the necessary pressure on Government or give us licence to act more quickly, as all of us in the House know we must, to defend ourselves.

I believe that information breeds teamwork and togetherness, and a lack or a void of information creates speculation and misinformation from our enemies—and, indeed, from some in this House. We must ensure that the British people are the ones keeping us on our toes, and that we are defending them in the way that we should. I point to the recent cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and the retail sector, as have been mentioned. These are all threats that the UK is facing, and we must be much more up front, straightforward and trusting with the British people about that information.

I move on to talk about some of the priorities for the long-term defence of the United Kingdom, which I am afraid requires uttering the initials DIP. I do not want to revisit the arguments that we have already had, but I urge Ministers to ensure that the defence investment plan looks at long-term planning as well. When the document is published, we should not focus only on some of the more immediate things.

In my constituency, we are looking at the work that needs to be done around our submarine fleet, as was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). For example, work needs to be done on contingent docking facilities at Rosyth to ensure that a lack of infrastructure does not delay or curtail the operation of Dreadnought-class submarines in the future. I know that Defence Ministers are aware of the threat that poses. When we get to that position, Dreadnought must be able to enter service immediately and fully, taking the pressure off Vanguard.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I put on record my support and recognition of the bold and principled speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) earlier today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for his support of the Government’s defence agenda. Does he share my deep disappointment that British manufacturing scale-up Aeralis has gone into administration? Aeralis was potentially about to create the UK’s replacement to the Red Arrows’ Hawk jet, and with its loss, we may see our beloved Red Arrows no longer being British.

[Graeme Downie]

I know how closely my hon. Friend worked with Aeralis to ensure that it was considered. Having visited RAF Valley earlier this year, I saw how pressing the need was to replace the Hawk as a trainer aircraft—and it is a need that must be met quickly.

I am aware that I have taken more interventions than other Members, so I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker. I urge Ministers to consider, in the DIP and more generally, the submarine recycling project, which the Minister for Defence Procurement is well aware of. As submarines continue through, we need to ensure that we have the space to manage and recycle them effectively and safely. At Rosyth, the HMS Swiftsure pilot project is coming to an end, which has seen the dismantling of one submarine. That steel has been recycled and used in the Dreadnought programme, which is an incredible way of ensuring that we are reusing materials—holding down costs and securing hundreds of jobs in my constituency.

It is those kinds of projects that we must focus on for defence. We must ensure that we are aware of the threats we face, that we inform the British people about them, and that we plan for the long term so that this country remains safe.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Graeme Downie]

Very quickly.

[Michelle Scrogham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. The work of the Defence Committee involves a lot of private briefings that some Members in this Chamber and the public do not have the privilege of hearing. When I asked the Chief of the Defence Staff recently why we do not tell the public more, he said, “We don’t want to alarm people.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are grown-ups, and that they should probably be a little more alarmed than they already are? That way, they could come with us on this journey and say, “Yes please, spend more on defence.”

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must bring the British people with us on this journey and trust them with that information. Only by moving together as a country can we defend ourselves against the threats we face.

NATO and the High Arctic

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on NATO and the High Arctic.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. There are slightly fewer people here than I was expecting—I think we have a clash with the Ministry of Defence estimates debate—which is a bit of a shame, but I am delighted to see that we have a brace of bootnecks in the debate. I was hoping to see the Minister for the Armed Forces joining us—then we would be nearly a fire team. I note that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) has just told me he has never been to Norway and therefore is not a proper bootneck. The Minister for the Armed Forces went earlier this year, so maybe he has had his fill of the ice-breaking drills.

This debate is happening at the same time as the war in the middle east, which reinforces not only the importance of naval assets, as we see the impact of the closure of the strait of Hormuz on our economy at home, but the importance of naval air defence. I am pleased that HMS Dragon will be joining the US taskforce in the Mediterranean very soon.

The importance of the Navy cannot be overstated in the middle east, but it is even more important in the High North. That is because the High North is central to the UK’s security, to its economic resilience and to NATO’s ability to deter Russia. If we get our posture wrong, we do not just lose influence in the polar region; we take risks in the north Atlantic, take risks with our critical national infrastructure and risk our ability to reinforce our allies during a crisis.

I will make three points in the debate today: why the High Arctic matters, what has changed in the recent past, and what NATO and the UK should do about it. The High Arctic matters because climate change is changing the geography. Receding ice is extending operating seasons, opening access and drawing in more strategic interest in shipping, minerals and energy. Those create opportunities for states bordering the Arctic, but they also create risks. More access means more traffic. More traffic means more accidents and more opportunities for coercion, especially in a region with vast distances and limited infrastructure.

The Arctic is becoming busier and more contested at the same time. Undersea competition is now a frontline issue. Our economy relies on seabed infrastructure for fibre-optic communications, power cables and gas pipelines. A single major incident with this critical undersea infrastructure can cause disruption beyond the immediate area.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for leading a debate on one of the most important security and defence issues that we face. I was in Estonia at the start of January, in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia. I met members of its military, as well as the British troops in Estonia, to talk about the importance of the High North and Arctic. Does he agree that partnerships such as the joint expeditionary force and other work being done in the area are vital to the protection of the undersea cables that he correctly highlighted? It is important that we look for those effective models to defend the High North and the Arctic.

[Alex Ballinger]

I absolutely agree that the JEF is a vital alliance for our operations in the High North. I met the Estonian ambassador only a couple of weeks ago, and we were pleased to discuss opportunities for co-operation, in addition to the UK forces that are based in Estonia, as part of deterring the Russian threat to that part of the world.

Importantly, the High Arctic is a top priority for Moscow strategically, militarily and economically. Russia has been building up its military presence, and it is not subtle about it. The northern fleet is modernising: it has a more capable navy and increasingly active submarine operations, and it focuses on controlling access to the European High North. We should be clear about what that means for the UK. Russia’s sea-based nuclear forces are concentrated around the Kola peninsula, and the High North is central to its nuclear deterrent strategy. That raises the stakes for NATO.

The Royal Navy has also seen a 30% increase in Russian vessels threatening UK waters over the past two years. Russia’s navy is increasingly capable and willing to test our defences from the High North. Russia wants to exploit the Arctic for more than military leverage; it wants to dominate access to sea routes and mineral resources. For Russia, this is about economics and security, which is why we cannot treat Arctic competition as “just defence”.

Recently, the big change we have seen in this region is what is happening in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion has transformed European security, and the Arctic is a part of that. Two Arctic countries, Finland and Sweden, joined NATO because they concluded that, in the context of Ukraine, neutrality no longer protected them. As a result, every Arctic country except Russia is now a NATO ally. That strengthens NATO’s hand, but it means that NATO’s northern responsibilities have expanded.

The second development is Greenland. We all saw Trump’s threats and rhetoric, which have thankfully receded. I am pleased that European countries were united in saying that Greenland’s sovereignty should not be a bargaining chip.

Arctic and High North

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Graeme Downie to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Arctic and High North on UK security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to introduce this debate and emphasise the importance, as we have seen in the past week, of the Arctic and the High North to UK security.

The UK’s geographic position, distance from fighting in Ukraine, and Russian airborne or drone incursions in Estonia or Poland can lead to people feeling that the threat from Vladimir Putin is someone else’s problem. However, we sit at the gateway to one of the most vital pieces of real estate on the planet: the High North and the Arctic. That gives us outsized importance, but also puts us at potential threat. The Harvard Arctic Initiative’s new report on power shifts and security in the region highlights how the rules-based order is being challenged in the Arctic, just as it is elsewhere around the world. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes and unlocking potentially vast reserves of oil, gas and minerals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of melting ice: whether it be climate change or simply that the ice is melting, it is a key issue that cannot be ignored. The melting ice makes us more accessible, but we have forewarning, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Does he agree that it is past time that we, as NATO members, took the Chinese and Russian threat in this area much more seriously, and that we must immediately enhance cold water capabilities and ensure that our strength and ability is equal to any threat that may emerge from any country?

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree. I will cover those points about the challenges that we face in the Arctic from both those powers.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; I thank him for securing today’s debate. A recent article in The Guardian highlighted how UK-based companies continue, shamefully, to be part of the supply chain for Europe’s imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. While I am pleased that the UK has committed this year to transitioning towards a ban on the provision of maritime services for vessels carrying Russian LNG, does he agree that the UK should work with its European allies to phase out dependency on Russian LNG entirely and to identify where we continue to have high dependency on an adversarial and unreliable Arctic in the High North?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree that we must do more on all those points. Russia seeks to dominate the Arctic routes militarily and economically, while China positions itself as a near-Arctic state investing in infrastructure and shipping lanes to secure influence over future trade corridors. We must understand our geography and prepare ourselves to reflect our position as a frontline country in a new, unstable and increasingly violent world.

We must help the British public to understand that what Vladimir Putin chooses to do anywhere will harm their lives on a daily basis. When he illegally and brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was our most vulnerable constituents who paid the price through increased energy bills. Any action he takes in future will hurt the same people the most, and it is the first duty of Government to protect them.

The subsea cables and energy assets in the North sea are not abstract; they are national lifelines underpinning energy supply, jobs and our digital economy. Disruption to those systems would have immediate consequences for households and businesses across the UK. I have asked written questions of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about steps to defend physical energy and infrastructure assets. As a senior member of the energy industry put it to me, “If a Russian submarine appears next to one of our installations, who do I call?”

We know that Russia understands the importance of the High North and Arctic because we are seeing a new and unprecedented military build-up. There have been reports of new air bases in Murmansk, increased deployment of air defence systems and a new fleet of ice-capable vessels for Arctic power projection. Vladimir Putin is not retreating; he is acting deliberately to rebuild what he sees as a large Russian empire.

During a recent visit to Estonia, I heard that Russian land and maritime forces, cyber-capabilities and other hybrid tactics threaten the Baltic nations. Estonians were also clear that peace in Ukraine, while of course welcome and something that we should all be working towards, would not end the threat to Europe. Putin will not exist as a quiet European neighbour. As he sees it, he must maintain Russia’s prestige by joining the global competition alongside the US and China. He will not allow Russia to be seen as a secondary power. He will redeploy and reinforce in what he sees as his sphere of influence.

As the upgrades that I mentioned made clear, one of Putin’s priorities will be in the UK’s own backyard of the High North. The peace that we all want to see in Ukraine would not reduce the threat to the UK; it could increase it, and we must be prepared for that. That brings me to the action in the north Atlantic last week to seize the Russian-flagged tanker, Marinera. I fully support that, and hope that we see additional action in the future over the Russian shadow fleet. That demonstrated the effective co-operation between the US and the UK and the increased capability that we can bring to bear. However, it also comes with warnings. First, the UK must show that it can defend its interests in the area alone as well as with our allies.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend continues to make an excellent speech. The Trump Administration have shifted both words and power to highlight the challenge in the Arctic and the High North from Russia and China. However, the United States drew down its peripatetic air force deployments across the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap over recent years.

Europe and the UK have not covered the GIUK gap with fixed deployments, despite its proximity to our borders. As my hon. Friend made clear, that is something that we must do independently to protect Europe from Russia and maintain our open sea lines of communications. Given the UK’s nuclear submarine enterprise and our leadership role in the joint expeditionary force, does he agree that the UK and Europe must take the lead in protecting and securing the Greenland and Iceland gap?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Those are two points I will come on to, as to why the UK must act independently but also with our European allies in the High North and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in particular.

We must always remember that Putin will respond to actions, not words, and we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Secondly, as with any bully, Putin will feel the need to retaliate after the actions last week, but it might not be against the big kid of the USA; he could act against the UK. That is not something that should make us scared, but it should highlight that we must be ready for a response from Russia in one domain or another and make sure that we are able to respond and defend ourselves effectively.

I commend Ministers for initiatives to strengthen our armed forces, including raising the service pay, bringing housing back under public control and strengthening industrial partnerships across the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, we have also increased investment in the joint expeditionary force working with High North allies. In both visits to Estonia and the US, that was mentioned as something that the UK should continue to do to implement effective security measures as actions, not merely words.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about our High North allies. I have just been next door with Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s Minister responsible for energy and mineral resources. Given that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark is a founding member of NATO, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the security of Greenland is a matter for all of NATO and not a matter for unilateral action from the United States?

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more. The UK’s position should be very clear: Greenland’s future is to be determined by people in Greenland and absolutely no one else.

Initiatives in the UK must be matched with urgency and sustained funding. We must see a clear path to the 3.5%, plus the 1.5%, of defence spending agreed at the NATO summit in The Hague. We need a defence investment plan as quickly as possible, and one that commits the UK to force development that will truly give Vladimir Putin a moment of pause. Failure to do both those things will leave the UK and our people at risk.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could encourage the Prime Minister, or indeed the Minister, to move forward more quickly in committing to increasing expenditure on our defence forces.

[Graeme Downie]

I believe that that is what I did—or I certainly hope that is what I did. I would certainly like to see things move much faster, and in a way that is much clearer about the UK’s defence posture and intentions.

However, to justify that action, the British people need to understand the threat that we face, and that must start from the very top of Government and carry on continually. More effective defence spending is, in some ways, the ultimate in preventive spending. The cost of not being prepared will lead to increased instability and hybrid attacks on the UK, or encourage future Russian aggression in Europe, all of which will increase the day-to-day costs of Government and the bills of ordinary people. It could also lead to an armed conflict with Russia that would be truly devastating for our country and the world. Acting with strength now is the only way to prevent those awful consequences.

With the increased threat to the High North, the Arctic and the North sea, I also ask the Government to consider the increased use of assets on the east coast of the country, such as Rosyth or Defence Munitions Crombie in my constituency. That would improve response times and resupply capability and deterrence posture, and such a move would demonstrate that the UK is serious about defending its northern approaches and critical infrastructure.

We should value our relations with the US, but Europe must also show that it is able to respond alone, or with only limited US support. In a piece last week, titled “Greenland is Europe’s strategic blind spot—and its responsibility”, Justina Budginaite-Froehly of the Atlantic Council said that Europe must have a

“presence capable of monitoring the GIUK gap”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred to that earlier—

“and denying Russia and China the ability to encroach further on the Arctic region.”

Action is already being taken by both Norway and Denmark, while across Europe Poland is laying mines and digging trenches in preparation for a Russian invasion; Germany has recently confirmed £50 billion of spending on new conventional military equipment; and we have had instances of Russian aircraft encroaching on NATO airspace in Estonia, with Estonia triggering article 4 consultation from NATO as a result.

The UK must match the urgency of our European allies. I come back to the point I made at the very beginning: we are not a country distant from conflict. Just like Estonia or Poland, the UK is a frontline nation—that frontline is in the High North and the Arctic.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate, and I commend him on his speech. He has listed a large number of instances across Europe of hybrid warfare and, in many cases, physical attacks by Russia. In the UK, we have also seen Russian-sponsored attacks on Ukrainian drone suppliers. On his broader point, the British public need to be aware that that war is already on our borders.

[Graeme Downie]

Once again, I could not agree more. Going back to the poisonings in Salisbury, the UK public need to be very aware that Vladimir Putin is now a threat to our shores—he has been in the past, and he will be in the future. It will be the most vulnerable people in the UK who will pay the price of that aggression, which is why we must ensure that we respond with force and clear action, not merely words.

Vladimir Putin’s regime is undoubtedly a criminal enterprise masquerading as a Government, and its aggression must be met with strength. Putin’s ambition is clear: to dominate and rebuild Russian influence across his perceived empire, and he reacts to action, not mere talk. Delay is not defence. We cannot wait for threats to emerge before we act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the UK Government are doing to meet those threats today.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this debate.

When we see the Typhoon take to the skies—its precision, power and unmistakable roar—it is easy to focus on what we can see: the aircraft, the pilot, the mission. Yet behind every Typhoon flight lies another story, one that begins not in the cockpit but on the ground in Farnborough, the birthplace of British military aviation.

For more than 25 years, QinetiQ, based in Farnborough, has been a quiet force behind the success of the UK’s Typhoon fleet. Its roots run deep in our national story. QinetiQ was born out of the Royal Aircraft Establishment —the cradle of so much British aviation and defence innovation. From the earliest flight experiments to the supersonic age, the Royal Aircraft Establishment defined our pioneering spirit, and today, through QinetiQ, that spirit lives on.

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

Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and seen some of those capabilities, I can say that they are incredibly impressive. Does she agree that some of the Typhoon jobs are sometimes forgotten? There are 800 jobs in Scotland, where much of the radar equipment is manufactured and integrated. That is not to mention RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, where the quick reaction alert pilots fly all the time, training and intercepting Russian jets, to protect our country.

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will talk about radar shortly.

Our heritage enables QinetiQ to work in deep and purposeful partnership with the MOD, the Royal Air Force and the Air and Space Warfare Centre to provide mission-critical engineering outcomes. Its engineers, scientists and analysts are not merely maintaining aircraft but redefining what is possible.

Through the engineering delivery partner programme, and using facilities provisioned under its long-term partnership agreement with the MOD, QinetiQ provides expertise that keeps the Typhoon at the forefront of modern air power. When operational demands intensify, it is QinetiQ’s engineers who ensure that every airframe remains structurally ready for the challenges ahead. When pilots require new systems or improved safety equipment, it is QinetiQ’s aircrew systems specialists who deliver the rapid and safe clearances that protect lives.

When the RAF sought to extend the life of the Paveway IV precision weapon, it was QinetiQ’s analytical judgment and engineering insight that made it possible, delivering greater capability and saving the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

Led by QinetiQ across the country—at Boscombe Down, Coningsby, Malvern, Bristol, Lincoln, Warton and, of course, Farnborough—more than 200 engineers are working to ensure that every Typhoon mission, from routine training to live operations, is safe, effective and one step ahead of the threat. Their work on mission data, conducted side by side with the RAF, turns complex streams of information into operational advantage, ensuring that our aircrews have the intelligence they need in the moments that matter most.

Looking to the future, QinetiQ is supporting the development of the European Common Radar System Mark 2, a next-generation capability that can be tested on its dedicated flying testbed. That will take the Typhoon’s radar performance to new levels and stands as a testament to the strength of British science and engineering.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

As I mentioned earlier, when these incidents take place, it forges and focuses the alliance and takes away any friction, because we create unity of effort, so it is a mismove by Putin to think that it does not make NATO stronger. If we are looking at deterrence, whether by punishment or denial, we see that Ukraine is holding back one of the biggest militaries in the world and that there have been a million casualties, and that the denial is greater NATO unity and focus on the aggressor that is Putin.

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

This attack by Vladimir Putin on a NATO member that has been a leader in resisting Russian aggression and supplying Ukraine is a clear escalation and an attempt, as others have said, to probe NATO defences and intimidate the alliance. Can the Minister assure me that the UK and NATO will not be intimidated and that the Government are considering robust military options to stand up to this bully in Moscow? Closer to home, can he assure me that the attacks will confirm the urgency to escalate and accelerate our development of the Type 83 destroyer and the future air defence system so that our country is fully protected in the future?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to defence. He is a stalwart champion of Ukraine and defence as a whole. I have never been intimidated in my life. We as a country will not be intimidated, and neither will NATO. I reiterate that our defence industrial strategy is absolutely critical. Giving weapons to Ukraine is one thing, but building industrial capacity to generate mass is how countries win wars should they be caught up in one. That is why the strategic defence review’s first 70 pages are all about industry.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. On the reasoned amendments, my colleague who is to conclude the debate, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, will respond to some of the details of the reasoned amendment selected by Mr Speaker. However, there is a lot of misinformation about this treaty, and I believe that in some cases it is deliberate misinformation to confuse the picture. Clearly, securing the operation of the base is the priority of this Government and of this treaty. Indeed, I believe in good faith that it was the priority of the previous Government as well, which is why they started the negotiations and held them for 11 rounds, and why we concluded them, because we agreed with the previous Government that securing the future operation of the base was the priority. That is why they started them; that is why we completed them.

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

The Minister has already outlined the support of the British overseas territories. Will he please remind us of who else supports the Bill? Who supports it and who else opposes it, in addition to the Conservative party?

[Luke Pollard]

I will come to the level of international support in a moment, but our allies back this Bill and support it strongly. When we look at which column people choose to be in—the column of those in support of the Bill, with our allies, with India, the United States and others, or the column of countries and people who oppose it—I know which side I am on. I am on the side of our allies. It is up to each of the opposition parties to choose whether they oppose the Bill and to decide which column they are in. That is a choice not for me, but for them. Only one column has our allies in, including our principal security partner, the United States. It is on the side of the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill because it implacably opposes the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, and is therefore opposed to the terms of the Treaty to which the Bill gives effect, in particular Article 11 of the Treaty which will mean the United Kingdom paying £34.7 billion to Mauritius, leading to tax rises in the United Kingdom to provide tax cuts in Mauritius; because the Treaty does not secure the base on Diego Garcia, in particular because it does not embody the “right to extend” the 99-year lease to which the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs referred in this House on 7 October 2024; because the measures in the Treaty leave the base vulnerable, and therefore represent a threat to the strategic interests of the United Kingdom; and because the Treaty does not properly protect the rights of the Chagossian people, or the future of the Marine Protected Area.”

We on the Opposition side of the House stand against Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal. Everything about this surrender deal is wrong, from the way it was negotiated behind closed doors within weeks of Labour coming to power, to the betrayal—[Interruption.] I will happily give way.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Lady says “behind closed doors”. Will she please publish the previous Government’s negotiating position, including the cost of the deal they were looking to do?

[Priti Patel]

Let me be clear: I was not a member of the previous Government, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that no one on the Conservative Benches has any authority to publish classified papers from previous Governments. [Interruption.] He might laugh about that, but those on the Labour Benches might want to apologise to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who actually stopped the deal. He has been grossly misrepresented this afternoon in this debate.

[Graeme Downie]

rose—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; at the heart of this is transparency about negotiations, including fiscal negotiations.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Lady talks about transparency, but once again we have not heard a word from her about what her Government’s position would have been, so there has been no transparency at all. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations. If she did not believe a deal was possible, surely she would have stopped after two or three. She knew that a deal was vital to UK security interests, but her Government could not conclude it.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Member, who was laughing and sneering at fellow colleagues earlier—that is simply not acceptable—should have listened to what I said. I will restate it for the House: there was no deal done whatsoever.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have heard from Members on the Opposition Benches a slew of political opportunism, scaremongering, some cliché bingo and some derogatory terms—something that belongs more in a tabloid than in this House—about the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Back when these negotiations started, the Conservative party knew that a deal was needed—it may have been somewhere on its list of priorities when it still had some lingering credibility about the good of the nation. The Conservative party knew that a deal was in the best interests of the United Kingdom and our allies. It knew that without a deal, Mauritius could very well have pursued a sovereignty claim and allowed Russia and China into the waters around Diego Garcia. People do not sit through 11 rounds of negotiations if they do not think something is important; they walk away. To give the previous Government credit, they did not do that. They understood the importance of a deal.

[Dr Evans]

On that basis, there were 17 rounds of formal negotiations for the Falkland Islands between ’65 and ’82. What would the outcome be under the hon. Gentleman’s way forward?

[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.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do not know whether the hon. Member listened to the outstanding, forensic dismantling of the Government’s case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but on the basis that every constituency in this country will kiss away the opportunity to have £52 million as a result of this deal—that is what it is going to cost in total—would he like to tell the people of Dunfermline and Dollar why he would rather give away that amount of money to a foreign Government on a spurious legal basis than invest it in his own constituency?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—he is someone for whom I have a lot of respect. I would tell my constituents that this country is now safer and more secure because of the deal that this Government have done.

Let us see who is on the Government’s side. The United States backs the deal, with President Trump having called it

“a very long-term, powerful lease”.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, NATO and the overseas territories all back the deal, because they understand that Diego Garcia is vital to our security and theirs. Who lines up against it? Who is the proud company that the Conservatives keep? Nigel Farage and Reform.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We do not refer to Members by name, but by constituency.

[Graeme Downie]

I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have seen Reform UK peddling fantasies about America that were flatly wrong. Beyond these shores, what do we see? Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Beijing both know that they could have access to the waters around Diego Garcia were it not for the deal that this Government have secured. That is the roll-call—that is who Conservative Members stand with, and that is who they will be voting alongside if they block the Bill. We saw Reform swaggering around, claiming that it would get President Trump to block this deal, but the truth has been the exact opposite. The United States has clearly welcomed this treaty, as we have heard so often this afternoon. Reform did not just misread the room; it misread and misrepresented one of our closest allies, talking Britain down and peddling fantasy while a serious Government deliver and secure our safety. This Bill is about strength and weakness. This is strength and that is weakness—order from the Government versus chaos from the Opposition, Britain standing with our allies versus Britain opening the door to our adversaries.

Just a couple of years ago, the Conservatives knew that this deal was vital. They wanted it in office—like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), it pains me to sometimes agree with the Conservatives, but for once, they were correct. They were right to want this deal, but only when they lost power did they suddenly discover their doubts. That is not principle; it is opportunism.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but why does he think that the last Government did not make the deal?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I listened very carefully to his speech—it was very interesting indeed, and I respect his viewpoint. My short answer is that the last Government just could not seal a deal, like they could not seal a deal with the EU and could not seal a trade deal with India. They abandoned the people of this country.

I will close by saying that I will proudly vote for this Bill tonight. It puts the UK on the side of our allies and on the side of security, and ensures that we will be protected for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to show up for the entire debate—I think that he has only just arrived in the Chamber—then he would have heard the answer to those questions in excellent speeches given by hon. Members from across the House. In response to his question, why is the deal also backed by so many counties that have malign influences towards the interests of the United Kingdom, such as Russia, China and Iran? If he stays for the rest of the debate, he might hear some answers to those questions too. It is easy for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber and read a Labour party briefing, thinking that if they say things time and again, they must be true, and that people outside the Chamber will expect what they say will be true.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. He said to Foreign Office officials at that time that the negotiations that had started and were being explored went past his red line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was Foreign Secretary when some of the negotiations happened, said to his Foreign Office officials, “As the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.” Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron—I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations—so I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that just because negotiations and conversations have started, we do not have to accept a conclusion that we do not want.

[Graeme Downie]

As we have heard already in the debate, apparently we cannot hear a negotiating position, so will the hon. Gentleman describe in detail exactly what those red lines were?

[Paul Holmes]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what one of those red lines was: not paying £35 billion to another country. In case he wants to read his Labour party briefing again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that another red line for the last Foreign Secretary was that he clearly did not accept unilaterally that the sovereignty of the Chagos islands fell with Mauritius. That is a key difference between the last Government and this Government.

This is a bad deal for Britain: it will cost £35 billion, while the Government tax and spend and make people in this country poorer, and in an ever-changing international security situation, this country is unilaterally giving up a strategically important defence base, in an area of the world where we are seeing more geopolitical uncertainty. I cannot put into words how bad this Bill is, except to say that it is an act of self-sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected Government for generations.

To reiterate, not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every nation that is malign to our national interest, including China, Russia and Iran. Last week, at an international summit, those countries were actively advocating some of the malign influences about which this Government and the last Government spoke about, and they are actively backing this deal. I challenge Labour Members to look Opposition Members or any of their constituents in the eye and say that a deal that is successful for this country should be backed by Iran, China and Russia.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to work within the confines of parliamentary etiquette, but I have to say that there is something deeply concerning about the way that this Government have chosen to negotiate the terms of the agreement. We have to look at the close links between the key people who negotiated this deal with the Mauritian Government and the links—private links—to the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said in the Mauritian Parliament that officials were asked to leave the room while private negotiations were going ahead. I have never known a responsible Government who are trying to hand over sovereignty of a British overseas territory to ask officials, who are there to protect the integrity and the transparency of the of decisions that Ministers take, to leave the room so that a negotiation can go on. Why have the Government hidden the cost of the deal? Why have they refused to give this House a solid and sustainable way to scrutinise the decisions of the Government? They have avoided scrutiny at every turn.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

We are proud that the growth deals will be in every single part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The precise location of those in the devolved Administrations will be set following discussions with those devolved Administrations, including in conjunction with those in Northern Ireland. We are absolutely clear that there is a growth opportunity to provide new, well-paid and good jobs to people there. That is why we will work with partners in Northern Ireland to find the right location and to invest in the skills that the industry there needs.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for last week’s news of the significant infrastructure investment in the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, which is highly welcome for jobs in the area. As the Minister said, the real defence dividend will be the long-term skills. We have seen skills devolved to the Scottish Government, but they have utterly failed when it comes to defence skills because of their absolutely childish attitude towards the defence industry. Seventy-two hours does not make up for 20 years of failure. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to ensure that skills, and the delivery of skills opportunities in Scotland’s defence sector, can be delivered for people in my constituency and across Scotland, so that they can take advantage of the long-term opportunities and sustainable jobs that exist?

[Luke Pollard]

Scotland has good representatives on this side of the House: representatives who value defence jobs in Scotland and the people who work in those jobs, and who see growth opportunities. I know that there are huge opportunities in Rosyth, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—not just the submarine recycling work and the build of the Type 31 frigates, but supply chain opportunities for other platforms. We will continue to invest in Scotland and I hope that, after the Scottish Parliament elections, we can find a new partnership between the Scottish Government, whoever may form that, and the UK Government, so that we have less politics and more focus on growth.