Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country.

I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?

[John Healey]

The answer is simple, and it is the same one I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. The shadow Secretary of State of all people—having been responsible for deep problems, and programmes beset by deep-running failures, such as Ajax—will appreciate the scale of the challenges we face.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he does not know his diary for the rest of the week? He could ask one of the other Ministers on the Front Bench, or one of the special advisers or officials. Surely he knows whether later this week—on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—he will be giving the most important defence statement of the year. It is extraordinary that he does not.

To remind the House, in June the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that the defence investment plan would be

“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 63.]

It is already late—just like the strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the housing strategy. Does that not illustrate perfectly why the Defence Committee said that when it comes to war readiness, Labour is moving at a “glacial pace”?

[John Healey]

The House will know to take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was in government, his munitions strategy was often promised and never published. His drone strategy had more pictures than pages—and no funding. His Government’s defence funding plan was published as an election gimmick just weeks before the election and was never delivered in 14 years. We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the work on the defence investment plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?

[John Healey]

We were talking about the strategic defence partnership agreement. We wanted to follow that up with an agreement on Security Action for Europe, but that proved impossible to negotiate in a way that was good value for the British defence industry and the British taxpayer. That will not stop us from promoting the cause of the British defence industry and doing the record defence export deals that we have done over the past year—an extra £10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and £8 billion through the biggest Typhoon deal in a generation. We will do more alongside the European Union, which is a valued partner; in particular, we will do more on Ukraine, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest developments concerning Ajax and other Army vehicles.

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

I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for tabling the question and Mr Speaker for allowing me to provide an update on the current situation, expanding on the written ministerial statement that I laid on 26 November.

As safety is the top priority for the ministerial team, prior to Ajax’s initial operating capability being announced, I asked for and was given assurances in writing by senior Ministry of Defence personnel that the system was safe. However, on 22 November, around 30 service personnel operating the Ajax family of vehicles reported noise and vibration symptoms during Exercise Titan Storm. In line with our safety protocols, the exercise was stopped immediately, and those affected received full medical care and attention. These personnel continue to be monitored. None of the symptoms are life-threatening and there have been no hospitalisations.

The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for the Ministry of Defence. As such, and out of an abundance of caution, I directed a pause on the use of Ajax for training and exercising while safety investigations are carried out. There are three investigations currently under way: one by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch; another by the Army safety investigation team; and the ministerial review that I have directed to be carried out in addition. While investigations remain ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential outcomes or to speculate on the causes of the symptoms. However, I can confirm that officials have been meeting General Dynamics daily since the incident on Titan Storm, and I am meeting General Dynamics tomorrow to ensure a collaborative approach to the issue.

The safety of our people remains the top priority for me and the ministerial team. As such, we will take whatever decisions are required to end the saga one way or another. Where people have concerns around Ajax, I remind them that each organisation involved with Ajax has its own whistleblowing processes to ensure that any concerns are addressed appropriately and, importantly, confidentially.

On vehicle safety more broadly, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, on the issue of the MAN support vehicle fleet—Army trucks—which I mentioned in my recent appearance in front of the Defence Committee, I can confirm that an issue was identified with the vehicles, and that a mitigation and repair schedule was created, which is being rolled out. That is an example of a system working properly in relation to MAN SV.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I state how shocking it was to hear of the Army exercise that took place on 22 November that resulted in more than 30 casualties among soldiers operating Ajax? There have been reports of symptoms ranging from sickness to hearing loss. As the Minister said, the priority must be the safety of our personnel, and we wish all those affected a swift recovery.

This matter is particularly disturbing for me, as the renewed incidents with noise and vibrations sound strikingly similar to the problems that I was assured had been resolved when I was the Minister for Defence Procurement. In the Defence Committee, the Minister confirmed that he received similar assurances when he agreed to announce that Ajax had reached the key milestone of initial operating capability on 6 November.

The Minister and I may have our political differences, but may I suggest that we have something in common on this issue? We have both been misled about the viability of the Ajax programme. After all, it is not just about the recurrence of extremely worrying noise and vibration problems; over the weekend, we have seen reports of serious allegations from anonymous General Dynamics employees suggesting systemic flaws with the Ajax platform. That includes a disgraceful incident in which a General Dynamics employee publicly belittled the injured soldiers. That is utterly unacceptable.

Given all that, and contrary to assurances given to and accepted in good faith by successive Ministers, including myself, surely the only possible conclusion is that the Ajax vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Does the Minister agree that the manufacturer, General Dynamics, must have been aware of that for years and must be held to account? As such, remembering that the procurement reform I launched in February 2024 stressed the need for a second opinion, will he bring in a completely independent organisation or company steeped in engineering excellence—from outside the Ministry of Defence, with no skin in the game—to pronounce on the one question that we all need answered: is Ajax viable without a fundamental redesign? If not, how much more will it cost to remedy?

On a personal note, I imagine that the Minister is as furious as I am at having been repeatedly given what now turn out to be false assurances by those responsible for the Ajax programme. Surely he is now left with a binary choice: fix it, or fail it.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and the tone in which he asked them. I too was disgusted when I heard the news of the injuries to our service personnel, especially after a point at which the vehicle was assured to be safe. It is for that very reason that I will not speculate—I hope he understands why—until the investigations have reported, so that we can understand the cause of the noise and vibration injuries. A decision can then be made based on that information. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I want to ensure that information given to Ministers—be it to me or any other Minister, in this Government or any other—is accurate and timely, so it is appropriate that we get to the bottom of this. I also share his concern around a particular issue with one GD employee, which he raised. I can confirm that General Dynamics has written to the Department to apologise for the recent social media posts from a member of its staff, and that was the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about an independent review of the platforms. As well as the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the British Army’s teams investigating, I have asked that an external organisation with experience of noise and vibration be brought in. We are building a team of experts from a number of organisations outside the usual GD production line to add expertise and external challenge to the work. Hopefully, I will be in a situation to say more to the House in my next update; I hope to table a written ministerial statement ahead of the Christmas recess to keep the House informed about progress.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for our service personnel. It is not good enough for our service personnel to sustain injuries in this fashion on a platform that they were reassured was safe, just as I was. That is why getting to the bottom of this issue is a priority for me. I await the reports of those three investigations to understand what happened and therefore what decisions we will take as a result.

War in Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin.

When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons.

Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence.

On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe.

The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.

With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.

On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort?

Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question.

I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive.

Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today.

To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government.

However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.

Russian Ship Yantar

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of lasers by the Russian spy ship Yantar.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research—

[Al Carns]

Mr Speaker, I will pass the message on to the broader team.

I would like to make some comments on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research programme, known as GUGI. As the Secretary of State for Defence described yesterday, the Russian research vessel Yantar is part of this programme, and is used for gathering intelligence and mapping undersea infrastructure, not just in the United Kingdom but across many other nations, both in Europe and across the globe. The UK understands that the Yantar is but one ship in a fleet of Russian vessels designed to threaten our critical national underwater infrastructure and pose a threat to our economics and our way of life.

Russia has been developing a military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. GUGI is developing capabilities. It is deployed from specialist surface vessels and submarines that are intended to be used to survey underwater infrastructure during peacetime, but then damage or destroy infrastructure in deep water during a conflict. Russia seeks to conduct this type of operation covertly without being held responsible. Such capabilities can be deployed from surface vessels like the Yantar. That is why Defence directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture, so that we can better track and respond to the threats from this vessel and many others.

The Yantar has been operating once again—for the second time this year—in and around the UK’s exclusive economic zone. During that time, she was continuously monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset and the RAF’s P-8s.

We will ensure that the Yantar is not able to conduct its mission unchallenged or untracked. But that has not been without difficulties: a laser assessed to be originating from the port side of the Yantar was directed at British personnel operating one of our P-8s in a highly dangerous and reckless attempt to disrupt our monitoring. The P-8 continued to monitor the Yantar’s activity. Post incident, when its personnel arrived back safe in the UK, they were medically assessed. No injuries were sustained and no damage was sustained to the aircraft or her equipment.

Russia does not want us to know what it is doing or what the Yantar is up to; it does not want the world to know what it is doing. But we will not be deterred; we will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure. We will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses. I finish by saying a great thank you to the brave men and women of our Royal Navy and RAF who continue to keep us safe at home and abroad.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians?

I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved?

This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”.

On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law?

Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise?

As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale?

The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock.

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.

As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.

Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.

On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?

[Al Carns]

The irony! The Conservatives started the deal and they processed the deal. When Labour came into government, we finished it and we put it into place, supported by our allies—both the US and multiple others. Not only did we finish that deal, but we have started and finished an India deal, a US deal, a Europe deal, a Typhoon deal, a Norway deal and a Germany deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be

“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]

Will he keep that promise?

[John Healey]

The SDR quite rightly said that further decisions on investment plans were central to delivering the SDR. We are doing that work thoroughly at the moment so that we will no longer have what the hon. Member’s Government left: a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to meet the threats that face us.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?

[John Healey]

The hon. Member’s figures are wrong, and his characterisation and description are wrong. We have put £5 billion extra into the defence budget in this, our first year, and we are raising defence investment with the highest increase since the cold war. But the public expect us to manage better the budgets that we have got, so we are managing those budgets, which he failed to do. Alongside the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan, we are already acting and have let over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them to British firms. Today, we are putting £9 billion into defence housing for the future.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. I strongly welcome this very important news for UK fighter production. Combat air has historically been the largest component of UK defence exports, and few nations can hope to sustain such an advanced industrial base purely on domestic sales. I stressed throughout my time as the Minister for Defence Procurement the critical importance of exports, and this deal is very positive for the workforce in Warton—but also, as the Minister said, in Bristol, Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK—for the wider small and medium-sized enterprises supply chain, for our NATO ally Turkey and for the Royal Air Force, which requires a domestic base of highly skilled workers to maintain our ability to deliver sovereign competitiveness in the air domain.

At the very well-attended global combat air programme event in Mr Speaker’s state rooms, I said that defence exports were like a baton passed between Administrations, because the biggest deals take years to pull off and require teamwork within and across Administrations. As with the Norwegian frigates, there was a massive and concerted effort under the previous Government to engage constantly with Turkey in support of Typhoon exports. In my time as a Minister, Typhoon exports were a top priority in the MOD and I chaired a weekly cross-Government committee that was focused in particular on persuading our German allies to change their long-standing position of opposing Typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That work irrefutably helped pave the way for this deal.

I note that the Trinity House agreement with Germany, which I welcome, builds on the proposal to restore large-calibre barrel production to the UK, which I initiated from scratch. Does the Minister agree that Germany’s change of position on Typhoon exports underlines the strength of our bilateral relationship with the Germans and the welcome stiffening of their military disposition more broadly, given the common threat we face?

Of course, we should also recognise the important role of other long-standing defence export partners in this announcement. I note that it has been reported that the deal involves Qatar and Oman giving Turkey up to 24 existing Typhoons. Can the Minister confirm whether either will be buying replacement Typhoons? I note that Qatar has the option on 12, which I understand is still outstanding. Can the Minister update us on progress on Typhoon exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

That brings me to the very relevant matter of GCAP, the programme that is developing the Typhoon’s successor. I have previously spoken of how GCAP is, like AUKUS, effectively two pillars: the Tempest platform is pillar 1, and pillar 2 includes critical elements such as loyal wingmen and electronic warfare, with significant potential benefit to the RAF’s immediate lethality. While appreciating the complications in inviting new nations to join pillar 1, and having given strong hints about the German position in relation to its SCAF partnership with France, has the Minister considered inviting Germany to be a pillar 2 partner of GCAP? Does the deal include any movement on complex weapons for integration into Typhoon, given our industrial strength in that area?

The MOD has now retired some 30 RAF tranche 1 Typhoons. Does the Minister plan to order any further Typhoons for the RAF to replace those, and if so, when?

E-Scan radar for the RAF’s Typhoons, which is led by Leonardo in Edinburgh, has been successfully developed, but no production orders have been placed. I have previously urged Ministers to accelerate procurement to boost the lethality of our existing Typhoon fleet. When will E-Scan radar be in service for the RAF? The Typhoon needs an associated electronics upgrade known as P4E—phase 4 enhancement—to fully exploit the capabilities of E-Scan radar, but I understand that no contract for that has been placed yet either. When is P4E intended to be on contract?

Finally, it would be wrong of me not to welcome the Minister to his newly named position as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. Personally, I think it is a shame that there is no longer a Minister for Defence Procurement, but perhaps that should not be a surprise, given how little procurement is going on in the MOD. Is it not the reality that, for all the boasts about defence spending, Labour is prioritising penny-pinching in the MOD and forcing a deep freeze in procurement? Specifically, can he confirm or deny reports in The Telegraph that he is demanding that the armed forces make in-year cuts this year of £2.6 billion?

[Luke Pollard]

I was nearly going to say that I warmly welcome all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I am afraid that the good news had to be tempered with a little bit of partisan attack. First, let me welcome his welcome for this deal. It shows that when there is good cross-party work, we can achieve things well. I am very proud that it is this Government who have landed this deal. We know that when we took office, a substantial amount of work was required to improve the MOD’s export offer, and we have undertaken that work. It has shown benefits in the Norway deal, and now in the Türkiye deal, and we are working on a number of other contracts with our allies that I hope will produce similarly good news for workforces up and down the country in due course.

The hon. Gentleman asked about approvals from our allies. I can confirm that all Eurofighter nations have indeed signed off this export, including Germany. It is right that he raised the Trinity House agreement that was signed between this Government and Germany, which provides a huge amount of opportunity. Last week, to mark the one-year anniversary of the signing of that deal, Boris Pistorius and our very own Defence Secretary were in a P-8 flying from RAF Lossiemouth, which underlines our commitment to have German P-8s flying from Lossiemouth and to have German aircrews participating with our RAF jets in a really important international mission that flies from Lossiemouth.

GCAP is an essential part of our future combat air offer. That was reinforced in the strategic defence review that we published earlier this year, and the Typhoon order for Türkiye helps fill a gap in the production line between our current Typhoon orders and the production of GCAP platforms in the future.

The hon. Gentleman will know that all our spending announcements will be made as part of the defence investment plan towards the end of this year. The radar he mentions is an incredible piece of technology, which is of benefit not only to the RAF, but to other Typhoon nations.

I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since taking office just over a year ago, we have signed 1,000 major deals in the MOD. We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber, drones and other capabilities for our armed forces. We will continue to work with our allies because the change we need in our armed forces is not just about renewing the kit and equipment for our forces, but about buying equipment alongside our allies, cutting research and development costs, increasing interoperability, moving towards interchangeability and strengthening our warfighting resilience.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for this deal, and I hope he will join in thanking all the workers for their tireless efforts in supporting our national security and that of our NATO allies.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the violation of Poland’s airspace by Russian drones.

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome to your new job, Minister.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

This is my first UQ in the House, and this is a very serious topic to be discussing. Last night, as we know, Poland shot down multiple Russian drones that had entered its airspace. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are subject to a barbaric attack every evening, but this is an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace; indeed, it went deep enough for Warsaw airport to be closed. I thank the Polish and NATO air defence forces for responding rapidly and effectively to protect the alliance. The areas affected were regions on the border of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland temporarily closed its airspace and some airports, and emergency alarms were issued for the regions affected, but airspace and most airports have now reopened.

Russia’s actions are absolutely and utterly reckless, unprecedented and dangerous. This serves to remind us of President Putin’s blatant disregard for peace, and of the constant bombardment that innocent Ukrainians face every day. In response, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland will invoke NATO article 4, which allows any ally to consult others when it believes that its territorial integrity, political independence or security are threatened. The Prime Minister has been in contact with Prime Minister Tusk to make absolutely crystal clear the UK’s support for Poland, and that we will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is meeting E5 counterparts today, and will discuss what additional support we can provide, including to reinforce Ukraine and strengthen NATO. We stand in full solidarity with our ally Poland.

We condemn this action. We say to Russia: “Your aggression only strengthens the unity of NATO nations. It only strengthens our solidarity in standing with and beside Ukraine. It reminds us that a secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine.” With our allies and partners, and through UK leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life.

What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved?

On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies?

There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his response, and his bipartisan support on this really serious issue. What is NATO article 4? For clarity, article 4 is a consultation mechanism. If an ally perceives that its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, it can invoke article 4. That is what Poland has done. Discussions will then take place in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political body, in which the UK will, of course, be involved.

I mentioned the status of the attacks. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine, but that does not in any way, shape or form excuse those attacks. They are an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale.

I agree that our industrial collaboration with our allies and partners is essential, as we and NATO move forward, and as our partners and allies’ relationships move forward, to making sure that we are prepared in every way for an escalation, or an existential crisis, should it come.

In our response to Ukraine, we are doing a huge amount to lead our allies and partners. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Defence is with the E5, talking about the coalition of the willing, and he has talked to Polish representatives already. We are leading the way in that coalition—on its formation, structure and how it will deploy, should it need to, if peace ever comes to Ukraine.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their promotions. I also send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); it was always a pleasure to work with her.

On defence spending, can the Secretary of State confirm what percentage of GDP will be used to set the cost envelope for the defence investment plan?

[John Healey]

When we settle our defence investment plan and produce our annual report and accounts, the data that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be set out clearly and in the customary way to this House.

[James Cartlidge]

Interestingly, the answer is not 3.5%, it is not 3%, and it is not even 2.6%—those are the figures we declare to NATO; they are not from the Ministry of Defence budget. As the then armed forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, confirmed to me last week in a written answer, the amount we will spend on the defence investment plan comes entirely from the MOD’s departmental budget. Therefore, the actual figure for funding our future defence equipment is just 2.2% by 2027, with no funded plans to go any higher. Given the threats we face, is 2.2% enough?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that recruitment to the armed forces must be based solely on merit?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

We must recruit the absolute best to serve in the armed forces. As the hon. Gentleman will know, an intelligent strategy for recruitment will seek to reach every single community across these British isles. Perpetuating a narrative that women and those from ethnic minorities—many of whom have proven time and again on service that they absolutely deserve to be a part of our armed forces—are recruited because of some woke policy does them a huge disservice.

[James Cartlidge]

I totally agree, but is that not why we should be concerned that the contract for the new armed forces recruitment service

“includes Annual Mandated Performance Indicators focused on enhancing equality and diversity within the workforce”?

Those are to be annually mandated in the contract. My concern is that hardwiring the requirements into the contract risks distorting recruitment if the targets are not hit; we saw that with the RAF. Would it not be better to simply scrap the red tape altogether and focus solely on getting the best people into the armed forces, irrespective of their background?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I think the hon. Member has answered his own question. We are talking about indicators, and indicators are very different from targets. An intelligent recruitment strategy seeks to reach out to all communities across these islands, and we need to monitor how well our narratives are succeeding. If we are to have a truly professional strategy, we have to monitor its success in reaching different communities. That is why we refer to an indicator.

Defence Industrial Strategy

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of both his statement and the hard copy document. Before I respond to the statement, may I express on behalf of the Opposition our wholehearted condemnation of the latest drone attack on Kyiv, the largest of the war, with small children among the dead? It is a reminder of why we need to step up and rearm at pace and scale, to strengthen our deterrence in a dangerous world.

The strategy’s statement of intent, published last December stated:

“The Defence Industrial Strategy will be developed at pace...and will be published in late Spring 2025”.

It is now autumn—it has been delayed when we need real pace from the Government, and that is part of a pattern. Some 26 times Ministers promised on the Floor of the House that the strategic defence review would be published in the spring, but it was published in the summer. The defence housing strategy was promised for the summer, and we now understand that it will be published as late as the Christmas recess. Can the Minister guarantee that the defence industrial policy will be published this year?

It is not just Labour’s reviews that are being published far later than promised. The SDR promised that a National armaments director would be in place from 1 April 2025. On page 6, and as the Minister just said, the defence industrial strategy states that

“we have created the role of National armaments director”.

If the Government have created the role, could they kindly tell us the name? Is Andy Start the interim NAD, or is he the new permanent empowered NAD? If so, is he on his previous salary, or the much higher one for the new role? Key appointments and strategies—months late. War is changing rapidly, but Labour is moving far too slowly.

On the contents of the defence industrial strategy, we welcome further measures to boost the skills base of our defence sector. While we will wait to see the full details of the growth deals, we strongly share the Government’s goal of spreading the prosperity benefits of defence around the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us when those will be up and running, and whether the £250 million investment represents new money that was not previously included in the MOD budget? I also welcome measures to boost defence exports, not least establishing a real Government-to-Government offer, and restoring the defence export team back into the MOD—that is something I was working on, and I am glad the Government are implementing it.

Our main concern about the strategy is that it lacks the ambition to fire up our defence industrial base at the scale and pace required, at a time when the threats we face are so stark. The blunt reality is that, for all Labour’s talk, actual procurement has been largely on hold since the election, with the now notorious written answer confirming in spring that the Government had purchased just three new drones since the election last July. Quite simply, they need to start signing actual capability contracts. Thousands of jobs are at stake in some of those major procurements that were meant to have been resolved in the SDR, but on which we still await a decision.

For example, on Friday I had the pleasure to visit Leonardo in Yeovil, the cornerstone of UK military rotary. It is clear that the New Medium Helicopter procurement is critical to its future. When I announced the NMH competition, I deliberately strengthened tender scoring to support defence jobs here in the UK. Are the Government still committed to NMH? If so, when will they give the green light? We hope that will be at the Defence and Security Equipment International. For that matter, when will we see further progress on Skynet, the Red Arrows replacement, M270 artillery and the many other key decisions that the industry is waiting on?

We want to see pace in procurement, not endless dithering and delay. However, we all know the reason why the waiting goes on for so many UK defence companies, large and small: the Government have not prioritised boosting defence spending meaningfully in the near term. Instead, they use smoke and mirrors to inflate what appears to be going into the MOD. For example, the Government reclassified the intelligence budget into defence, so that they can claim to be spending 2.6% by 2027, when the reality is that the MOD budget—that which actually funds the equipment plan—will be equivalent to only 2.2% of GDP in that same year.

While key procurement decisions continue to be put off, tomorrow Labour will plough on as fast as possible with surrendering sovereignty of our critical defence base on Diego Garcia at a cost of £35 billion. The first payment is of £250 million next year and I can safely say that, instead of giving that to the Government of Mauritius, we would spend the money on rapid procurement of drones and counter-drone tech for the British Army from our brilliant British defence SMEs.

That is what we wanted to see from today’s strategy—the delivery of a strong, sovereign drone industrial base, and the same for space, rotary, military vehicles and so many others, as well as artificial intelligence and tech. Warm words delivered late are not enough. We need to see a real-world ramping up of the defence industrial base, with serious investment and not smoke and mirrors, the prioritisation of UK defence companies, and a rapid boost in our ability to deter the rising threats we face.

[Luke Pollard]

I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.

I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.

The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses.

Use of Drones in Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I know you take a great interest in these matters because you served on the Defence Committee when I was a Minister, and I am sure you regard this debate with great interest.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on introducing this debate, because the issue of drones is so timely, interesting and, I dare say, urgent for defence procurement, defence training and all aspects of defence. He made a brilliant speech. It was not only delivered well but made some important and substantive points on, for example, countering drones, which should be considered as important in this debate as the acquisition of our own strike-reconnaissance capabilities and so on. I am pleased that we have the Veterans Minister here, and I know he is also very passionate about this subject.

I quickly say, especially as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here, that people are still the most important capability, despite everything we will say in this debate. I hope he will be as robust as possible in standing up for our veterans in the weeks ahead, because this stuff will come to a head. All of us who care about the British armed forces have to stand by those who served all those years ago, so that we do not undermine the morale of those who serve today.

On the key subject of drones, my main argument is that they are an amazing opportunity for the United Kingdom to fundamentally modernise its armed forces in a way we have not done for a long time. In many ways, we are quite lucky, because drones bring mass and lethality to our existing forces relatively cheaply and relatively quickly. Above all, and this is underestimated, we are in an amazing position to capitalise on that in many ways, for reasons that have not been fully shared with the public. I will now try to do that.

The day I became Defence Procurement Minister in April 2023, there was a vote in the House of Commons. People came up to congratulate me as I walked through the Lobby, and every other colleague said, “By the way, you’ve got Ajax,” which is what defence procurement was known for at the time. Two months later, I made a statement to the House about Ajax resuming field training with the Army and the Household Cavalry, and how it is a highly capable vehicle.

However, I had a sense, as Defence Procurement Minister, that there was a parallel universe. There was business as usual, with long procurement times and many delays under successive Governments—the old way. On the other hand, there was what we were doing in the MOD for Ukraine. It was like a parallel universe. We acted at pace for Ukraine with incredible scale and innovation. We got thousands and thousands of shells from around the world and delivered them to Ukraine. It was an incredible exercise, of which I am very proud. I am also very proud that the current Government have continued it.

Nowhere was this difference more striking than in drones. I would not quite call it an epiphany—I do not know the right word—but my most memorable moment as Defence Procurement Minister came in the autumn of 2023, when I visited an SME in the south of England. It had developed a drone—at the time it was highly sensitive, dare I say classified—that went on to be used in Ukraine. It was a highly effective long-range, one-way attack drone, now a matter of public record. This SME, not a big prime, had developed a drone relatively cheaply and very quickly, and it made an impact on the frontline against a peer military of Europe.

That was extraordinary. Revolutionary. I was so struck by it, but what really got me—the thing that is most important about the uncrewed area—is that the SME was getting feedback from the frontline within days, if not hours. It was using that feedback to immediately upgrade the capability by changing various important but relatively subtle parameters. I was immersed, as all Defence Procurement Ministers are, in the endless emails about delays to the latest big platform, or whatever it was, so I was struck that there is a different way.

What did I do about it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the hon. Member for Strangford said, I launched the drone strategy in February 2024. It was relatively simple. The Secretary of State always says it was only 12 pages, but the truth is that it was a lot shorter when it was first presented to me. I was pretty furious about that, because to me drones are a fundamental part of defence. The key point is that I wanted it to reverse the sense of living in a parallel universe. I wanted us to embrace what we were doing for Ukraine so that our armed forces could benefit in the same way. It is simple to summarise the strategy: to continue delivering drones at scale for Ukraine—thousands of them, as we did and as the current Government have done—but, in parallel, to develop our own SME drone ecosystem for the British armed forces. That is what I wanted to do.

In February 2024, I also announced the integrated procurement model, which I am very grateful that you mentioned in the recent Defence Committee debate, Ms Lewell. The key thing is that it was also relatively straightforward. Instead of these very long development times for new equipment, it is about setting minimum deployable capability—to get things into use as quickly as possible, where they can be used if the balloon goes up, to put it bluntly—and then to develop them spirally in service. That is how the modern world works, and it is how software companies have always sought to work: get it going, and then constantly upgrade. That is the only way to keep pace with technology. That procurement model went live in April 2024, and the general election was called in May, so it is fair to say that there was not a huge amount of time to introduce some of it, but we made some progress.

I now want to talk about some key points about how to ensure that the UK seizes this opportunity so that our armed forces are world leaders in the use of drones. The first point is the most important. This has not been a political debate, and I am not trying to play party politics, but I have also been a Treasury Minister. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I was in all the discussions about how to get to 2.5%, so I know what it is like to deal with the Treasury. What happened is that when the new Government came in—they are not the first to do this—the Treasury put a clamp on procurement as a way of controlling in-year budgets. It is very common. The Treasury frequently tried to do it with us, but Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, the Secretaries of State, always pushed back. I tried to work with the Treasury to find compromises and to prioritise the procurements that were most important to the Department.

The consequence is that, for months, there has been an effective procurement freeze. Defence companies tell us that they are waiting and waiting. They were waiting for the SDR, and now they are waiting for the defence investment plan, which will put in place the decisions of the SDR. They have been waiting for the defence industrial strategy. They have been waiting for the appointment of a national armaments director, who will come in as a great white knight and solve all these problems. By the way, when the problems are really tough, the companies will turn around to the Defence Procurement Minister, who earns about a thirtieth of what they do, and ask them to solve it because it is political, which it always ends up being.

In the meantime, we need to get on with it, so let me suggest an idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill said that when we tabled a written question asking how many drones have been ordered since the general election, we were told three, which is extraordinary. When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State, he said that it was a specific answer to a specific question. It certainly is, but it is still fairly shocking. What we have found, particularly when we talk to those in the Army, is that there are drones coming into their units, but they are, for example, through sports—they do drone sports. There is not yet a central push to transform the forces to fight with uncrewed systems.

So where could we get the money? My personal view is that the Chagos deal is basically bonkers. Next year, we as a country will spend £250 million leasing back a base that we currently own freehold—the islands too, of course. Half that budget could transform the UK drone ecosystem, because tens of millions of pounds would make a difference.

There is one risk: how do we buy drones when, in theory, they go out of date so quickly? There is no risk to what I would call a training order. We should buy enough drones from British companies so that the Army can start training with them at scale. But the crucial thing is not the manufacture or the initial buy; it is establishing the relationship between our forces and those SMEs so that they are constantly developing them in service. That is how new technology works. That is a relatively inexpensive step to take; it just needs leadership, and I know the Minister wants to make it happen.

Another key point is testing. In June 2023—two months after I became Defence Procurement Minister— I held a roundtable in Larkhill with what were then the main UK defence drone SMEs. It was a really fascinating meeting. I went round the table and said to all of them, “Name the one thing the Government could do to help you,” and they all came up with the acronyms CAA and MAA—in other words, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Military Aviation Authority. They all wanted it to be easier to test drones, particularly kinetic drones, in the UK.

I was encouraged recently when I attended the Royal International Air Tattoo and was told by a relatively senior military officer that there will be testing on the Outer Hebrides range—in Benbecula, I think, which I visited when I was a Minister—for firing what are still dummy drones, but testing them as far as we can in the UK. I fully accept that there is a limit to how we can test, particularly if the drones have explosives, but we have to be able to test more than we currently do.

It is not just testing for the SMEs. My team met some reservists recently who talked about the red tape and what they have to fill in even to be able to use a reconnaissance drone for Army training. As is so often the case in the MOD, others will assure us, “It’s all fine, Minister.” On the MAA and the CAA—we set up a working group with the Department for Transport—I remember being told, “Minister, it’s all sorted. It’s all fine,” but then the SMEs told me something different. We have to grip this competition because we want to win it and it is vital to our prosperity.

Colleagues talked about training. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made a very good point about making drone use part of regular training. This is not so much my area of expertise. The Minister obviously has great expertise in this area, and I hope he will touch on how we are bringing forward training in the use of drones at a unit level.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, having served in the infantry, obviously speaks with massive experience. He made the point that we need an Army that can fight with these things. It is all well and good talking about procurement, which is the side I have seen, but how do we get them into the Army to rapidly boost its lethality and survivability? That is what we all want to see, and it is what the new head of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, will deliver.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon raised an important point about GCAP. When I worked on GCAP as a Minister, it was primarily on the diplomatic side. [Interruption.] The roof is creaking slightly. Hopefully that is merely the power of my oratory and rhetoric, and nothing to be concerned about.

On GCAP, I will refer to a couple of points I made last September when we were invited to make submissions to the SDR. At the time, I was merely the interim shadow Defence Secretary while my party awaited a new leader. I do not know if anyone read our submissions—I think AI read a lot of the submissions—but my two points are still worth considering.

First, instead of focusing on 10-year equipment plans, which would become the defence investment plan, we need much more focus on a three-year war readiness plan in each of the forces. That is something that the Chief of the General Staff has, in effect, been talking about. If that were done with the RAF, it would be much harder for it to meld all the elements of GCAP into one. The other point I made is that we really need a two-pillar GCAP—a bit like AUKUS.

The first pillar is the platform, which is where the focus inevitably always is in defence—that is the old, platform-focused procurement model. Instead, we should have a second pillar with all the ancillary stuff. That would include, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, the “system of systems,” particularly electronic warfare capability and drones. That needs to come into service much faster.

The key thing to all of this is the threat. If the threat really is only two or three years away, we have to be stronger in two or three years. The aspects of RAF development that are to do with loyal wingman are about helping our current aircraft. Forget about the stuff that will arrive in 2040, important though that is; it is about the capabilities that can help the current Typhoon fleet and the F-35s to be even more lethal and capable. We know that drones can fly with them. We need to accelerate all of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill made an important point about the Red sea, which has also been a key testing ground for drones. The key point is that the drones were not only threatening Ukraine; they were threatening our own Royal Navy. HMS Diamond was attacked. As a Minister at the time, I had a real sense that this was a clear and present danger because the drone attacks had to be thwarted with much more expensive missiles, which is the key issue.

However, we know that Iran was supplying more and more sophisticated ballistic missiles to the Houthis. That is on public record. How could we defend against all those things? I therefore felt we needed to accelerate all ranges of technology that could help to intercept drones relatively cheaply, so that we could keep our missile stocks for the really exquisite threats. We need a balance between expensive and cheap capabilities, which is why DragonFire is a good example of something we should take forward.

All Members have focused on the counter-drone point. I cannot think of a better symbol of the parallel universe—the way we have delivered for Ukraine but not for our own armed forces—than the fact that, if we visit the Army today, its electronic countermeasures will be the box that was used in Afghanistan. That was very good at the time, but it is not up to date. Nevertheless, a British company has been delivering, in real time, countermeasure kits to Ukraine that have been incredibly successful and are saving lives on a real frontline. We should be buying those for our Army at the same time. That is why I say it feels like a parallel universe, which is what we need to break. I know the Minister understands that and is as passionate about it as I am.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke about how to defend against the drone threat, and he particularly spoke about armour. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spoke about tanks and the need to protect their tracks. I do not have that level of battlefield experience, but it is true to say that we must move quickly on lasers, directed energy weapons and, particularly, sound weapons that use radio frequencies—they are currently a bit indiscriminate, but they have a lot of potential if they are refined. We have to go at these things as fast as possible. Britain has an amazing science base.

That brings me to my final point, which is about autonomy. This is really about technology and the need to outthink one’s opponent, as much as anything. If we are honest, we will never have every aspect of every drone made in the UK. The areas where we really need to lead are the brain—the science. Britain has an amazing science base. I always found the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory’s advice fascinating. The DSTL has huge experience and works well with the military. We could go further on the way in which DSTL and the defence science base link in with SMEs. There has been a lot of progress on that, but we can go further. Going back to the drone I was talking about, the company was successful because its link to the data really gave it the edge. That is what we have to do: we have to enable SMEs to come into Main Building or other secure environments and to be constantly fed the battlefield data—what is really happening in warfare—so that they can respond quickly.

This is really about autonomy. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) spoke about the situation in Gaza. I know that there are people who are worried about the ethics of the autonomous use of weapons, and I understand that. I appeared before the AI in Weapons Systems Committee in the House of Lords, where the Bishop of Coventry asked me some interesting questions about the ethics of all this. I would simply say—okay, this is a defence point of view—that we should be very wary of in any way tying our hands on the use of autonomy, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese and the Russians will not be doing that. We have to maintain our ability to compete with them.

Phalanx is the gun on the side of some of our ships. When it is on, it is effectively autonomous. If something flies into its sight that fits certain parameters, it will fire. No one presses a button. The point, though, is that there is a chain of command and a way back that will have been built by someone from a country with a democracy and so on. So it is the whole life cycle that we have to take into account. We should really invest in autonomy. We should back our science base, working closely with our SMEs.

I finish by saying to the Minister that we are all patriots here. We want to succeed. We want to have the world’s best armed forces. We want to lead in this. We know we can. We have done amazing things. When we supply Storm Shadows and leading drones to Ukraine, we are going to know a bit about how to use them. We have never been directly involved, but we have done so much that we are well placed to learn from it. I hope the Minister can drive this forward. He knows he has our backing in doing so, but we need to see greater pace and urgency and, ultimately, not just big defence documents, but kit in the hands of those who serve our country.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I am truly grateful to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing the debate—I genuinely believe that we are at a pivotal time, so having it today is poignant. The opportunity to discuss the critical importance of uncrewed systems to our armed forces and our national security is a continual requirement in this place.

It will not be lost on hon. Members that I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement, but I have a vested interest in this subject. I have been helping a cross-ministerial team to design our strategy as we move forward. Why am I passionate about this issue? Mentioned in dispatches, combat; Military Cross, combat; Distinguished Service Order, combat; OBE, combat—I spent a lot of time in combat. What we are seeing now in Ukraine gives the soldier, the airman or the sailor the ability to disengage from combat and to send technology forward. We are seeing a revolution in technological affairs in Ukraine, and it is of the utmost importance.

The devastation and horror of war provide an imperative for rapid innovation. Each side pitted, racing to gain decisive advantage by innovating faster than the other. These developments define an era of conflict and innovation. Think the Parthian shot, the longbow, the crossbow, the musket, the tank, the aeroplane and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, the Dreadnought. They have all marked a pivotal moment in technological change. Today, I would argue that it is uncrewed systems. The lesson for the UK is that we must be a leader in the revolution in uncrewed systems—which has not changed the nature of conflict, as Clausewitz would say, but changed its character forever—or be left behind.

In no small part, this understanding motivated me to enter politics, and it was one of the key reasons I left the military: to galvanise change and to do what I could to safeguard this great nation, because I saw war changing the entire character of conflict itself. Today’s discussion addresses an existential challenge, which this Government, the Defence team, and I are absolutely determined to grip.

Uncrewed systems have fundamentally changed the character of conflict—fact. In Ukraine, thousands of drones fill the skies every day and night. On average, thousands of drones a day—up to 2,000 or 3,000, and, at the very height, 6,000—are being flown on the frontline. A division has hundreds of drones that observe every section of the battlefield 24/7 and cue strike platforms at a moment’s notice. Drones are 22 times more lethal and accurate than an artillery round. For the first time since the first world war, more casualties have been caused by a system other than artillery or offensive support—that is, drones. Not training our people in drones would be like not training our people in artillery prior to the first world war.

A year ago, I was quoted as saying that uncrewed systems represent

“a machine gun moment for the Army, a submarine moment for the Navy and a jet engine moment for the Air Force.”

I also said that the inclusion of data, AI and quantum would only deepen the effects of this revolution. I would say now, one year later, that we are at an inflection point similar to the moment when armies fighting in world war one realised the utility of airpower. We know what happened then: the “Top Gun” generation was born, and airpower changed every nation’s way of fighting.

We are approaching the 85th anniversary of the battle of Britain, which is a poignant reminder of the significant impact of cutting-edge technology, such as the Spitfire, radar, importantly, or our very first computers, on the defence of our nation. Unlike those previous advances, the impact of uncrewed systems across air, land and sea is simultaneous, undermining many existing, exquisite and expensive capabilities.

As I reflect over 24 years of military service, I recognise just how much of what I did could now be done by uncrewed systems. I mean that, because about 75% of everything I have done could be done by uncrewed systems. That would have made my life a lot safer, although it would probably have reduced the medal count.

We have seen this revolution shape Putin’s war of aggression. On land, surveillance and attack drones stalk the battlefield around the clock. Thousands of drones, whether FPV—first-person-view—drones, surveillance drones or long-range strike drones, dominate the battlefield. There is a dead zone on the frontline, about 30 km deep, where no one moves: small teams or individuals are the only ones who survive, and they do not survive for long. Interestingly—the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned tanks earlier—tanks’ sustainability on the battlefield is limited. Not K-kills but M-kills—mobility kills, taking off the tank’s tracks, immobilising its engine, or immobilising the crew, the sights and the sensors—happen relatively quickly. Perhaps we can allude to what that will look like in the future later in the debate.

In the Black sea, we have seen a navy without a navy sink a navy—that is, Ukraine’s unmanned vessels have sunk or scattered Russia’s once all-powerful Black sea fleet.

[James Cartlidge]

The Minister is making a fascinating speech, and he knows that I am as interested in this subject as anyone. On the naval point, it was an incredible moment in May when a Ukrainian naval drone downed a Russian Su-30, I think. Does that not point to some of our looming procurements—for example, future air dominance, the Type 83, and all those things in the Navy’s assumptions about how we defend this island in the future? We are an island, so the potential for us to be protected by uncrewed barges and sensors carrying effectors way out in our ocean is an exciting development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

It is a combination of the two. Yes, it is a machine gun moment for the Army, but it is also an Air Force moment for the whole military, so we need careful consideration of how we will integrate this. The Ukrainians, for example, have combat companies who will fly 150 FPV drone strikes a day. They will do that with separate teams flying in support of infantry, much as we would have had close air support in the past. A drone team may fly 50 drone missions a day with 80% lethality and accuracy.

I will leave it to the generals, the admirals and the air vice-marshals to work out how they integrate the system. However, it must be integrated at the section and infantry level all the way to the division level in the Army; from the single ship all the way to the fleet level in the Navy; and from the single aircraft, if not major drone, all the way to fighting formations in the Air Force. That is the level of integration that will be required—it is pretty seismic.

We talked earlier about the high-low end mix. We will help to deliver Europe’s first hybrid carrier air wing. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, and I agree, that GCAP and the loyal wingman programme are sophisticated capabilities, but there is nothing to say that it is not—no pun intended—a Russian doll method where something releases something smaller that becomes more attritable and more mass-produced. That is probably where we are going with many of these systems.

We are also enhancing our uncrewed naval platforms. The patrol of the north Atlantic, protecting our continuous at-sea deterrent can adopt some of that technology. We will also, as the hon. Member mentioned, move towards a 20:40:40 capability mix for the British Army, which I think is essential, as is being proven in Ukraine at the moment. As he mentioned, that is 20% crewed, 40% reusable and 40% disposable uncrewed systems. I would like to see a lot of those drones used as ammunition so that, much as we would have down the range with a magazine and 30 rounds of ammunition, we should be able to go down the range with 10 drones, fly them down, use them, get proficient in that and ensure that we are as accurate and lethal with a drone as we are with a rifle, if not more so.

It is a move to help deliver our goal of increasing the Army’s lethality tenfold. I argue that we need to move on that as fast as is feasible. The critical component is our partnership with industry, and not just the big primes but SMEs are key to delivering those ambitions. That is why we have established UK Defence Innovation to connect with investors and get those SMEs, innovators and start-ups able to break into the defence market, which we know has been a problem in the past. That will ensure that we can rapidly identify and back innovative products that will give us a military, and indeed an economic, edge.

To integrate these new technologies across three military services—I think this is the critical component—we are creating an uncrewed centre of excellence, alongside a range and testing facility. It will be surrounded by SMEs and industry, with the people who know what they are talking about, because there is a lot of snake oil out there. We must put them in one place and then, as I mentioned, slow is smooth, smooth is fast. We must allow them to help the Army, Navy and Air Force to contract different hardware that has simultaneous and integrated software. That is how we will create capabilities that will be able to talk to each other in the future.

[James Cartlidge]

I called my reform the integrated procurement model, because I think the Minister is right: integration is so important, and it has been a deficiency of our bottom-down approach. However, does that not mean that we will need some kind of C2 system for our military? When I was in post, there was a lot of talk about ACCS, which was the system developed for NATO, but frankly was not fit for purpose. That would be a very significant investment. Is it something that the MOD is currently looking at?

[Al Carns]

In the SDR, there was a £1 billion investment in an integrated targeting web, and that is what ties all these systems together. The only way it will tie together is if the software is interchangeable. Indeed, if we were then to lay on AI in quantum, we would be taking it to the next step of starting to remove people further back down the chain. I believe we will always have to be in the chain, but we will move back. Our adversaries may not. That will be a pivotal change in the way of warfare again.

The uncrewed centre of excellence is one to watch within the SDR. It will be in place by February. It will provide centralised expertise, funding and standards. The Military Aviation Authority and the Civilian Aviation Authority were mentioned. The centre will help them to develop and get through some of the bureaucracies while remaining in line with the rules and regulations. It will help to develop skills across defence. For example, drone qualifications across the Navy, Army and Air Force at the moment are all starting to move in different directions. We have to synthesise them, and make sure that they are correct and that everyone is doing the same, so that we can swap and interchange people. That will help to deliver a regulatory framework in which our companies can succeed.

In June, we announced a landmark partnership with Ukraine to share technology, harness the innovation expertise from the frontline and increase our industrial co-operation, which is critical because innovation is moving at such a pace on the frontline. Our plans are a shot in the arm. We need to continue to push as hard as is feasible for what is already one of the leading uncrewed systems sectors in the world.