Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

It will mean a coherent specialist approach to Government-to-Government agreements on sales of our capabilities being based in the MOD, which has expertise in those capabilities. This is going to mean extra jobs and growth, and that jobs can continue in the UK beyond the delivery of our own domestic orders because there will be export orders to fulfil. That should reap a defence dividend across the nations and regions of the UK as our manufacturing jobs continue to deliver for defence.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Ametek, a defence manufacturer in my constituency, has reported to me that the process of getting a defence export licence has almost ground to a halt in the past 12 months. Could the Ministry of Defence send someone sufficiently threatening round to the Department for Business and Trade—perhaps the Veterans Minister—to persuade it to get a grip of its processes and speed everything up?

[Maria Eagle]

I am sure that we can make representations to that Department to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in applications for export being granted, where that is appropriate.

National Armaments Director

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Let me begin by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate, which, if I may say so, is particularly appropriate in Armed Forces Week. Let me also thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, for being here to listen to my speech. I hope the Minister will answer a few of my questions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who would have joined me following our joint application for the debate, but his Committee has been away from Parliament on a visit.

The defence budget is one of the most important estimates that the House can debate and scrutinise. With war waging in Ukraine, the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict and with what is now happening in Iran, our world feels increasingly unstable. The Prime Minister has recently returned from the G7 and is now at the NATO summit, ensuring that our interests align with our European, AUKUS and American allies, which is critical. As General Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said last July, we must be ready for war within three years, and the rest of my speech is devoted largely to that theme.

I wish first to discuss the figures in the defence budget. I think that most Members are pleased that defence spending is now considered a priority. The strategic defence review announced in early June was welcomed, and confirmed that defence spending would rise from 2% to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an extra 0.1% going towards intelligence and security services contributions. There was a further commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, but it has been noted that no date has been set so far. The new announcement by the Prime Minister at the NATO summit suggests that the Government will expect to spend 5% of GDP on national security and defence by the end of the next Parliament or by 2035, which includes 3% spent on core defence spending and 1.5% spent on resilience and security.

I ask Members to bear with me while I go through the somewhat complicated figures that this involves. In 2024, 1% of GDP was about £28 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, but hopefully our GDP will increase as the years go by. Members should note critically that a percentage increase in the budget is not the same as an increase in the percentage of GDP, hence the much higher figures that I am about to give. According to the Treasury Red Book, the current Ministry of Defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is around 2.2% of GDP. For the Government to reach the needed 2.5% of GDP by 2027—setting aside the fact that the MOD budget does not quite align with the NATO-compliant spending—the defence budget must increase to around £70 billion in 2027-28. With the extra 0.1% that I mentioned earlier, the total is £72.8 billion. Therefore, another £9 billion to £11 billion needs to be found in the next two years.

If we are to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, the defence budget will need to equate to around £84 billion in current prices. After today’s announcement, the equating figures are 3.5% or £98 billion on core defence and 1.5% or £42 billion on resilience, so the total spending by 2035 will need to be £140 billion. These calculations are dependent on the GDP staying the same and not increasing, in which case the budget will of course increase as well. I simply ask the Minister: where is all this money coming from? It is a huge amount of money.

Given the failure to produce the defence investment plan alongside the strategic defence review, the SDR is merely a list of ambitions and aspirations, with few receipts and invoices attached. When he gave the ministerial statement on the SDR, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm when we would be able to scrutinise the figures, but I understand that the defence investment plan is still an unfinished piece of work and is not due to be published until the autumn. That is a long way off.

I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which is always looking at how effectively money is spent, whether it could be spent more effectively to give the taxpayer best value for money, and whether spending is feasible. However, the Committee has not been able to fulfil its statutory role of scrutinising defence equipment spending for at least 12 months. The last defence equipment plan was published in November 2022, and it set out a 10-year spending plan for equipment procurement, costing around £305.5 billion. There was a £16.9 billion shortfall compared with the money that was then available.

I am pleased that the permanent secretary accepted the invitation to come to our Committee in April to discuss the equipment plan, but he did not come with any proposals as to how and when we might be able to scrutinise the relevant defence expenditure, to see whether the huge aspirations were affordable in the current budget, in the next budget of 3%, or in the following one of 3.5%. It is really important that Parliament has a timetable for when we can do that scrutiny.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the equipment plan; does he share the Defence Committee’s frustration that the last time anyone was able to scrutinise that spending was in 2022? Is he aware that when Lord Robertson came to the Defence Committee to discuss the strategic defence review last week, he was surprised that the Defence Committee was being denied access to the equipment programme—as indeed are the Public Accounts Committee—meaning that the Government simply cannot be held to account for what they are spending money on?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently, and I have also made it. The Minister will have heard and, hopefully, she might have something positive to say when she responds to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When I gave my maiden speech just under a year ago, I took the opportunity to express my frustration that the Government had announced a spending review that would essentially buy the political cover to get to a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. The frustration I expressed was that the dogs in the streets knew that we needed 2.5%, and that we essentially wasted the best part of a year.

The evidence for that is clear to us all. Lord Robertson and General Barrons appeared in front of the Defence Committee when the Government kicked off the strategic defence review, and I said that when Lord Robertson had done his prior defence review, it was very clearly threat-based and foreign policy-led, whereas this one seemed to be saying, “2.5% is the answer, but now what is the question?”. It proved to be the case, because part way through the strategic defence review the Government asked, “What can you get for 3% by the next Parliament?”, and then they asked, “What can you get for 3% by 2034?”, and then, “What can you get for 3.5%?”. As the Prime Minister turned up at the NATO summit, we got the mystery bump up to 5% for defence and security. My suspicion, maybe slightly cynically, is that that 1.5% is made up of 0.75% smoke and 0.75% mirrors, but we shall see. It would be churlish of me, while defence expenditure is going up, to question it. I therefore think it is important to concentrate on how the money will be spent.

I remind the House of an exchange that took place at the Defence Committee the other day with the Chief of the Defence Staff after the publication of the strategic defence review. He said that we come from a position of strength and that this additional expenditure will simply make us stronger and more secure. I said, “I obviously did not expect you to know the answer to this question, but if I were to ask you, how many working tanks have we got?” He batted away the question in the following way:

“I suppose my caution on that would be that, while we are charged with the nation’s security and safety, it may be that having 50 tanks or 100 tanks is not necessarily going to be the defining factor as to whether the country remains safe. To me, that is the problem with those questions.

I come back to this: is our readiness at a level that we are playing our part, with our NATO partners, and achieving deterrence with Russia?”

Clearly not. He continued:

“Are we really confident about that?

The problem with a micro example is that it skips over what is fundamentally our security construct. We are a beneficiary of a collective group of nations in Europe. Never mind our 50 tanks or our modest increase in the Army; they are increasing their armies by tens of thousands and they are increasing their tanks by hundreds.”

If that is the attitude the Minister is getting to our having very few working tanks, she should be wary of the voices she might be getting from certain parts of the Ministry of Defence. I think that she and the Prime Minister would like some options beyond simply reaching for the nuclear button; there needs to be something in between. I hope that she will take that forward in her conversations with the national armaments director on their priorities.

I asked the Minister when we were discussing the national armaments director whether the director would have free range to tear up the book on defence procurement. The book certainly needs tearing up. I speak as someone who, as well as serving on the frontline on four tours of Northern Ireland, the first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, managed to squeeze in about five years in the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Minister is aware of the conspiracy of optimism in equipment planning, where people in uniform will tell part-truths about how much things will cost to get them into the programme—it is called entryism, and it has been going on for years—and then, all of a sudden, those same people will come back and say, “Minister, I am afraid our aircraft carriers won’t cost the £2 billion we told you; they will cost £6 billion. But what are you going to do? You’ve already announced them, and anything else will cause you huge amounts of political pain.”

I urged the Minister to tear up the rulebook, and she gave me a positive response: the national armaments director will indeed be earning their salary. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said it was £400,000—I think that he or she will be on a potential £600,000 with bonuses—but they have got to be worth that. They must have free range to tear up the book. As a member of the Defence Committee, I do not want them giving us evidence a year after their initial appointment and saying, “I wanted to change things, but they just would not let me.”

This is my final point. Alongside the appointment of the national armaments director, we have defence reform going through. It was telling that when Lord Robertson and General Barrons came back to the Defence Committee having published their SDR and I asked them about the culture change required in the whole of defence reform, Lord Robertson told an interesting story. When Colin Powell moved from uniform to politics and was asked, “How do you bring about a culture change in an organisation which has gone in the wrong direction?” General Powell said, “Well, how do you stop a column of ants? You stamp on the first 10.” The Minister needs to prepare herself for some seriously robust conversations with the Ministry of Defence if money is to be spent wisely and honestly on things that go bang and bring about the effect—not just the input—that we all desire.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I join Conservative Front Benchers in welcoming the answer to the urgent question, although maybe it should have been a statement. May I ask about autonomy and national sovereignty over the weapons system that will be deployed from this aircraft? There is considerable press reporting that it will be dual key, meaning that the Brits cannot use it without American say-so. Is that true? If so, why has the Ministry of Defence elected to take that option, rather than having full national sovereignty?

[Maria Eagle]

We have a fully sovereign national nuclear capability—a continuous at-sea deterrent—that is dedicated totally to NATO and to protecting the European homeland. The current decision is about joining the NATO nuclear mission. Any deployment under that mission requires the agreement of the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies, who act as a senior body on nuclear matters in the alliance. Under that governance arrangement, the UK will always retain the right to decide whether or not to participate.

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I hope I can give my right hon. Friend time to get to the Benches behind him, as he may wish to intervene on me. I am sure that he will not be noticed in that movement, swift and ghost-like as he.

I am not going to stretch this out any longer. The individual I will refer to today worked alongside British forces in Afghanistan, providing operational and intelligence support under direct threat from the Taliban. His family and his home were threatened. He served in the national security directorate in Kabul. His work involved sharing critical intelligence with the British special forces and intelligence services in Kabul and, of course, in the wider region. That intelligence undoubtedly saved lives and contributed to the success of key operations. His contributions are simply not in doubt or in question; they are evidenced extensively, including in a powerful testimony from the most senior commander of British forces in Kabul at the time, who is now a general. He personally worked with this individual and has testified to the crucial role he played.

I am not going to name the general at this point, but he says in his letter in support of this individual’s application:

“His daily security briefings covered possible threats and intelligence reports. These reports made a substantive and crucially life-saving contribution not only to the UK’s military and national security objectives with respect to operations in Afghanistan, but also to the day-to-day safety of British troops and civilian British Embassy staff”

and others. He also says that by the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share within this high-level forum, the threat to his life and that of his family was unquestionably at an elevated risk from targeted attacks, including a high risk of death or serious injury by the Taliban regime. I would have thought that that alone was powerful enough evidence to say that this individual should be here now, as he is currently in fear for his life in another country nearby.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I did serve in Afghanistan, including with the young major who is now the general that my right hon. and gallant Friend is referring to. He is an outstanding officer with unimpeachable credentials.

My right hon. and gallant Friend is making a compelling moral case. I have seen at first hand the risks that those Afghans who supported us on operations faced alongside us, which only increased exponentially when the Taliban took over. We have a very moral case for doing whatever we have to do to fulfil our obligation, and if that means tearing up someone’s bureaucratic rulebook, so be it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising this issue, and for presenting his argument in the way that he did. We have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, so he will know that I take responsibility for making sure that we make the correct decisions on ARAP. When I was on the Opposition Front Bench, where the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is now sitting, I raised concerns about the functioning of the ARAP scheme. In office, we have made changes to the scheme to make sure that it functions better, which I will come to. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned communications, and I believe the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) quoted the Secretary of State’s comments on the Triples review, but I will address the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the first instance.

I very much appreciate the right hon. Member’s advocacy for the individual involved, and his passion for Afghan resettlement in general. He is absolutely right to say that we owe an obligation to the people who served alongside UK forces. What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about elements of that, which I will seek to address.

As a former Minister, he will know that I will not be able to address the individual circumstances of the case without permission, so I will make some more general remarks in respect of that individual case. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have met previously on this matter, and I very much understand and appreciate his ongoing engagement. I have to be honest with him and say that when he and I first spoke about this case and I was briefed on it, I too was surprised by the decision that was made. That is why I undertook to take it back to the Department and to check on the eligibility of the case, which I did. Having done that, I am confident that the officials have followed the published criteria and applied them correctly to the evidence provided. The decision is appropriate and should stand. I should also be clear that there are no plans to ask to expand the criteria, which were implemented by the previous Government.

I do, however, recognise the context of this particular matter, and I am happy to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge to see whether exceptional routes may be available. I do not want to give him false hope—I am not certain there will be such a route—but having spoken to him previously about this, I know the seriousness of the matter he raises, and I am happy to see whether we could look at additional opportunities to provide support in this case.

When it comes to the published criteria for ARAP, we must be absolutely clear about eligibility, and it is my job as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement to make sure that decisions are made correctly against the published eligibility criteria. Where decisions have been made, an individual has access to a review, and where there is a concern over an individual’s security while that review is ongoing—especially circumstances in which the life and safety of that individual are threatened—there is the ability to request an expedited decision.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The Minister’s civil servants will be proud of him. I think the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was making was that when the computer says no and the Minister knows that the computer is wrong, does he not have an obligation simply to go away and change the system?

[Luke Pollard]

First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this.

On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so.

There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment.

I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed.

Strategic Defence Review

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do indeed; my hon. Friend is right. She is a strong champion for Barrow and its shipyard. As she will know, the investment programme that we have confirmed is about increasing the ability to produce more submarines more rapidly, and reaching the point where we can look to design, build and launch a new attack submarine every 18 months. That will allow us to respond to the threats that we anticipate in 10 and 20 years’ time, and to meet our NATO commitments.

We will succeed to the extent that we have a Government ready to invest, and a town in Barrow and a supply chain of proud workers from across the UK who are willing to lend their professional expertise to this most important mission: securing our nation’s defences for the future; contributing to a stronger NATO; and reinforcing our ability to generate jobs and prosperity, including in Barrow.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I worked on defence reviews at the Ministry of Defence, they all had up and down arrows. From what I have read of this defence review in the brief time we have had with it, there seem to be a lot of up arrows; I could really find only one down arrow, which was about not extending the Dreadnoughts’ out-of-service date beyond 2050. Does the Secretary of State want to roll the pitch a bit and indicate where capabilities might be de-emphasised, or indeed lost?

[John Healey]

The strategic defence review sets out a vision and framework for decisions over the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered only because of the historic increase in defence spending—the largest since the end of the cold war—that this Government have made. That is the basis on which we will make our decisions, and on which we will deliver the SDR’s recommendations.

Ukraine Update

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Although there are many experts on defence and security on both sides of this House, my hon. Friend is one of the leading voices, having followed it most closely for a great deal of time. I hear what he says, and I am pleased that he welcomes our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027—three years earlier than anyone expected—and to raise that to 3% in the next Parliament. I know he will also welcome the fact that we are putting an extra £5 billion into defence spending this year as a marker of that intent.

There was nothing in the discussions of the 51 nations and partners at the UDCG in Brussels, which I chaired with the Germans, or of the 30 nations in the coalition of the willing, which I chaired the previous day in Brussels, to suggest that the strength of the nations that stand with Ukraine is diminishing—far from it. We are stepping up and will step up further. We will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the fight, and we will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the peace.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I think the House had risen for Easter recess when President Zelensky announced that 155 Chinese troops had been deployed in support of Russian forces in Ukraine. I invite the Secretary of State to tell us how this major crossing of the Rubicon will change his Government’s approach to China, and how it might inform his discussions with his American counterpart.

[John Healey]

In the same way that President Putin is increasingly relying both on North Korean troops to fight his battles and on Iranian missiles to hit Ukraine, what this demonstrates is his underlying weakness, not his strength. Part of the very strong message that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave when he recently visited his counterparts in China is that we see the importance of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific as a matter not just for those nations in that region, and that the discussion on the future of Taiwan is necessarily one to be conducted by peaceful negotiation rather than by threats and conflict. There was also a very strong concern that the matter of stability, security and peace continuing in the Indo-Pacific is something of which we want China to be very well aware.

Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so forgive me for not being as eloquent as other contributors.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). He mentioned David Stirling, and it would be remiss of me not to mention, particularly while wearing this tie, that David Stirling was, of course, a Scots Guard—my own regiment, in which I spent 25 years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. For something that is 80 years too late, it is timely. He had me, to be perfectly honest, when he said that the King was confused and disappointed that Mayne had not been awarded the Victoria Cross. He had me when he said that Winston Churchill was equally confused, discombobulated and disappointed.

It was the mention of Churchill that put me in mind of a particular Churchill quote about medals:

“A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow.”

That has been going round my head as I have listened to hon. Members, so much so that I went and found the whole quotation. It was from a speech given in this place on 22 March 1944. I quote:

“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons”—

I will not do an impression by the way—

“is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it it is of less value… A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

The way to get rid of shadows is to shine a light. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Strangford is shining a full beam light on the case of Paddy Mayne today.

I invite the Minister to continue to shine that light with a review of this case in the cold light of day, such that the Ministry of Defence can reconsider and award Blair Paddy Mayne the Victoria Cross he so richly deserves.

Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Al Carns]

Another fitting tribute. I suggest that there will be many from across the House.

The Irish Guards have served with distinction in north Africa, Italy, Normandy and Arnhem, where the Irish Guardsmen led the ground assault to relieve the besieged British paratroopers. In the post-war years, they served with distinction in Palestine and Malaya and, in my lifetime, in Northern Ireland, the Falklands—although I was very young at the time—the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and of course Afghanistan. I had the privilege of serving under a general who had served in the Irish Guards, and I learned a huge amount from him. He is an example of the exceptional leadership of individuals and young officers who have come up and grown up through that fantastic regiment.

The regimental motto lays down a pledge of unity: who shall separate us? That is hard-hitting and poignant. After 125 years of service, that motto has stood the test of time. The Irish Guards stand strong and united with a bright future ahead of them. They will be better equipped for warfighting as they have recently gained a new role within the Army’s advanced forces, and that will further bolster NATO and, importantly, European security.

As guardsmen, the regiment has also made an immense contribution in non-combat roles. In recent years, it has been particularly focused on training, including partners in Africa, and has countered security challenges as varied as violent extremism and the illegal wildlife trade.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I want to add my own words of tribute to my brothers in the Irish Guards. My warrior sergeant was a man a called Glyn Crawley. As a result of an accident he had, I think as a child, he only had one eye, and he was known universally as the “one IG”, which is one for the military among us to appreciate.

In the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, when we were Taskforce Lashkar Gah, we had Sergeant Dale Alonzo McCallum, who we inherited from the Irish Guards and who rebadged as a Scots Guardsman. He was tragically killed by sniper fire in Afghanistan. I paid tribute to him at the time as undoubtedly the coolest Scots Guardsman ever to walk the earth. No doubt his time in the Irish Guards prepared him for that role admirably.

The Minister may not be aware that the Irish Guards have also spawned the Blackthorn Rally, members of which go on two wheels and four to some of the craziest places in the world—not least the northern Sahara, Tanzania and Kenya. This year, for the organisation’s 10th anniversary, they are going to Colombia. Sadly, I will not be joining them, because I will be enjoying the joys of the Conservative conference in Birmingham instead. What this extraordinary group of mostly Micks do—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, even though this is all fascinating, interventions do need to be kept short. I am going to be flexible; the Chair has discretion. If the mover of the motion is happy for him to continue and the Minister is happy to reserve his remarks until after the hon. Gentleman has concluded, then I will let it go. I want to hear all this. I will probably get in trouble, but subject to the mover of the motion and the Minister agreeing, I will let the hon. Gentleman continue. Are you happy, sirs?

[Al Carns]

Absolutely.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am very grateful for your forbearance, Mr Pritchard, and it is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship. [Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Forgive me, but there is a Division. I am sure we will get around to these excellent tributes and stories of the Irish and the Scots Guards, and others indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Let us crack on. The debate must end at 4.40 pm; I am sure hon. Members will be mindful of that.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Minister and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for their generosity. Before the suspension, I was talking about the extraordinary work of the Blackthorn rally. It is great fun, delivers conservation projects around the world and takes with it former service personnel who are in some cases incredibly disabled—I think our record was one working limb between the two drivers in one RZR. The Irish Guards’ effectiveness and reach are extraordinary, and I pay tribute to them on their birthday.

Royal British Legion

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate.

In my constituency of Spelthorne, we have 2,500 veterans, and I want to talk about one of them—Alderman Robin Sider, who was awarded the British Empire Medal. He joined the Army as a private soldier and left 40 years later as a major. Like so many military veterans, he still felt imbued with the desire to do public service and he became Spelthorne’s longest serving councillor and twice its mayor. Given the reorganisation of local government, that record will never be beaten. It was the honour of my life last Friday to be a pallbearer at his funeral, and I remembered a particular story about Robin. Last November, I joined him for his stint collecting for the Royal British Legion outside Sainsbury’s in Shepperton High Street. Last year, there had been an innovation, which was the presence of a QR code. Robin was old school if nothing else and he rather liked the bragging rights that came with having collected up to £400 in his bucket. He did not know, if people used the QR reader, how much money they gave and therefore he could not brag about it. I had to rush away and run an errand for about 20 minutes. I came back and saw that the QR code had mysteriously had a poppy wreath placed over it, and as a result his bucket overflowed.

I pay tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion and all its volunteers. I am absolutely inundated with choices as to where to enjoy Remembrance Sunday. Equally, I am impressed by all the schools in Spelthorne and the way in which they keep the flame alive with our children.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the VE Day celebrations on 8 May, because I know that the Royal British Legion is still out there trying to find every last veteran who was around on VE Day to join it for those celebrations, and I urge anyone watching this debate so to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

A fair shot—I commend my hon. Friend on her puns. Accuracy International has made a great contribution to UK defence and exports. I have been talking to defence firms, many of which are SMEs, during the defence industrial strategy consultation. I hope that the changes that we will make to speed up procurement and provide more access to opportunities will transform their chances of doing business with us, while making defence an engine for growth across all our nations and regions.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

We are shortly to appoint a national armaments director with a salary of more than £600,000 a year. I hope that that colossal salary comes with the mandate to be able to tear up the book on defence procurement as we rearm the nation. Will the Minister reassure me that when we get the national armaments director back to the Defence Committee in a year’s time, they will not say, “Well, we tried to change things, but they wouldn’t let me”?

[Maria Eagle]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are tearing up the way in which procurement works before the national armaments director moves into his place. It is one of the biggest jobs in government, which needs the right salary to attract the right person. I am clear that we will do things differently. The national armaments director will be held accountable for ensuring that we do so.