Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in defence spending on Mid and South Pembrokeshire constituency.

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

Pembrokeshire is at the heart of Britain’s defence future, and I am excited about the opportunity for local people. To help deliver that, I am proud that this Labour Government are working with the Labour Government in Wales on progressing the defence growth deal for Wales, which will help prove that defence is an engine for growth right across Wales.

[Henry Tufnell]

I welcome the Government’s increased investment in the defence sector in Pembrokeshire; it represents a real opportunity for businesses and the local community, with good, well-paid jobs and strong local supply chains all strengthening our national security. Can the Minister set out what engagement he has had with the local supply chain, as well as any discussions regarding the new munitions and energetics factory in Milford Haven?

[Luke Pollard]

Since I met my hon. Friend, we have been discussing how we can not only roll out faster the new munitions factories that the Government have committed to deliver but support growth in skills, and our £182 million for skills in the defence industrial strategy includes skills funding for Wales. The defence growth deal provides the opportunity to uplift skills for defence right across Wales, and I am happy to continue our conversations on how that can benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Pembrokeshire.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of UK defence resources in the High North.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

5. Whether he is taking steps to increase the UK’s level of military independence from the US.

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

The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment. As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider diverting defence spending away from programmes that do not truly protect the British people? Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts. Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades. As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

In Bury St Edmunds, we have many US servicemen from Lakenheath who are living off-base. They are a huge asset and greatly welcome. Does the Minister agree that the US remains our most essential ally, and will he join me in expressing gratitude for the service of those brave US servicemen and women, who are so important for our security?

[Luke Pollard]

There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?

[Luke Pollard]

I am sorry that the shadow Minister missed my concluding remarks at the end of the Opposition day debate on the subject last week. Not once did he say why his Government started that deal; nor did he give details of the preparatory work that his Government were supposed to do to answer his own question. This deal secures the future of that UK-US base. We will continue working closely with our American allies to progress the deal, and will continue those conversations, but I am afraid that all the shadow Minister is asking for is more uncertainty. We are securing the future of that base; he is just talking it down.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

6. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on UK access to the Security Action for Europe fund.

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

We entered negotiations on SAFE participation in good faith; however, no agreement was possible that met our national interests. We will continue to explore co-operation with the EU and its member states that strengthens European security and underpins our NATO-first policy. We are pleased that the Government have been able to conclude new defence partnerships with our European partners, including France and Germany.

[Max Wilkinson]

Does this not go back to the key problem that faces us as a nation, which is the failed Brexit bestowed upon us by the previous Government and their friends in the Reform party? Ministers have my sympathy as they try to unpick this mess, but they are going too slowly. Brexit is clearly the biggest barrier to us participating in this scheme. Is it not now obvious that our best economic interests and our national security are best served by a more rapid reintegration with the European Union?

[Luke Pollard]

The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.

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

Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?

[Luke Pollard]

I, too, want a closer defence partnership with Europe. That is why we set that out in the Prime Minister’s announcement on the EU reset. We will continue working closely with not just the European Union, but European Union member states, the majority of which are NATO members. That will support their security. We are an important player on the international defence scene, and it is important that UK businesses are able to access markets, not just for the purposes of economic growth, but because that keeps European Union member states safe.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve support for veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure the delivery of initial operating capability for the Ajax programme.

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

I have paused the declaration of IOC for Ajax until the investigations of safety incidents have concluded. Let me be clear: I want the Ministry of Defence and our forces to be bold, to innovate and to challenge, but they must never compromise on safety. We are preparing a recommendation on the next steps on Ajax, and I will keep the House informed, as I have since Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November last year.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?

[Luke Pollard]

It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman, the Member of Parliament who tables the most parliamentary questions to the MOD, keeps track of all his questions. I am certain that I have replied to that one, but will check when I get back to the Department, and make sure that he has the reply. We are looking at all the incidents from Titan Storm, at previous suggestions of incidents, and at potential injuries. The injuries under the last Government were well documented, but we have instigated a number of investigations to get to the bottom of what happened, and why that information did not flow to Ministers ahead of the IOC declaration. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve armed forces housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of research and development defence spending on the economy.

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

To deter and defeat aggression, this Government are investing in innovation in the latest capabilities for our forces. R&D is critical to maximising defence ability to be an engine for growth. It is this Government who have ensured that 10% of our equipment plan must be spent on novel technologies, and we have introduced a £400 million defence innovation fund.

[Bobby Dean]

The Minister will know that investment in defence R&D has tremendous impacts on the UK economy, not only through jobs and crowding in private investment, but through the spill-over effects of new technologies helping Britain to prosper. Is it therefore not clear that if the Government were to issue defence hypothecated bonds, that would make a brilliant return for the British taxpayer too?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that defence innovation has considerable positive spill-over effects for the wider economy. That is one of the reasons why this Government are investing in technologies that have dual use potential—not just to give our fighting forces the equipment they need but to provide benefits for the wider economy. He will have heard what the Secretary of State set out on defence spending, but I welcome his support for defence innovation and investment in R&D.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

For the past few months, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and I have been campaigning for a new drone centre to be designated at the Dorset Innovation Park. The park already hosts a strong defence ecosystem for testing, developing and researching drone technology. Alongside this, the county has a well-established network of colleges and universities, in Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth, offering the skills we need to make this a success. With all this in mind, will the Minister continue to work with me and all relevant stakeholders to establish a drone centre at the Dorset Innovation Park, which I know will help to strengthen national security and, of course, secure good jobs?

[Luke Pollard]

As a fellow west country MP, I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition and determination to see more of those innovative technologies—autonomy, drones and other types of novel technologies—creating good jobs in his community. He has been speaking not only to me but to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who leads on drones, and I wish the businesses in his constituency and the wider region the very best as they innovate to provide our armed forces with the kit they need.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to support naval shipbuilding.

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

This Government have stepped up our support for naval shipbuilding. We have secured the largest shipbuilding export in British history, with the Type 26 being sold to Norway; we have invested in strategically important infrastructure; and we are driving naval programmes in UK shipyards. The shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will set out our future ambitions to support the naval and civilian shipbuilding and maritime technology sectors.

[Mr Quigley]

Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine in my constituency do fantastic work and they thoroughly welcome the launch of the new dedicated unit to help ensure that small defence companies can access Ministry of Defence contracts. However, given the recent news that a £200 million contract has been awarded to the Dutch firm Damen, what assurances can the Minister offer to companies such as Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine that they will have a fair and credible route into competing for these major programmes?

[Luke Pollard]

Serco has indeed awarded a contract to Damen as part of its provision of tugs for the UK military. We have set out clearly our intention that more of our rising defence Budget should be spent with British companies, supporting the construction of more naval assets in British shipyards. We will continue to do that, not just through supporting the Type 26s and Type 31s being built in Scottish shipyards but, as we move to a hybrid Navy, through more platforms being built in shipyards right across the United Kingdom.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

We could invest better in naval shipbuilding if the Government paid attention to a report published by the National Audit Office, which estimates that £1.5 billion a year of defence spending is lost to fraud and that the Ministry of Defence recovers only 48p in every £1 spent on counter-fraud work, less than other Departments. What will the Minister do to ensure that more of that funding can be recovered for our national defence?

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Cameron Thomas]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants

“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.

Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?

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

I have read it to the hon. Gentleman three times. Do I have to read it to him a fourth time for him to start understanding this? No wonder the Conservatives do not want to admit that they started the negotiations over Diego Garcia. They do not want anyone knowing that because they are clearly not prepared for it, unlike this Government, who are securing that base.

[James Cartlidge]

It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling

“the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.

The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?

[Luke Pollard]

I am not going to read it to him a fifth time—my God! The hon. Member is not being serious. He also knows, as a former Defence Minister, that we do not comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, but I am happy to read it to him again any time he wants, so that he can note the word “weapons” in there.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T8. The announcement to upgrade the radar systems of 40 Typhoons is welcome, but none of those Typhoons will be worked on by BAE at Warton, near my constituency. We cannot afford to leave our nation’s air defences in the hands of the USA, so will the Minister commit to an order of British-built Typhoons so that we can keep these vital skills in this country and ensure that the British military aircraft industry is not consigned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

T2. The need for increased defence spending is clear, but the growing uncertainty over the future of the new medium helicopter contract has left Leonardo in the lurch, over a year after the company was left as the only tender. It is putting our national defence readiness, and the jobs of hundreds of my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton, at risk. As the delay now extends well beyond reason, can the Minister provide an update on the defence investment plan?

[Luke Pollard]

As the Secretary of State set out earlier, we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. We are continuing to speak to our colleagues in Leonardo, not just about NMH but about how we are investing in Leonardo’s services nationwide.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?

[Luke Pollard]

We live in incredibly uncertain and difficult times, so the clarity and strength of our commitment to NATO matters. Labour is the party of NATO; we helped found it. We will continue to support it and to support NATO allies, because the strength of NATO is the UK’s strength as well. We are going to continue to have a NATO-first approach.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

T4. Last year, the Government sold off our fishing rights in return for access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe defence fund, but they did not get a penny in return. The Prime Minister, who is in the Chamber, now says that he wants to renegotiate. Will the Secretary of State please explain what lessons he has learned from the failures in negotiations last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

T6. Members of the armed forces are the only uniformed service without a professional body to represent and support them. Will the Minister give assurances that the Armed Forces Bill will include provisions to establish such a body, ensuring that serving personnel and veterans have access to legal and welfare support when faced with vexatious, unmerited or unsubstantiated allegations from within the system or from external litigants working on behalf of other service personnel or third parties?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for her interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law, and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Our servicewomen are currently not as well protected by in-service body armour, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. With testing of female body armour now under way, will the Minister commend the work of NP Aerospace in improving women’s safety, and commit the MOD to continuing to cultivate vital UK sovereign capabilities such as this?

[Luke Pollard]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been leading the charge for female body armour. NP Aerospace is doing a superb job on this, and I know she will be bringing female body armour to Parliament so we can all see that this can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate—and to support our female serving personnel through—better body armour, and I look forward to working with her to deliver that.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T9. The Government have said that we should be bolstering our preparedness for war. Can the Minister tell us when the defence readiness Bill will be ready and when he expects it to gain Royal Assent?

[Luke Pollard]

The defence readiness Bill was set out in the strategic defence review. We are looking across Government at how we can bolster readiness measures—not just legislative ones, but policy changes, removing stupid rules and spending more. We are looking to implement the defence readiness Bill later in this Parliament. The Armed Forces Bill is now before the House, and that is our immediate focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T10. Instead of constantly pushing back the closure date for RAF Halton in an era where we need to increase defence capability, will the Minister commit to keeping it open for the long term?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a base closure programme from the Conservative Government, with announcements of closures right across the country. We are looking carefully at the bases we have, at how we can use them for military needs, and, where we can dispose of them, at how we can ensure that we build houses for our armed forces and veterans on that land.

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?