Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, said at the weekend,

“if potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, why risk joining at all?”

He was speaking about Labour’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which could see Northern Ireland veterans, without whom there would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, in the dock again by next year. The Minister called opponents of this “naive”. What is her response to the former head of the British Army and the brave soldiers he led—were they all naive, too?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Seeing as the right hon. Gentleman is attacking me for something I did not say, I can only assume that he cannot attack me—

[Mr Francois]

It’s in Hansard!

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

He is very welcome to check Hansard, where he will see that I was very specifically referring to people spreading misinformation. He will be able to see it there in black and white in Hansard.

[Mr Francois]

It is in Hansard.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

It is in Hansard, absolutely—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reread it to see the full quote.

This Government are committed to protecting those who serve. Our first and foremost priority is to protect and ensure the welfare of those who have served, just as we have done for many people who have served in our armed forces across multiple conflicts. I can only say again that the commitment of this Government to our veterans is total.

[Mr Francois]

The former Labour Security Minister Lord West said recently that we “shouldn’t be doing” this. Lord Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, said:

“We must reverse it as soon as possible.”

The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said that

“to continue this against one side makes no sense.”

With a Labour rebellion clearly brewing, and given that many Northern Ireland veterans were initially recruited from red wall seats, why are Labour Ministers insisting on driving their Back Benchers into the Division Lobby just to do Sinn Féin and their old comrades in the IRA a favour?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember the really serious issues that are at stake here. The priorities of this Government, as we have shown repeatedly, are to do right by the families of more than 200 British service personnel who were murdered in Northern Ireland and to ensure that we have protections and appropriate measures in place to defend our veterans; we have five protections in law and a sixth that we have control over ourselves. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman again that the Government’s commitment to veterans is total.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I promise that I will come to that, but I wish to deal in a logical order with what Ministers have themselves said to justify their actions.

On 5 February, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered another urgent question. In answer to my plea to give us more clarity on exactly what legal basis the Government were acting on, he said:

“We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 760.]

I understand the point that he was making, but he did not explain how that issue might lead to a binding court ruling against the UK, and he did not even take a second opportunity to do so when asked about it again by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—those interested can find that answer in column 762.

Luckily, however, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called a debate on this subject in Opposition time on 26 February, which was answered by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).

She repeated:

“Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign…That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment,”.

She was then interrupted, but went on to say that

“in that kind of situation”—

presumably that is the delivery of a binding judgment against the UK—

“we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union.” —[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 874.]

If we put all those ministerial utterances together, we are going round in circles.

The Government say that they have to act because of the inevitability of a binding court judgment against the UK. They mention the ICJ, but the ICJ cannot make a binding judgment against the UK on this. They hint at ITLOS cases, but those refer to ICJ decisions. The Government then say that they are worried about the actions of the International Telecommunication Union, but when pressed that seems to mean actions that would follow a binding court judgment. We are back to square one.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Is it the case—my right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General—that the ITU treaty to which we and others are a party states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum, or military communications? It is clear that the ITU has no leverage legally at all over Diego Garcia.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know he has made before. I repeat the point I made earlier: we are simply not getting from the Government an adequate rebuttal of these points, and we need to have that. If the Government have a good answer to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) have said, Second Reading of the Bill is the moment for the Government to deliver that explanation. We are all still waiting.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps I should refine my argument. It is not just that the Government are not answering the questions; it is that when they do answer the questions, they undermine their own argument. It is worse than we thought. We are not getting clarity from the Government about what would be the legal judgment that they themselves have relied on as almost the entire basis for their actions, and this really matters. The Government owe us a proper explanation.

I am prepared to concede—I hope the Minister will accept that I am a fair-minded person—that there may be a persuasive argument that the Government could make about which court and which circumstances would deliver the kind of judgment that makes this action inevitable and necessary, but I have waited a long time to hear it, and I am still waiting. I hope that when the Minister stands to sum up the debate he will give us that answer, because the House of Commons deserves to hear it.

[Mr Francois]

This is fundamental to the whole argument. We have pressed the Government for months to tell us what the legal threat to the islands was. In his opening speech the Minister said that it was UNCLOS. That was the justification they have given us. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a general opt-out and two specific opt-outs under article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which includes “disputes concerning military activities”? We have an opt-out from UNCLOS. The Government’s whole case is spurious—£35 billion worth of spurious.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is certainly very expensive. I know lawyers who charge big fees, but none of them would come close to that.

My right hon. Friend makes his point, and again, the Minister will have another opportunity when he speaks. It is not good enough, I am afraid, for hints and oblique references to be made. We are owed a clear explanation. This is a fundamental decision on defence and security, and in financial terms as my right hon. Friend has just said, and we deserve to know. If the Minister tells the House that describing all that in detail is the sort of confidential and sensitive information that the whole House cannot hear, I have good news for him: that is what the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is for. I have the honour to be a member of that Committee, and it is perhaps regrettable that the Government did not choose to explain themselves and make their case to us before they brought the Bill to the House, but they did not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Nearly a fifth of a million people have now signed the parliamentary petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution, in opposition to Labour’s proposals for two-tier justice. Surely Ministers must understand that facilitating lawfare against our Army veterans, none of whom received letters of comfort after leaving their service, shows that Labour just does not have their back?

[Al Carns]

I highlight to the right hon. Gentleman that 200 families—200 mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters—of those that served had their inquest inquiries, insight and understanding closed off when the legacy Act came into place. They were serving members of the security forces and their families deserve truth. However, we must ensure that we also provide protection for veterans as we move forward, so that they are not subject to lawfare, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions, and that the process does not become the punishment for veterans as we move forward.

[Mr Francois]

Labour’s currently stalled remedial order would specifically make it easier for Gerry Adams and his friends to sue the British taxpayer while throwing our Army veterans, many of them recruited from red wall seats, to the wolves. After everything the Government put their Back Benchers through in recent months, are No. 10 and Ministers really intending to press ahead with this madness and do Gerry Adams a favour, at the expense of the soldiers who opposed him? Are they pressing ahead with the remedial order—yes or no?

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He is trying to divide the House, veterans and the armed forces community, and it has got to stop. The reality is that we will produce legislation that will allow families to get to the truth. He should put himself in the shoes of the families who have lost loved ones, and then put himself in the shoes of veterans—I am a Northern Ireland veteran—and accept that if the protections are in place to ensure that the process does not become the punishment, we have a good solution.

The Battle of Britain

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a fact that partly because of the great efforts of Lord Beaverbrook overseeing aircraft production, we never ran out of aircraft in the battle—but we very nearly ran out of pilots. So does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of Dowding’s genius was generating enough pilots and then taking sufficient care of them so that we won?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Dowding was someone who valued the trained individual and who really stood up for his men.

From a number of excellent contributions we have heard Churchill’s assessment of the battle of Britain, in which he paid tribute to the courage of the RAF fighter pilots whose defence of our skies delivered both victory and the survival of our country. However, it is perhaps the more unvarnished estimation of an opposing protagonist that pays the most compelling tribute to Dowding. Following the battle of Britain, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt commanded German forces in the west and had been involved in planning the invasion of Britain which was ultimately cancelled after the battle of Britain. During interrogation by the allies, the Field Marshal was asked at what point during the course of the war he had seen the tide turning against Germany—was it Stalingrad, Leningrad or El Alamein?

“Oh no,”

replied von Rundstedt,

“it was the Battle of Britain.”

That was the first time he realised that the Nazis were not invincible.

That shattering of progress towards what was seemingly an inevitable Nazi victory was down to the courage of the young pilots who fought and died in the skies over Britain in 1940, and their memory must always be honoured; but the vital contribution made by the son of a schoolmaster from Moffat should also be remembered. The quiet determination of Hugh Dowding, which gave those pilots the tools, the system and the strategy to succeed, was central to winning the battle of Britain and ensuring the survival of a nation and the freedom and liberty we enjoy today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Good afternoon, Sir Desmond. It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate these momentous events in the run-up to Battle of Britain Day, which commemorates the 85th anniversary of the culmination of the battle on 15 September 1940. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this very important and timely debate, which he introduced so very admirably. Lest we forget.

On a personal note, I regard it as a genuine privilege, as the son of a world war two veteran—albeit one who fought in the Royal Navy—to be able to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. I would like to begin by declaring two personal interests, first as an amateur military historian and a battle of Britain buff in particular. Southend airport, which abuts my constituency, was RAF Rochford in 1940, one of Fighter Command’s vital forward airfields. Secondly, several years ago I worked with a former constituent and local historian called Steve Newman on a project to help restore and refurbish our official war memorial at Wickford. Steve is now involved in another ambitious project, this time to restore a world war two Hurricane, serial Z5134. With a dedicated band of helpers, he is attempting to rebuild this historic aircraft almost from the wheels up. I was privileged to view the fruits of their labour during the summer recess. Realistically, it will take them several years to achieve their ambition. I would like to place on record my admiration for what they are attempting, and to wish them every possible success.

Turning to the battle itself, there is no doubt that it was an example of heroism on multiple levels, beginning with the pilots, from some of the well-known aces, such as Peter Townsend, Bob Stanford Tuck, Douglas Bader and Sailor Malan, through to those who only flew in combat once and never returned. Those young men, some of whom had barely 10 hours on type, must have known before they took off that the chances of their returning alive were slim. Nevertheless, they took off anyway. In all, almost 3,000 allied pilots fought with Fighter Command in the officially defined period of the battle of Britain, which runs from 10 July to 31 October 1940.

However, it is important to note that the defence in the battle was by no means solely a British affair—far from it. As well as the RAF squadrons, those from other nations also played a crucial role, perhaps most famously the Polish 303 Squadron, based at RAF Northolt, which shot down more enemy aircraft—126—than any other squadron. It was supplemented by other Polish squadrons, plus the Czechs and Canadians, and indeed the three Eagle squadrons of American pilots who volunteered to fight with the RAF more than a year before Pearl Harbour.

History also owes a great debt to those who kept them flying, not least the ground crew of Fighter Command, but also the Royal Observer Corps, the General Post Office technicians who assisted with communications and those working in the factories to produce the iconic Spitfires and Hurricanes on which the defence so crucially depended. Although Churchill rightly paid tribute to “the few”, in fact there were many who contributed to that critical victory in 1940, the vast majority of whom never flew in combat.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just wanted to make the small point that I was fortunate enough to sit next to Jock Colville, who was assistant private secretary to Churchill throughout the war. They were visiting Uxbridge on 15 September, when a huge armada gathered. Churchill was watching as, one by one, the lights went up, until everything was up. He said to the air officer commanding, “What are you going to do now? Where are your reserves?” The officer said, “We have no reserves, Prime Minister.” Churchill asked, “What will you do?” The officer said, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pray.” Jock Colville told me that, with that, Churchill stayed silent for three hours, something he never did, but that when he got into the car, he turned to him and said, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

[Mr Francois]

The whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very telling intervention. While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to his marvellous speech and, more than that, to the wonderful service of his father, of whom he can be immensely proud.

Also fundamental were the RAF commanders, principally Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, who famously commanded 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the battle. Park, a New Zealander, displayed tactical brilliance in the husbanding of his squadrons, while also fighting a highly aggressive and effective defence.

Overall, however, perhaps the greatest single contribution to victory was that of the leader of Fighter Command throughout the battle, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding. As well as being a pilot, Dowding was keenly interested in scientific development, which he pursued zealously when promoted to the Air Council in 1930, with responsibility for supply and research. That critical appointment was to have profound consequences for the subsequent conduct of the battle a decade later, as several right hon. Members have alluded to.

Dowding had three great attributes that materially contributed to the RAF’s victory. First, he possessed tremendous foresight. Like Churchill, he realised very early on that Nazi Germany and its nascent air force would one day provide a potentially fatal threat to Britain’s security, and he began to plan accordingly.

Secondly, Dowding’s genius—I use the word deliberately —was that he conceptualised years in advance the battle that the RAF would have to fight. He then used his new appointment enthusiastically to pull together multiple strands of scientific development, crucially including Watson-Watt’s experiments with radar, to create a highly resilient defensive system.

In May 1937, Dowding presciently delivered a lecture to the air staff regarding the air defence of Great Britain, in which the scenario he outlined was one of a war with a European dictator—the inference was obvious —attempting to starve Britain into submission by the aggressive use of submarines, but not before the United Kingdom had been subjected to an all-out assault designed to destroy the RAF and cripple the nation’s ability to make war, by remorseless attack from the air.

As head of the newly created Fighter Command from July 1936, Dowding went on to create a command and control network alerted by radar, all feeding into Fighter Command headquarters at RAF Bentley Priory, and supported by an organisation of group and sector headquarters designed to co-ordinate timely fighter interception of incoming German aircraft. That was all interconnected by a system of telephone and, later, teleprinter communications. The historian and operational analyst Stephen Bungay, in his brilliant book, “The Most Dangerous Enemy”, describes that system as “the world’s first intranet”, albeit an analogue version, half a century before Tim Berners-Lee. Critically, the Dowding system, as it became known, allowed the RAF to make best use of its resources in combating an enemy that frequently outnumbered it three, or even four, to one.

Thirdly, Dowding possessed tremendous moral courage in dealing with superiors, up to and including Churchill. The epic 1969 movie “The Battle of Britain”, with its all-star cast, opens with the Dowding letter of 16 May 1940, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) referred to. In it, Dowding famously argued the need to conserve Britain’s fighter strength during the fall of France. As he trenchantly put it,

“if the Home Defence Force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete and irremediable defeat of this country.”

In Dowding, Britain possessed a commander with an absolutely single-minded determination to prepare meticulously for, to fight and then to win the battle, for which his pilots, whom he referred to affectionately as “my boys”, held him in particular reverence. His truly was the controlling mind that orchestrated the ultimately successful defence of these islands.

Like many commanders before him, Dowding was a maverick, but he was not an extrovert. He was socially awkward, which led to his nickname “Stuffy”. He never suffered fools gladly, and his manner could be abrupt, even when dealing with superiors, which ultimately led to his downfall. Nevertheless, he was a man utterly dedicated to his task, and one to whom history owes an immense debt. Arguably, had Dowding never been born we might even have lost the battle, as we would undoubtedly have been far less well prepared to fight it.

[David Mundell]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this Saturday, at his birthplace in Moffat, a bust of the then Lord Dowding will be unveiled alongside a replica Spitfire, and that his former home has been turned into sheltered housing accommodation for RAF personnel, known as Dowding House.

[Mr Francois]

I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is entirely appropriate.

James Holland, in his excellent book “The Battle of Britain: Five Months that changed History”, highlights the fact that the Luftwaffe made multiple mistakes in the campaign, but nevertheless concludes:

“This should not detract from the achievement of the RAF in the summer of 1940. Had it not had such a superb defensive system and had it not had such inspired and brilliant leaders, the Luftwaffe would still have prevailed, no matter how valiant or skillful the pilots.”

To conclude myself, the importance of winning the battle of Britain cannot be overstated. Had the RAF lost and had Hitler successfully invaded these islands, the whole history of the world thereafter would have been brutally different. Put another way, the debate today would not be taking place and there would be no Parliament or House of Commons for it to take place in. The Royal Air Force, as a service, can rightly be proud of the immense contribution it made in the battle of Britain to the defence of democracy, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the free world. The pilots whom Churchill famously christened “the few” have a special place in the annals of history, but so do the very few who so brilliantly commanded them to victory. We honour all of them today.

Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The home front was an unrelenting struggle and the European theatre was the most mechanised slaughter ever witnessed on the continent, but the brutal fighting of the Japanese was incomparable. Young men would have heard the tales of ferocious fighting on the ground, kamikaze attacks from the air, barbaric treatment of allied prisoners of war upon victory in battle, and mass suicides forced on Japanese civilians upon defeat in battle.

Those harrowing tales did not faze the good old men of east London or Essex, or, for that matter, the millions of brave British, Indian and Commonwealth soldiers who volunteered. Over the course of British involvement, loyal subjects of the Crown left their families, friends and native soil to sail to the far east to defend their empire. Many of those brave men were from England, including many from Essex. I remember especially the South West Essex Burma Star Association, which met at the Romford United Services club. I was honoured to be given honorary membership of the club by those old and bold veterans, who I was proud to meet and invite to Parliament in my early years as an MP. Their memory, and that of those who served in the far east, will never be forgotten.

For over 90,000 servicemen, it was only ever destined to be a one-way journey. Hand in hand with our American allies from across the pond, those gallant men fought to ensure the end of one of the most brutal and oppressive imperial powers, which could rain terror upon its neighbours no longer, and to ensure that freedom and democracy prevailed. Determined to fight to the bitter end, the imperial Japanese army fully intended to force an allied invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have led to untold casualty on both sides. That was averted.

Often referred to as the forgotten Army, the soldiers of the Pacific theatre were the very greatest of the greatest generation. Their loyal service and valiant fighting brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Their inspirational commander, General Bill Slim, was one of the greatest generals of world war two. His book, “Defeat into Victory”, which is about how he did it, is one of the greatest books ever written about that war. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I certainly do. General Slim is one of the greatest British heroes, and we salute his honour today as well.

The loyal service and valiant fighting of those servicemen brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades. Victory in the second world war enabled a thriving Commonwealth of Nations, global economic growth, the spread of democracy and the guarantees of the freedoms that we so treasure in Britain today. Those achievements are what our servicemen fought for, and we owe it to their memory to celebrate, preserve and advance them at every opportunity, as they did for King, country and Commonwealth.

RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper]

As the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member is very knowledgeable about this subject, and I hope that we will tease out today much of what he raised—we may actually get some of the answers we seek.

As I was saying, the RAF has a problem: it cannot offer a complete package, and we could be reliant on NATO allies to give us extra cover. That is because the venerable E-3D Sentry aircraft has retired, so we entirely lack an airborne early warning command and control aircraft providing situational awareness of the battlespace—that is the real-time 360° view of what is out there, so that our top guns know who to salute and who to shoot.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On the matter of top guns, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Air Marshal Harv Smyth on today being appointed as the new Chief of the Air Staff designate? He is what the Americans would call a warfighter. He and the new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Rich Knighton, will provide a powerful team in the defence—including the air defence—of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend welcome both appointments, as I do?

[John Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I do indeed welcome the fact that, given the situation we are in, we are welcoming warfighters into these senior positions. It is worth reflecting, yet again, that the military likes a TLA—three-letter acronym.

The replacement for the Sentry, the E-7 Wedgetail, is already combat-proven with the Royal Australian Air Force, but it is still not in service with the RAF; indeed, it is already two years late. I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurance that it is not the Ajax of the skies, because that unhappy armoured fighting vehicle programme has become a byword for ruinously expensive waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. He is absolutely correct and he also referred to the fact that he, too, has Thales in his constituency, or close to it. That is the thing about the defence industry—it is intertwined with so many constituencies. In fact, I do not think that there is a single constituency that does not have some defence involvement. In my constituency, rural Dumfries and Galloway, we make the helmets for the F-35 Lightning II jets. Wherever anyone goes in the country, there is some defence involvement and we must back that to the hilt. We must also look forward, which is critical; I think that much of this debate is about looking forward, rather than looking backwards and raking over old coals.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend’s speech is obviously provoking a great deal of interest in the Chamber. Can he confirm that in the defence appropriations Bill that the Pentagon put forward in late June, which asks Congress for money for equipment in the next financial year, the Wedgetail programme for the United States air force was deleted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and on his well-informed speech. There were some fantastic world war two metaphors and terminology in it, which I will not be able to emulate.

I welcome the chance to debate the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme, as it is such an important capability—and not just for the RAF, because it will serve all our armed forces when it comes into service. This is not about three aircraft—or, preferably, five; it is about a force multiplier that will have a huge impact on the ability of all our other military capabilities, across air, land and sea, to dominate the modern battlespace.

Wedgetail scans the battlefield using advanced radar and sensors. I am a bit perturbed by the idea that the venerable Hawkeye could somehow step into that; whatever the capabilities of the airframe, it has an older radar and does not have the kind of space inside it for command and control facilities that Wedgetail does. Wedgetail processes vast amounts of information to allow commanders to make informed and speedy decisions about where to deploy their assets. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, it is a proven technology that has been successfully used in combat in the middle east by Australia.

The only production line for Wedgetail globally is here in the UK, at Meriden, between Birmingham and Coventry. The number of jobs involved is not huge—it is 190 across the UK, perhaps rising above 300 next year—but they are highly skilled. There is also export potential, whether or not the US sticks with its order, as NATO has selected the E-7 to replace its shared E-3 Sentry fleet. As many as 100 jobs could be created at RAF Lossiemouth for the sustainment contract.

Everyone in this room—because we are all people who take a slightly geeky interest in this program—is aware that Wedgetail has been hit by a series of strange, unexpected problems, from the impact of covid to a hurricane hitting the site where the radar is produced. Most significantly, the 10-year gap between the order for the previous batch of Wedgetails by South Korea and their construction meant that some parts were no longer in production and had to be recreated from scratch. The production schedule was therefore wildly over-optimistic.

It is commendable, given its fixed-fee contract, that Boeing, the prime contractor, has stuck with the programme even though it is making a loss on it because it is not the off-the-shelf product that the contract envisaged. That commitment has been recognised by Andy Start, the interim national armaments director, who told the Public Accounts Committee in April that Boeing

“has leaned in with serious amounts of resource and stuck with that programme to make sure it is delivered.”

Sadly, some of the issues with the programme were self-inflicted by the previous Conservative Government. I am reluctant to be too partisan, because one of the better things about debating defence policy is that there tends to be quite a bit of bipartisan consensus, but the belief in 2019 that the previous Government could rush through the original contract process in just nine months, when it would normally take two or three years, was naive to say the least, and meant that many assumptions made during the planning of the programme were incorrect.

[Mr Francois]

I should declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, so I contributed to that report, which was critical of the decision to cut the number from five to three. I do not deny that, and I still would prefer that we had stayed with five. I thought that, to be transparent, I should put that on the record.

[Luke Akehurst]

I welcome the right hon. Member’s making that point. From my reading of the timelines of who was in office and when, I am very clear that this decision came after his time as a Minister and during the time in which he was scrutinising decisions by other Conservative Ministers.

The extraordinary, destructive and irrational decision, I believe by Ben Wallace, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, to cut the order from five aircraft to three, came in 2021. I do not understand how that is supposed to work. Five aircraft were required for a reason: one to be in deep maintenance and repair, one for training and then at least two to sustain a single operation 24/7. Obviously, an aircraft cannot stay airborne permanently; they have to land to refuel and presumably to give the crew some kind of rest. How does that work with only three aircraft?

It was not even a sensible cost saving, as has previously been referenced. The axing of 40% of the fleet delivered only a 12% saving on the cost of the programme. The Defence Committee’s 2023 report, in which I assume the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was involved, described that as “perverse” and an “absolute folly”. The United Kingdom had already procured not three but five sets of extremely expensive advanced radar from Northrop Grumman, so there are now two really expensive sets of radar sat around as spares for airframes that do not exist.

The decision to cut the order from five to three meant that the contract needed to be renegotiated and led to a further delay of six months, all the while leaving the huge capability gap that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about in our airborne early warning and control due to the retirement of the E-3D Sentry—a gap described by the Defence Committee, as its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned, as

“a serious threat to the UK’s warfighting ability.”

Really, this essential programme was vandalised by the previous Government. It is a stunning example of poor decision making. I therefore welcome the strategic defence review’s recommendation that further Wedgetails

“should be procured when funding allows”.

[Cameron Thomas]

The reduction in the number of Wedgetails, which seems to have been a mistake, feels very reminiscent of the coalition Government’s cutting of the Nimrod programme despite having already spent billions of pounds on it. That left us without a maritime patrol aircraft, and we had to go cap in hand to the French and the Americans for our—

[Mr Francois]

It didn’t work.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the right hon. Member. It left us with a gap in our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. I accept that that was a coalition issue, but I am glad to hear that there is consensus in this room on the importance of ISR capability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, as we examine the progress—or rather the sheer lack of it—of the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on introducing the debate in such an articulate manner, with a touch of humour to boot. As a battle of Britain buff, I enjoyed his historical analogies with that epic conflict in 1940 and the critical importance of radar and early warning. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in whose constituency the valuable work of converting Boeing 737s into the Wedgetail variant is under way.

A couple of years ago, when I served on the Defence Committee—it is great to see the Chairman of the Committee in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the facility in Meriden where the work was being conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East has been an assiduous constituency MP in standing up for the highly skilled workforce undertaking the conversion. I do have a number of serious concerns about the status of the Wedgetail programme, however, as he is about to hear.

I state for the record that none of this is aimed at the workforce in Meriden, but much more at the senior management of Boeing, a company now facing massive reputational issues in both civilian and defence areas. I would like to have congratulated the Reform MP who contributed to this debate but, as ever, they are not here because Reform don’t do defence.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The head of the British Army stated almost a year ago that we need to prepare for the possibility of a peer-on-peer conflict with Russia by 2027. If that is so, having a modern airborne early warning control aircraft, such as Wedgetail, in operational service would be vital. Moreover, if there were to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, Ministers have told us several times that it might involve not just boots on the ground but jets in the air. They also need eyes in the sky to protect them from a potential Russian threat. In short, we do not currently have any.

Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to elicit from the Government when E-7 Wedgetail will finally enter operational service with the RAF. That really matters. Experience in Ukraine shows the heavy propensity of Russia to attack targets with long-range cruise missiles. In the event of a peer conflict with Russia, it is highly likely that most of our fixed RAF radar stations would fall victim to cruise missile attacks within the early few days, or even hours, of such a conflict. At present, we can supplement those with a limited number of mobile radars. It is also unclear whether in wartime other airborne warning assets, such as via satellite and other overseas facilities, would also remain available for long.

In such a scenario—one which, as the international sky continues to darken, we are increasingly forced to contemplate—having mobile airborne early-warning such as Wedgetail would be critical to maintain the integrity of the UK’s air defences, plus covering RAF aircraft abroad. That brings me to the current sorry state of the Wedgetail programme, which is running years late and has now unfortunately been rated red by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. To remind hon. Members, a red rating is defined as a project that

“reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective actions are needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.”

So, where are we today? Three 737 airframes are being converted at Meriden, including retrofitting them with the MESA radar. One of those aircraft has been completed, while the other two are still in work. However, according to a freedom of information request answered on 12 June, the first aircraft has flown only three times—two of them to get painted—and MESA, which is the whole point of the aircraft, has not even been turned on yet in flight. Why?

Moreover, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a member of the Defence Committee, revealed at a meeting of that Committee two weeks ago, the lead aircraft is struggling to achieve certification. He said:

“We were going to buy five, and then three, E-7s. They are horrendously late and overpriced. We have got one in with a special clearance, meaning that there is something that we do not know about that, which means that it cannot have a normal clearance.”

I appreciate that the Minister is likely to say that the previous Conservative Government should have made greater progress on Wedgetail, and I accept that we are not without blame in this field. Nevertheless, the new Government have now had a year to sort it out. The MOD and Boeing have been locked in complex negotiations over the so-called full business case that would allow Wedgetail to enter service, but those negotiations have still not been brought to a fruitful conclusion. Indeed, whereas the original concept was to service and maintain the Wedgetail aircraft in the United Kingdom, there are some media reports that it will now take place in the US instead. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if it is—I hope it is not—will he say what the additional cost will be? To be clear, we need E-7 Wedgetail in RAF service, but we need it now, not in several years’ time.

The US, which also has to replace a large number of its ageing E-3 aircraft, was planning to do that with E-7, but the programme is likely to be cancelled. As a stopgap, the US is now apparently even considering buying several dozen E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) said, originally entered service in the ’60s. They were famously featured in “Top Gun: Maverick”, guiding the attacking F-18s into the target. What exactly has gone wrong with the programme in the United States? Why is the Department of Defence apparently going to junk Wedgetail in favour of Hawkeye, and later, space-based systems? If it does, what are the implications for the RAF Wedgetail programme?

Apparently, Boeing is now claiming that what was originally an off-the-shelf purchase of E-7 for the RAF is now turning into a development programme. Can the Minister explain exactly what that means? Can he reassure the House that if the US does withdraw, we are not going to ask the Royal Air Force to pay a vast amount of money to develop E-7, when the United States has refused to do so?

The Government have been running a competition for a national armaments director—the NAD. If media reports are to be believed, they have now narrowed it down to two remaining candidates. As the NAD will have to deal with the problem of Wedgetail, can the Minister update the House on exactly where we are on the appointment? Who are the two remaining candidates? Is it true that one of them is holding out for more money? When can we expect a definitive announcement on the appointment? It would appear that, despite extended tortuous negotiations between the RAF and Boeing, the matter has still not been brought to a conclusion. It may mean that the incoming NAD has to knock heads together to finally achieve some progress, which the 12,500 employees at Defence Equipment and Support do not appear to have managed to do. If it were me, I would start as I mean to go on. I would tell Boeing that it will not be granted any further contracts with the Ministry of Defence, be it for more helicopters or advanced jet trainers, unless and until it has introduced its project—its product, E-7 Wedgetail—successfully into operational service.

On 25 June, when the House debated the new NAD role, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), raised Wedgetail as a specific programme requiring more scrutiny. So concerned have I become while researching for this debate, and having considered the matter overnight, I asked this morning for a meeting with the Chair of the PAC, who wanted to be here this afternoon but unavoidably has to be elsewhere. He too was concerned, and he has authorised me to say that he is minded to write to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to ask what on earth is going on—his words—regarding Wedgetail, and to request a meeting about the programme.

In summary, as someone who served on the Defence Committee for seven years and was consistently highly critical of the Army’s Ajax programme—which I note in passing has still not entered operational service—I am afraid to say that, put bluntly, Wedgetail has now turned into the RAF’s very own Ajax. Here we are with another example of a highly complex, exquisite programme that, like Ajax, has not run massively over budget, but which is nevertheless years late, and there is still no guarantee that it even works properly in RAF service. This is threatening to become a £2 billion white elephant in the room.

May I conclude by asking the Minister three direct questions? I hope he can provide clear and ambiguous answers, given that he is covering for the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry this afternoon, while the Minister for Veterans and People remains on resignation watch. Question one: what is the exact status of the flight trials programme of the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, and when will active trials of the MESA radar commence and conclude? Question two: what is the issue regarding certification of the airframe? What is meant by “limited certification”, and when are the aircraft expected to be fully certified by the Military Aviation Authority? Question three: when is E-7 Wedgetail finally expected to enter operational service with the RAF, and when are the second and third aircraft anticipated, to provide full operational capability? All experience suggests that if we are to maintain one aircraft consistently on task for any length of time, we would need all three aircraft in operational service in order to guarantee it.

I say again: when we were in government, we should perhaps have done more to accelerate the progress of this programme. But now that Labour is running the show, and has been for over a year, we need to know what the Labour Government are going to do about it. We cannot contemplate the possibility of war with Russia in which we would be virtually blinded within the opening hours. Wedgetail is now absolutely critical to the defence of the UK, so when, oh when are the RAF and Boeing going to get their collective house in order and bring this absolutely vital capability into service?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have 35 minutes in which to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is worth noting, because to succeed we need people at the point of the spear and we need people who are the spear. All too often in our debates, we neglect those who support, who engineer, and who are the backbone of our military. Having Sir Rich in the new role as CDS will be a good encouragement to all those who find a career in our armed forces: there is a bright future ahead of them if they work hard and succeed.

At a time of increasing threats to our security and rapid developments in technology, it is essential that we upgrade our airborne early warning and control capabilities. Members have mentioned it, but when we say, whether from the Dispatch Box as a Government or when we were in opposition, that the last Government hollowed out and underfunded our military, it is precisely such capability gaps that we are talking about. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, described it as not just a capability gap, but a credibility gap, and those are precisely the kinds of gaps that we so critiqued in opposition. They are also the gaps that we have to fill, now that we are in government.

The UK’s E-7 Wedgetail programme will provide the significantly improved performance that we are looking for, offering greater speed, range, endurance and crew capacity. By improving detection, it provides earlier warning of more challenging threats at greater distances than before, increasing the time available for offensive and defensive action, and so boosting the lethality, survivability and resilience of the joint force. Wedgetail is not only the most capable and effective airborne early warning and control platform in operation today; it also has the growth path to match the expected threat over the next 20 years and beyond. We will continue to fully prepare for the introduction of E-7 Wedgetail to the RAF fleet.

To support the introduction of E-7, a joint operational conversion unit, 42 Squadron, has been re-formed at RAF Lossiemouth. The squadron will train all aircrew and engineers to operate the Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the Wedgetail airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft. The Lossiemouth development programme is delivering vital infrastructure, including a new engineering building, accommodation and squadron facilities, and the UK has been helped by Australia to prepare for Wedgetail. I put on record my thanks to the Royal Australian Air Force. Since its inception in 2018, 30 RAF personnel have undergone training on the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, which is already in operation with the Royal Australian Air Force. We are extremely grateful to our Australian friends for their support.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) could put on record the difference between Birmingham and Solihull. As a Plymouth MP, I am forever making the distinction between Devon and Cornwall, although we are the best of friends at the same time. The hon. Member made the argument about the economic contribution that Wedgetail makes to his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the wider nationwide supply chain. That contribution is vital.

Wedgetail is already bringing economic benefits to the UK. Three Boeing 737 aircraft are currently being modified at STS Aviation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, where around 100 skilled jobs have been created, in addition to 200 jobs supporting infrastructure at RAF Lossiemouth. He is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham did, that these are high-skilled jobs. They are precisely what his constituency needed supporting after the collapse of Monarch Airlines. It has meant that so many people could transfer into new roles at STS.

The work at STS, supplemented by Boeing and Northrop Grumman personnel who have worked on previous E-7 conversion programmes, is important. Boeing Defence UK expects a further 70 to 100 jobs to be added to support the aircraft in service at Lossiemouth. The Government’s longer-term aim is to grow the UK industrial base in support of Wedgetail, including potentially to support NATO and other global customers as they commit to E-7 in future years. Members will know that the strategic defence review was clear that defence is an engine for growth, and we need to continue to support our allies in looking to E-7 Wedgetail to provide some of their long-range surveillance opportunities.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about exports. It is a priority for this Government to procure systems that are not only better value for money for the UK armed forces, but built in such a way that we do not make them so Gucci that they are available only for the Brits. That has been a flaw of previous procurements, and we are clear, in rebuilding and recapitalising our armed forces and many of their capabilities—including filling capability gaps that we inherited from the previous Government—that we have to ensure that those platforms are exportable, that there is a work share for British companies, and that defence can be a real engine for growth. He will be aware of the high-level ambition set out in the strategic defence review to deliver that.

Members will also know that we hope to publish the defence industrial strategy in due course and, towards the end of the year, the defence investment plan. That will set out what we are spending, not just on kit and equipment, as previous iterations of the equipment plan did, but on infrastructure and people. Those are what the MOD wishes to spend the increased amounts of defence funding on. Exports will be a key part of that, and I encourage the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East to continue to make that case.

However, disappointingly, the E-7 Wedgetail programme has experienced delays. These are due, first, to wider challenges faced by the entire global aviation industry—such as shortages of materials, parts and skilled labour—and, secondly, to more specific programme issues, including complex certification work that Boeing has had to undertake to meet assurance requirements.

The Ministry of Defence is working closely with Boeing to minimise the impact of these issues, and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry has regular conversations with Boeing to emphasise the importance of delivering this capability.

As a result, E-7 Wedgetail is scheduled to enter service with the Royal Air Force in 2026. The RAF’s mission system has been significantly upgraded, making our Wedgetail aircraft distinct from those of other nations. That has required substantial certification and safety checks to ensure the system meets the standards required. We are working flat out to get a fully compliant aircraft into service as fast as possible, and we are holding suppliers to account for their part in that. Since concluding previous flights in October 2024, the aircraft has continued its mission systems installation.

E-7 Wedgetail completed its fourth test flight last week and will perform a fly-past at the royal international air tattoo at RAF Fairford, which the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will attend—I believe other hon. Members may be visiting as well. Test and evaluation will take place across multiple sites in the UK, with the next phase starting this month. This is a detailed process to demonstrate that each system operates as designed. Subsequent phases will be running through to 2026.

[Mr Francois]

As the Minister has lots of time, will he give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I have lots of points to cover, but I will happily come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

I was just going to ask if you have turned the radar on yet.

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Mr Francois]

Have you turned the radar on?

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course. I have other hon. Members’ questions to address first, and I will not be spoken over—thank you.

[Mr Francois]

So you have not.

[Luke Pollard]

The level of politeness that we saw in the rest of the debate has not been reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

Turning to the costs, the original outlined business case approved the acquisition of five Wedgetail Mk 1 aircraft. Due to the wider fiscal challenges faced by the Department, the programme was reduced in scope by the last Government. That is what the officials have written for me, and I share much of the concern that hon. Members have expressed about the reduction of capabilities. Once again, the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces have led to capability gaps, not just in the early retirement of platforms but in the lack of procurement. It is precisely for that reason that the SDR sought to look at that.

The integrated review endorsed the reduction to three aircraft in 2021, and the fleet was then incorporated with the P-8A Poseidons at RAF Lossiemouth. The three new E-7 Wedgetails will still enable the UK to meet our key user requirements and honour both our domestic and international commitments, including our contribution to NATO—as outlined in the strategic defence review on page 115, recommendation 47. We have re-examined this decision and made a commitment to reassess the number of E-7s we have when funding allows. I encourage hon. Members who raised the ambition to procure more E-7s to consider how that case can be made in future spending decisions, and that could build on the defence industrial strategy.

To the point raised by a number of hon. Members—including the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Meriden and Solihull East, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would welcome the opportunity to bring together a group of interested parliamentarians to discuss not only how we deploy E-7s into active duty, but how we can build on export opportunities and support their full introduction. We will take that as an action, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister being able to invite colleagues into the MOD for further discussions on that issue.

We have been working with Boeing to achieve the best value for money across the programme. There will be no additional cost as a result of the delays, as Boeing is committed to delivering the three aircraft under a firm-price contract. That means the MOD will have no inflation risk in the aircraft modification programme. The programme is also benefiting from the use of common 737 spares with Poseidon, as well as shared support services with Boeing. This allows us to leverage efficiencies in spares procurement, repair, overhaul, maintenance costs and the training of engineering personnel to work on both sets of aircraft at Lossiemouth. The intent is to expand co-operative support across Wedgetail and Poseidon in future, to drive down costs further.

A number of Members, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned the US position. E-7 Wedgetail is in operation with the air forces of Australia, Türkiye and the Republic of Korea. Additionally, NATO has selected E-7A as its replacement for the NATO E-3A aircraft that are currently flying. I understand that there may be some concern about the US plans due to media reports last month, but the MOD will continue with its procurement of Wedgetail to meet our national and NATO requirements for airborne early warning and control that is interoperable with allies. Procurement decisions by any other NATO nation are a matter for that nation, but they will not affect UK procurement of Wedgetail.

There have been some comments during this debate, and in the wider debate out there, about whether the UK should consider using E-2 Hawkeye instead. I stress again that Wedgetail has superior speed, range, persistence and crew capacity compared with alternative platforms. Furthermore, it has a powerful radar with increased detection capability, which will give us a significant operational advantage.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, for the tone of his speech. It is certainly right that we talk about this issue. Having previously sat on the Opposition Benches, I recognise some of his critiques of the previous Government. Indeed, I entirely agree that “bimbling along” will not cut it. That is precisely why we have seen a new energy and increased defence spending under this Government. There is more to do, but hopefully he will see that in the ambition set out in the SDR to do more and to fill capability gaps in this area.

A number of Members referred to the Select Committee report on procurement in the previous Parliament. It was absolutely right to look at the procurement system. We described it as broken when we were in opposition, and in government we are taking steps to fix it. The recruitment of the new national armaments director, being led by the Secretary of State, is a key part of that process. I do not have an update now, but I am certain that a parliamentary question on that subject will shortly be coming the way of the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry.

The new NAD will operate as part of a new empowered quad, leading the Ministry of Defence to make faster procurement decisions. We certainly need to make better procurement decisions than those we have seen in the past. The delays in contracting are a key part of cost escalation across a number of programmes, albeit not with Wedgetail because of the fixed-price contract. It is absolutely right that we make better procurement decisions.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway on the need to invest in laser weapons. The SDR talked about rolling out the DragonFire directed-energy weapon system. The ambition of the last Government was to install DragonFire on one Royal Navy destroyer, as an uncosted programme. The SDR set out a costed proposal to install it on four Royal Navy destroyers, setting a date for when that will happen. Creating a structured, layered and integrated air and missile defence system will, in part, depend on looking at directed-energy weapons and similar novel technologies across a range of spectrums, in order to provide the air defence we require to secure homeland defence and operational defence for our allies abroad.

The picture painted by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), of what might happen in the event of a conflict means that not only air defence missiles would have a role in such a conflict, and this new technology might well play a part. I am grateful for the way he introduced the debate in that respect.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East invited me to talk about space, which is one of my nerdy passions. The term “defence geeks” was used earlier, and I am certainly a space nerd. Space is a huge opportunity for improving not only ISR capabilities but defence capabilities. However, we need to be realistic that if we are to move to a fully integrated approach, which is the intent of the SDR with an all-domain warfare approach, we need to invest in the right capabilities.

For the Royal Air Force, Wedgetail is absolutely part of that joined-up and integrated approach, which is why we will continue with it. Given the workforce in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I hope he will strongly support the 2026 delivery timetable for the first aircraft in operation. And on defence exports, he will know that one recommendation of the SDR was to move an element of exports for defence from the Department for Business and Trade into the Ministry of Defence.

That work is under way at the moment, so that we can better align the opportunities of defence exports, because we believe there is a huge opportunity for British business to sell our technologies to allies around the world. That has the advantage of being an engine for growth, as well as making us stronger by making our allies stronger at the same time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work, and indeed for his praise for our friends from Australia. The Defence Committee report that he cited needs to be front and centre when we look at Wedgetail procurement so that we learn the lessons and make it work. As the last Government’s procurement of five sets of radar for three aircraft shows, the procurement system was neither working properly nor delivering value for money.

My hon. Friend asked about the Australian upgrades. Australia and the USA are working collaboratively on what is called the next-gen Wedgetail with improved radar, which they think will enter service in 2035. The UK is part of the trilateral group, but we are not pursuing the advanced sensor at this time because we are focused on delivering the current capability without any further delay, as Members on both sides of the House have urged. As part of the trilateral agreement, we have the opportunity to upgrade in the future should we wish to do so. Doing so may be more cost-effective in the long term.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a strong argument. I support the wording of the strategic defence review, which talks of possibly buying more E-7 Wedgetails when the economic conditions allow. Of course, thanks to the decisions taken by the Prime Minister, we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% by 2035. For the first time in a very long time, there will be a rising defence budget in the next decade.

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will continue to make the case for increased defence spending, which will mean more jobs directed at British companies—and Boeing, which is based and works in Britain, is precisely such a company, as are UK primes and small and medium-sized enterprises, which could benefit from that. His description of the programme as having been vandalised by the last Government is powerful, but I recognise that we now need to deliver the capabilities and make sure they work.

I will briefly respond to some of the interventions before addressing the Front-Bench contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is, in his customary way, absolutely right that it is important that the programme is delivered and that we learn the lessons to improve procurement. That is the intention of the defence industrial strategy and will be the intention of the defence investment plan. The first of the RAF’s Wedgetail aircraft will be introduced next year, which is a moment to make sure that the second and third aircraft can be delivered in the expected timeline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praised the supply chain and mentioned Thales in Belfast and Glasgow. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the importance of defence businesses in Scotland, which has a proud tradition of investing in brilliant defence businesses. Some of our cutting-edge capabilities are developed and built in Scotland, and we have a Government in Westminster who are proud of Scottish defence workers and of the supply chain there. It is just a shame that we do not have a Scottish Government who can be equally proud of the exceptional work to support our national defence that takes place not just in the shipyards and factories, but in the workshops and laboratories across Scotland. I am certain that there will be further opportunities for that case to be made forcefully.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who reiterated the need for ISR capabilities. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke with real passion about the need to work with more of our EU allies. That is precisely why the Prime Minister initiated the EU reset. We now have an agreement with our EU friends that opens the door to participation in more joint programmes and joint working. We have, in any case, cleared the air and improved the relationship with our European friends that might have existed under the last Government. They are our friends, and our NATO allies. We stand with them when we face a common threat, such as the threat from Russia, and it is absolutely right that we do so. The hon. Member for North Devon is also right to point out the gaps in procurement that we need to fill, and the retirement of the previous aircraft. I am grateful for his service, even if it was some time ago, at the same time as the Sentry was introduced.

I will turn to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. In the 2025 NISTA report, the Wedgetail programme is rated amber, not red, but I think his critique is that the programme has been beset by delays for quite some time. I share the general concern about the procurement system. It must be a curious position for the right hon. Member, having been such a fantastic scrutineer of the last Government’s woeful procurement system, to now be the Front-Bench spokesperson for his party. I am grateful that he did not fall into the trap of simply defending the last Government, and was honest about those failings. That is to his credit.

The Minister for Veterans and People is at Windsor collecting his Distinguished Service Order. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure that the whole House, instead of taking cheap shots at him, welcomes and thanks him for his service. Having someone with that much bravery and courage in the office next door to mine is a firm reminder to sit up straight in my seat every time we are in meetings together.

I have spoken about how we are going to get to Wedgetail’s introduction in service, and briefly mentioned the NAD recruitment; that is being led by the Secretary of State so the question is for him, but I am expecting a parliamentary question on that. I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford says that the last Government were not without blame. I wish that we were able in 12 months to fix every problem that we inherited from the Conservatives but, as he knows, some of those problems are long-rooted and will take a lot of time to resolve. I am hopeful that the Wedgetail programme will start delivering aircraft next year, as planned; that is the commitment that Boeing has given. That will make substantial progress on a programme that has taken too long to deliver.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I shall also deal with the earlier comment about where the aircraft will be maintained. I am happy to confirm that they will be maintained in the UK. I did not get all of the right hon. Member’s questions down in detail. I do not want to give an incorrect answer, especially as I am standing in for the Minister for Veterans and People and out of my swimming lane, so I commit to ask my hon. Friend to write to the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that he gets the correct answers.

[Mr Francois]

That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.

[Luke Pollard]

I know the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be aggressive and angry, but I do not want to give the wrong answer when I am standing in for another Minister. I am happy to ensure that a letter is written and shared with colleagues here so that the answers are given properly. I have been very clear about—

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts each sentence, I will not get the full sentence out. I appreciate that he has a style that he has to maintain, but this is not helpful and not in the spirit or the tone in which the debate has been conducted. I will conclude briefly, so that my exchanges with him do not lower the tone.

We need to ensure this programme is delivered. It is important for the RAF and our national security. It has been beset by delays and the procurement system used to deliver it was not acceptable. The Conservative Government’s decision to cut the number of Wedgetails from five to three has correctly been criticised by Members on both sides of the House, including by members of the House of Commons Defence Committee.

As a new Government coming in, we committed to look at purchasing new E-7 Wedgetails, as part of the recommendation in the SDR, when the economic conditions allow. That is a vote of confidence in the platform, and it is part of our ambition to improve defence procurement. Boeing and the partners in the supply chain should be in no doubt that we expect the aircraft we ordered to be delivered, to be operational, and to make a valid contribution to filling the gap that the last Government created when they axed the previous aircraft providing this capability. I am happy to ensure that a copy of the detailed notes are shared with the House, so that answers to the questions put to me are properly provided.

UK-France Nuclear Partnership

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

There has not been a statement yet because the agreement has not been signed yet. In fact—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

You’re briefing it to the press.

[Maria Eagle]

If the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen to the reply, the agreement has not been signed yet. I am sure that as soon as it is signed—

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place.

As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system.

Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty.

The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom.

The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent.

The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress.

Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person

“subject to service law or…a relevant family member.”

Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary.

Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families.

This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve.

I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments.

I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate.

I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case.

The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve.

[Mr Francois]

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies.

Question put.

Defence

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

The draft order will address the constitutional requirement, under the Bill of Rights 1688, that a standing Army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, must receive the consent of Parliament. The draft order provides that consent by continuing into force for another year the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that governs the armed forces. This debate usually takes place in a Delegated Legislation Committee, before returning to the Floor of the House for approval. Given the significance to the country of both the armed forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament provides, it is fitting that the debate is today being afforded time on the Floor of the House. That enables all Members who wish to contribute to do so, for as the strategic defence review has shown, we must put our people at the heart of defence—I know that on all sides of the House there is strong support for our people.

Parliament is required to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation—the next armed forces Bill is required to have obtained Royal Assent by December 2026—and in the intervening years it is to approve an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today. The Act provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for the service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of armed forces personnel accused of committing an offence wherever in the world they are serving.

On that last point, I draw the House’s attention to the explanatory memorandum to the order, which states:

“The extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the British overseas territories except Gibraltar.”

There is a distinct difference between the extent of UK legislation and how the jurisdiction of service law is applied. The extent of any legislation is a statement about in which separate legal jurisdictions the legislation forms part of the law. Not extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 Act does not form part of Gibraltarian law. That is because Gibraltar has made an agreement with the United Kingdom that it will pass forward amendments to the Act in its own legislation. Conversely, service law applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, so effectively there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction with regard to our service personnel and, in some circumstances, civilians subject to service discipline, including those based in, or serving in, Gibraltar.

The 2006 Act provides the legal basis for offices such as the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the court martial, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court. It also sets out the processes for the accused to be dealt with by their commanding officer, or to be tried at court martial. Finally, the Act also contains provisions that cover non-service justice matters, such as service complaints and the armed forces covenant. As such, the next armed forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service justice measures and non-service justice measures. I look forward to working with Members across the House when it is introduced in due course.

In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued defence in the past, rooting out toxic behaviours that we see evidence of in our armed forces. There is no place for abuse in the UK armed forces.

Today’s debate comes against a backdrop of this Government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans, by putting people at the heart of our defence plans and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, combined with a whole-of-society approach to our national resilience. That is why, last year, we delivered the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years. We followed that up with another above-inflation rise recently. That is why we have secured a major housing deal to buy back over 36,000 military homes, improving houses for armed forces families and saving taxpayers billions. We are investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament.

That is why we have set new targets to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous Government, the results of which are clear already: inflow up 19%, outflow down 7%, and the Army experiencing a seven-year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life, and are making it easier for veterans to access care and support for our £50 million VALOUR network.

After all, the Government recognise that the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. The strategic defence review, published last month, will make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad, and sets a path for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and end the hollowing out of our armed forces that we have seen over the past 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have: stepped up and speeded up support for Ukraine; signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany; started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth; and implemented the deepest Ministry of Defence reform programme in decades. All of that has been underpinned by an increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year, and a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?

[Luke Pollard]

I would say to the right hon. Member that his Government left our forces hollowed out and underfunded, left our forces living in appalling accommodation, left a retention and recruitment crisis that meant that for every 100 people joining our forces, 130 were leaving, and left a situation where morale fell each and every year for the last decade in every one of our services.

We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track. That is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence, why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resource this year, and why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the recent NATO summit—something I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s party will, in due course, bring itself to do.

We need to be ready to deliver for our defence and to stand with our allies, and that is what we are doing today: we are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. As someone who values defence sometimes more than his party loyalty, as I saw in the previous Parliament, I hope the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Indeed, I hope he has the opportunity to do so in a moment, when he stands up to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026.

For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights 1688, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the

“raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.”

This provision has resulted in the requirement, since 1688, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order.

As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one.

While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart. I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again.

Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for.

I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that.

As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed,

“The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.”

Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister.

As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds.

According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.

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

Whenever my right hon. Friend and other members of the Conservative shadow defence team bring up the question of reopening this lawfare against our veterans, Government Ministers say, “We will be sure to give veterans maximum support.” To me, that implies not protecting them from the lawfare, but supporting them as they go through the process; but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people involved in fatal accidents would serve only a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, they were convicted, but the probability is that they will not be convicted; the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are acquitted.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans.

If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I seek clarification and support from shadow Front Benchers on this. Do they recognise that there may be a bit of disagreement in the Government between Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and those in the Northern Ireland Office on how to proceed?

[Mr Francois]

I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed.

I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill?

Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real.

Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.

To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim?

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, the Ayes were 338 and the Noes were 79, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 168, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

We have had a good debate—lively at times—about an important subject. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support the order, which I am sure the House will pass without the need for a Division.

We have had some very good speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). He recalled his time serving as an infantry platoon commander. I had that same honour, although in my case it was as a cold war reservist rather than as a regular, like him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines now that the Government have flogged off most of our amphibious shipping. He asked for confirmation about timings on the MRSS class and about what happens to the Royal Marines now in their amphibious role. Perhaps the Minister will provide the House with some reassurance. If it is true that the Royal Marines will lose their amphibious role, at least in the short term, will he say whether the Parachute Regiment was consulted on that decision? [Interruption.] I see that Hansard must record that the Security Minister is chuckling at this point.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I see the Security Minister chuckling away. I, too, would like confirmation that, as part of the big three, the RAF Regiment was also consulted on this decision.

[Mr Francois]

I think the RAF Regiment has had other things on its mind lately.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on raising the important issue of Northern Ireland. That takes me to the point on which I would like to conclude. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions about what will happen to our Northern Ireland veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart lies on this. I cannot recall whether the Security Minister served in Northern Ireland—

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

He is nodding—I know that he served with great distinction in Afghanistan, so he too will understand this. We on these Benches have to believe that in the privacy of discussions between Government Departments, they are doing the right thing. Perhaps the Minister can give some assurance to those of the 300,000 veterans who served in Op Banner who are still with us that the Government will remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over them, and allow those people who served our country so bravely and with such distinction in incredibly difficult circumstances to sleep safely in their beds, as they deserve.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. It was a good one, and I will refer briefly to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, I detect strong support for our armed forces on all sides of the House, which is good to see, so I hope there will not be a Division. This debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House, but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader of the House and the Whips before I commit to any future such debates, because that is definitely outside my swim lane.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for talking about cadets. It is absolutely right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the strategic defence review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. This is a strong investment in the future of our young people that provides opportunities to get lifelong skills and increased confidence, as well as a pathway for young people to serve in our armed forces in order to fully realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know that there is strong support for them in every part of the country. The hon. Lady talked about young people finding meaning through service, and I could not agree more. I am grateful to her for that contribution.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked me a number of questions. We have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years, and it will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation, especially as it will come in after the publication of the strategic defence review. He will be familiar with the fact that the strategic defence review made the case for a defence readiness Bill, and we are looking at all those details. I can reassure him that it is part of the commitment we have made that, following the wide consultation we undertook for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we will continue that in that spirit for future legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister’s questions today we had Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary replied to questions on a number of issues that he has asked me about. I refer him to those remarks because as he will know—if only because I say this every time he asks me a question on it—that these are matters for the Northern Ireland Office, although Defence clearly has strong equities and views on these matters as well.

[Mr Francois]

I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

According to the 2021 census, there are more than 2 million veterans living in Great Britain. Clearly, some of them have been busy lately: their parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, with support from the Daily Mail, the Express and others, now has more than 160,000 signatures and will be debated in Parliament on 14 July. Which Minister will respond to that debate, so that we can ask them why the Government’s current remedial order is drafted to help the likes of Gerry Adams sue the British taxpayer while throwing our veterans to the wolves?

[John Healey]

We welcome the petition, and we certainly welcome the parliamentary debate—it is quite proper that Parliament debates these issues. The right hon. Gentleman’s legacy Act offered false and undeliverable promises to the veterans of Northern Ireland. The last Government were warned that it would be unlawful and incompatible with the Windsor framework. Even the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery said that the Act has obvious problems, and that elements of it were dead in the water from the beginning. We are now fixing that flawed and failed legislation, and we will do so in a way that honours our duty towards those veterans.

[Mr Francois]

The Government could have appealed to the Supreme Court on this but deliberately did not. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal sincerity. However, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister promised veterans:

“We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 324.]

Why then, despite the PM’s solemn promise, is the order still unchanged? Surely he is not expecting to order his own MPs, many of whom represent red wall seats from which those veterans were originally recruited, through the Aye Lobby just to do Gerry Adams a favour? He is not going to do that, is he?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister was right then and he is right now. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary to repeal and replace the legacy Act. We will honour the Prime Minister’s undertaking to this House and do right by the duty that this nation holds to those veterans who served for more than 38 years during the troubles in Northern Ireland.