Defence Spending and Readiness

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way—we have been waiting for months. I have stood up at every single oral questions and asked the Government when they will publish the defence investment plan. It feels like they have replied hundreds of times, “We’re working flat out,” and we still do not have it.

Can the Minister tell us if the DIP will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara? In particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of the defence investment plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)? It was reported today by the political editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two about when to publish the defence investment plan—they are working flat out, having this discussion. Mr Swinford said on X:

“The first conflict of the transition period: Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment Plan despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office.”

It is a simple question: who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts? Is it the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield?

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is not the real risk here that the defence investment plan, which the Government promised, will now be treated like a political football? The end result will be that defence supply chains in this country, and those of our international allies, will see that we are not worth doing business with.

[James Cartlidge]

As loath as I am to talk about political footballs, given that our football team is in action tonight, it is nevertheless pretty obvious: whether it is football, rugby or a tug of war, we already have a massive argument between the heart of Government and the shadow Government over who is in charge. At a time when we face serious threats, that is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I do recognise it, and also the wider impacts of the state of the housing that I, like my hon. Friend, had to live in. I also recognise the relentless pressure on our fantastic people, who were being asked to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road—a story that was repeated across many of our public services.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister mentions the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrongly, but she seems to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her that that was because of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape we faced at the time and that our allies were doing the same? At the time, the Labour Opposition did not oppose it and did not criticise it. Is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an observation?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am criticising the decision makers for that decision and, on reflection, I think that others would agree with me.

All of this occurred under Conservative Prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a Conservative Government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it.

In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support.

Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace.

The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I would absolutely be delighted to.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that—not many people do! I remind him that his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches also marched through the Lobby and made the savings in the armed forces budget when they were in Government. His party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds. Can the hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he would intend to fund that—it is borrowing, is it not? Would that not make the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse at this troubling time?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave an incredibly authoritative speech. I also commend the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who spoke powerfully. I have not served, but whenever I speak on this subject, I say that this House is richer because of the service of people on both sides, including the former Minister for the Armed Forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and our exceptional Minister for the Armed Forces.

It is Armed Forces Week, so I thank everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve. I particularly thank Stuart Mendelson, who set up an initiative in Hertfordshire called the Muster Point. It has a simple premise: to bring veterans together to meet, to socialise and to build networks and connections. He has had great success in doing that in Stevenage, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), and we are in the process of extending it to Welwyn Hatfield. I want to put on the record my thanks to Stuart.

This is also the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Chamber since the Prime Minister announced his resignation. It is a moment of regret for me, and I want to put on the record my thanks to him for all his service to my party and the country, and also for the fact that when he leaves office, most likely in a few weeks’ time, defence spending will be higher than it was at any point during the terms of the five previous Prime Ministers.

The tone of the House has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), but I will re-inject a bit of politics, because I think it is important on Opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party matches its record in office.

I want to go back to 2014, to the moment when Crimea was annexed by Putin—the moment, as people on all sides of politics would agree, when we should have realised the depth of the threats that we faced in Europe. At that time, defence spending was 2.2%. I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Defence spending in that eight-year period fell to just under 2.1%. I am afraid that when the Conservative party was in office, it did not heed those warnings.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those defence figures, but when his party came into office in 1997, defence spending was 3% of GDP and when it left it was 2.5%. I absolutely take his point, but is it not absolutely applicable to his party and Government, too?

[Andrew Lewin]

I am pleased that the hon. Member takes my point, but I am saying that the circumstances had changed. [Interruption.] I will make the point: that is why I intentionally picked those two dates—2014, the annexation of Crimea, and 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and our failure to act was a decisive moment in history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I declare an interest: I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I encourage all Members of the House to undertake their placement on that scheme, if they can.

The Prime Minister has been generating some sympathy with the dignified way in which he is choosing to leave office, and I add my voice to those who have stated that we are fortunate to live in a country with a political system that values leaders who put their country and the dignity of their office before personal gain. The Prime Minister is many things, and I disagree with him profusely, but first and foremost he is a gentleman who won a mandate, and everybody across this House should respect that and wish him well going forward.

Others who have shown personal strength of character and commitment to public office include the former Secretary of State of Defence—the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I know that both of them took their decision to resign seriously and with the intense reflection that it deserves. I also understand that their resignations came as a great surprise to the Prime Minister and No. 10, as they were expected to stay loyal, keep calm and carry on. Well, for those of us on the Opposition Benches, it was no surprise whatsoever.

We do not know exactly what was said in Cabinet, let alone in the private discussions between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, and nor should we. But from what we have seen and what has been reported about the complete fiasco around the defence investment plan, and about the failure to plan and meet the expectations that the public and our allies around the world have of us, it is no wonder that the Defence Secretary felt that he was unable to work under those conditions any longer. For six months—a quarter of the time the Prime Minister has been in office—he could not make a decision.

Since January, it has been clear to the Government that there is a gargantuan shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget. The paltry sum that the Treasury deemed suitable to shower on the MOD was barely enough to replace a few helmets, let alone build a next-generation fighting force that can deliver on the priorities outlined in the strategic defence review. Let us be clear: the indecision may be based on process—the Prime Minister’s favourite wall to hide behind—and, yes, there must be a process to prioritise, delegate and decide, but his indecision will cost lives if and when this country faces a crisis that requires a military response. The question remains: why did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not see this coming? The answer, of course, is that they did. They saw the threat of being exposed as weak on defence, and they chose to do nothing.

I respect the Minister for the Armed Forces and thank her for her past service, but she has added to this. She has spent a lot of time criticising the last Government—quite rightly, because she is a Minister of the Crown—but she now sits in the Department, and she stands at the Dispatch Box saying that all is now well and that she is proud of the process she is putting forward, when one of the Ministers she served alongside in the Department has resigned, as has the Secretary of State, who said that things were not going in the right direction. I think she needs to look at their speeches again.

There are few things more damning for the leader of a country to be accused of than being incapable of protecting the people they were elected to govern. That is not a party political point, but a point that has been made by the former Defence Secretary and the former Minister for the Armed Forces and one increasingly made across the defence sector, including by the Labour man, Lord Robertson, who wrote the strategic defence review in the first place. I sometimes wonder if Labour Members are deaf, because all these Labour voices are telling the Government that their strategic defence review, the lack of a defence investment plan and the lack of funding going into our armed forces are damning, but the Ministers at the Dispatch Box do not seem to hear.

[Mr Francois]

I have great respect for Lord Robertson, an accomplished former Defence Secretary and a former Secretary-General of NATO, who joined the Labour party in 1961. He is a Labour lifer, and when even he accuses the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency”, does that not prove how utterly out of touch this Government now are?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces is absolutely correct. I think we can add somebody else, and that is the former Defence Secretary. He is known not as a party political man, but as a deep statesman. He is known as a Minister on whom Prime Ministers from across the Labour party could rely. When we reach the stage of a former Labour statesman who wrote the SDR and the recently serving Secretary of State saying the Government are not listening to them, I think the country at large needs to listen, and so do Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box.

If I may, I will briefly mention specific points on the DIP and resilience. On the DIP, I know that the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench accept that the defence of the realm is the most important duty of any Government, and while I wish them success, I just think that this Government are falling short. There is no clearer sign of that than the lack of a defence investment plan, which they have promised. It has been much touted by this Government, but it is delayed by the latest drama. It is likely to be delayed again, which will spread uncertainty in our defence sector, including defence businesses in my constituency of Hamble Valley. Most importantly, it will spread uncertainty among our allies internationally.

The elephant in the room is that the Ministers sitting here today may not be in their jobs in three weeks’ time. I do not wish that to happen—I believe they are good Ministers—but that is the nature of the job we are in, or that they are in. Again, that will add to the uncertainty faced by businesses in the defence sector that are looking to the Government for the investment they were promised two and a half years ago.

In Hamble Valley, we have a thriving defence sector. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has been there: he kindly came down to a roundtable in the constituency. We have companies such as Domo Tactical Communications, Kraken, Safran, Saab and Windracers, but the constant feedback I get is that, without a defence investment plan, they do not know what they are supposed to do or where to invest. If the Minister and the new Secretary of State do not do this very quickly, those companies will suffer, and the United Kingdom as a whole will suffer. The figure of £13 billion is not the £18 billion identified by the National Security Adviser as needed just to maintain the status quo, which means that the United Kingdom will lose its credibility on the international stage.

My final point is about resilience. Last week, I was in Finland with the European Leadership Network. With Finnish MPs, we were looking at some of the defence co-operation in the NATO framework in which the United Kingdom, Israel and Finland play their part. I have to say that I was left shocked by the comparison between Finland’s resilience and preparedness and the United Kingdom’s. Hon. Members may challenge me—I know that some went to Norway last week—and point to the fact that Finland has a population of 5 million and a 1,500 mile border with Russia, whereas we have 70 million people on an island, but I think a lot of comparisons can be made. Very early on in the school system and when young people are growing up, defence resilience and preparedness are embedded in them, as it is in civil society and Government Departments.

As a former special adviser at the Cabinet Office, I know we have such documents, but what we urgently need to do—that is why this is in our motion—is not just look at international resilience and defence spending in order to attack, but make our population ready and willing to play their part in defending the homeland. The population in the Nordic countries have been polled about whether they would go to war if there was a threat. In Finland the figure is in the high 80s, but in the United Kingdom it is in the high teens, which worries me. Personally, I am a bit sceptical about how low it is here, because I believe our population would defend this country.

I am looking for answers from Ministers about how they plan—whether through the national curriculum or by reversing the cuts they have made to cadet forces in our schools—to very quickly embed in people from a very young age and entering civil society a sense that they are prepared to defend this country should that be needed.

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. The Finns have what they call a total defence concept, which is that in the event of an attack from Russia—they have much experience of that, historically—it is not just the armed forces who resist, but the whole of society. They have planned that for decades. We had something a bit like that during the cold war, but the Finns take it to a greater degree. Having been there, does he agree that we could learn a great deal from Finland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely do. The story was that if any Russian crossed the Finland border, the first thing they would hear from a Finn is “Hands up!”, and that if the Russians went into Finland, there would be a sniper’s rifle in every window. I am not saying that we need to do that—that was slightly tongue in cheek—but there is that resilience there. As a House, we have to accept that nobody under the age of 50 really remembers an adversarial cold war or the mentality of needing to be prepared to defend the country should there be an imminent and unprovoked attack. That is what we need to get back to, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the SDR will look at that.

We are living in unparalleled times. Public warnings have come from the Chief of the Defence Staff and from two Ministers who have resigned. A Prime Minister is now going and, I have to say, the ministerial team have not taken any notice of those warnings and are still carrying on without giving the money our armed forces need. We are paralysed: we are paralysed in this House and the Government are paralysed about putting in the much-needed money that the professionals are asking for. I hope that in three weeks’ time, when we get a new Prime Minister, that will be unlocked and it will change. Call me a cynic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure it will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

No. [Laughter.]

In February of this year, along with some 20 Members from this House—the largest ever parliamentary delegation to Ukraine as far as I am aware—I visited Odesa, Chernobyl and Kyiv. On 24 February, we were privileged to take part in the commemoration in Maidan Square to mark the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion. It is, in effect, Ukraine’s equivalent of Remembrance Sunday, and it was extremely poignant to be part of it. They lay lanterns with a candle at their memorial in much the same way as we lay wreaths in Britain. The principle is exactly the same: it is to remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom and democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting for our values and, ultimately, for our freedom too. We absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their brave struggle, which we all hope that they will one day win.

In order to help them, we need armed forces that can fight too. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) reminded us in his resignation letter, we need to plan for the next war and not the last. With that in mind, I would like to ask Ministers some questions on programmatics this afternoon. Having been in government for nearly two years now, Labour has to begin to take responsibility for something. I have three very specific questions for the Minister on military capability.

First, where are we on the much delayed E-7 Wedgetail programme? When, if ever, will this vitally needed eye in the sky enter Royal Air Force service? When, if ever, will Boeing actually make it work properly?

Secondly, turning to the Army, there are media reports that it will cost an additional £1 billion—above the £5.5 billion already allocated—to fix the Ajax programme and bring it fully into service. Is that true? If it is, can we be assured that General Dynamics will pick up the bill, per its current £5.5 billion firm-price contract, and that not a single extra penny will fall on the British taxpayer? Incidentally, where are we on the Morpheus tactical communication system?

Thirdly, how can it be that our entire fleet of Astute-class nuclear attack submarines are currently laid up for maintenance? The new Secretary of State chided me last week for discussing submarine movements on the floor of the House. I did no such thing. I was, in fact, discussing the total absence of submarine movements. Given the First Sea Lord’s increasingly, and rightly, dire warnings about Russian naval activity in the English channel and the North sea, perhaps the Minister could tell us how we are supposed to credibly deter Russia when not a single one of our £1.5 billion attack submarines is currently at sea?

That brings me to the question of what has happened to the defence investment plan. The three well-respected authors of Labour’s much-vaunted strategic defence review were adamant when it was published, over a year ago now, that the price of implementing the measures in the SDR would be to spend 3% of GDP on defence. The detail of how that would be afforded and the actual programmatics were to be provided subsequently in the defence investment plan.

We were faithfully promised the plan in the autumn. Then we were absolutely promised it by Christmas. Then we were definitely going to get it early in the new year. Now we are in the middle of June and still do not have the DIP. Ministers tell us that they have been working flat out. Well, they are now comatose.

The new Armed Forces Minister assured the House last night that it would be published by the time of the Ankara summit in July, yet The Times reported this morning that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is minded to delay the publication of the DIP because he wants to take these decisions himself. Presumably whoever his new Chancellor turns out to be—we all pray that there will be one—will have something to say about that too. Can the Armed Forces Minister commit absolutely that after crying wolf so many times, the Government are going to stick to the timetable and publish the DIP within the next fortnight, prior to Ankara? Or is it going to slip yet again? She laughs, but this is not funny. This is about the defence of the United Kingdom. Do Ministers not realise that what little credibility they have left is rapidly disappearing?

Indeed, after Cabinet this morning, and even during the course of this debate, the BBC has reported:

“No new major policies or spending decisions until new PM appointed, No 10 says”.

Where does that leave the defence investment plan? Who is in charge of the clattering train? Who actually runs this country? Is it the current Prime Minister or the next one?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and I mentioned a number of businesses that are not growing—and I know that the shadow Secretary of State went to Kraken yesterday. Businesses are trying to get orders and grow, but are holding off because they do not have the defence investment plan. This lack of action is costing jobs, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am still going to make some progress.

Let me also—

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your guidance. In this Opposition day debate, many of us have spent four and a half hours in this Chamber seeking answers from a Government Minister. When he refuses to give way, how do we ensure that he responds to our questions? Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will still have my say. Is it in order for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he chooses to give way or not.

Defence

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

South West Devon is home not only to 42 Commando Royal Marines, but to Plymouth and South Devon freeport, with Langage and Sherford offering significant development opportunities, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, and plenty of space for defence. We have Turnchapel Wharf, home of the Plymouth National Centre for Marine Autonomy. Devonport naval base is in the neighbouring constituency, which is involved in the upgrading of our nuclear deterrent. GMD Eurotool, Bluestone Technology and DTM Global Procurement, which I am visiting after Easter, are just some of the many SMEs that rely on defence. Members can therefore imagine the anticipation in my constituency for the strategic defence review. Indeed, at the Oceanology International event, it was clear that there are businesses queuing up to come to South West Devon.

The strategic defence review brought forward welcome promises: regional clusters in areas like Plymouth; the hybrid Navy, with the introduction of new autonomous systems; a boost for UK export potential; and the use of uncrewed vessels and autonomous systems in our own military, with improved regulations to enable the autonomous experimentation required. Indeed, recommendation 39 says:

“More flexible regulation is needed to enable experimentation in areas such as autonomy. By April 2026, Defence should establish options to enhance the mandate of the Defence Maritime Regulator to allow the Royal Navy and industry to use a dedicated regulatory ‘sandbox’ to test and deploy new technologies.”

We are a couple of weeks away; I wonder where that is.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend, my constituency has a number of really important defence SMEs, and I make sure that I meet them. The delay behind the defence investment plan and the lack of action on the strategic defence review are filling them with utter dread. Those SMEs are going abroad to sell a lot of their technological advances, particularly in autonomous vehicles, because they cannot get into the Ministry of Defence. There is paralysis in procurement, where there is not the money to have that so-called sovereign capability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are talking about sovereign capability a lot, but they are not actually delivering on it, which means that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom are going without?

[Rebecca Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. That is exactly what I am beginning to hear in my constituency. I referred earlier to a queue of companies wanting to come to South West Devon. My concern is that the queue is going to get shorter if the investment under the DIP does not come forward.

Following the strategic defence review came the defence industrial strategy. Again, it was another lauded document, with further references to industrial clusters, which it called

“critical for the competitiveness of the IS-8 and national economic resilience”,

including to “maritime autonomy in Plymouth” and so on; it kept promising. There was a fantastic paragraph in the strategy about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, to which I have already alluded. It was an exciting prospect and has been a positive development. The city has got going; we have Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver. But the defence investment plan is required to fulfil this aimed-for growth and to enable contracts—like those just mentioned by my hon Friend—to be brought forward, with the jobs that have always been promised. For businesses, the SDR and the defence investment plan were exciting, but they are still missing the funding. This is a threat to our national sovereign capability and to the economic growth that the Government seem convinced that they are going to deliver.

Furthermore, there is a delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and that is hampering growth too. Businesses in my constituency want the green light in order to go forward on their testing, but those trial areas have not come forward—we just see more dither and delay. I raised this matter recently in Prime Minister’s questions, asking for the changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and hundreds of pages of applications.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

23. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.

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

The very reason that I left the military was because the lessons from Ukraine, particularly around uncrewed systems, were not being learned within our military. The drone architecture was exceptionally limited, despite our watching a revolution in the character of conflict for about two years. Since then, the strategic defence review has stepped in, with £4 billion for autonomous systems and a new defence uncrewed systems centre. Training, tactics, procedures, doctrine and concepts are all changing to inculcate uncrewed systems.

[Al Carns]

The uncrewed centre of excellence is trying to pull all of Government together to make the system easier to deal with for small and medium-sized enterprises. I pay tribute to Ukrspecsystems, which has been providing drones to Ukraine for the past three years. They have been used to very high effect in that country.

[Paul Holmes]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Minister may be aware of Domo Tactical Communications, a drone manufacturer in my constituency that I have raised in written questions before. Will he uphold the visit that was due to take place by his predecessor before the reshuffle? What proportion of drones purchased for UK armed forces are procured from UK-based drone manufacturers, and what can be done to increase that proportion?

[Al Carns]

I have been reassured that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to have a look at the factory. From my perspective, we have increased our production of drones for Ukraine—up to 100,000 this year alone—and we are increasing the procurement of drones into the British military by thousands.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to show me his draft deal, and there is a very good reason for that: this deal, this treaty and this Bill improve on that deal.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions of those judgments affect the operations of the base—that is what is important here. It is also about the extension of the judgments, because other powers could be used on the basis of those judgments. That is the reason that the Conservatives started the negotiations. [Interruption.] If they would like to explain that there was a better reason that they started the negotiations—if it was not to ensure the security of this vital base—they are welcome to do so.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why the Conservatives started the negotiations, I am happy to give way.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I welcome him to his new position. He keeps saying “could”, “if” and that things “might” have happened. Will he accept that the legal judgments that have been cast down, which he is using as evidence, are not binding? Does he accept that when he talks about our deal—in other words, the last Government’s deal—he is actually being a bit duplicitous? There was no deal, because we ended the negotiations.

[Luke Pollard]

I think the Opposition have got their attack line sorted, but not the reasons why they started the negotiations.

[Paul Holmes]

We ended them!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not like the word “duplicitous”, and I definitely did not like the carrying on afterwards. I am sure that “duplicitous” will not be said again today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is concerned about the cost of the deal, but does she also share my concern about the way in which the deal was negotiated? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that only the Prime Ministers of our respective countries were in the room; officials were asked to leave the room, so there are no records of what was discussed. Is that how a responsible, democratic Government should show transparency when negotiating on the international stage?

[Priti Patel]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. During an intervention on the Minister for Defence Procurement, I said that he was acting in a “duplicitous” way. I have already been rebuked by Mr Speaker, so you do not have to step in, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say that I misspoke when I said that the Minister was not being genuine. I apologise to him—I never play the man; I always play the ball. It is a shame that he is not present to hear that apology.

However, I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement—he is a good friend of mine, and I look forward to him serving in that position—but I will say that that career has not started well. The first moment that he appears before the House in charge of defence procurement in this country, he single-handedly starts by advocating disposing of a vital piece of defence infrastructure, which is not only relevant but essential to the national security of the country. He stood here to try to defend the indefensible. I suggest to the Whips Office that they might want to look at some of his decisions in future, if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country, because so far he has only been successful at getting rid of vital infrastructure. I hope that he does better.

The first job and the first duty of any Government that serve the great people of this great country is to keep their people and themselves safe. I never thought that I would come to this House on a day like today to see a Government, this Government, creating the biggest act of self-sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elected Houses in the history of our nation. The Government are harming not only our security, but the strategic interests of our people and the security of this country.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

If the deal is harming our strategic interests, why is it backed by our allies, the United States and NATO?

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

[Graeme Downie]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

Perhaps I can invite my hon. Friend to be helpful to the Minister. He clearly holds him in some regard, and he is right that he has got himself into something of a mess. By far the best way for the Government to proceed from hereon would be to make much more available either to this House or, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would clarify the terms of this trade—why it happened and the assessments that were made that led up to it—in a way that the House would be able to either legitimise what the Minister claims or refute it. A lack of transparency is half the Minister’s problem.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee had the Minister in front of us to discuss the deal, so there has been parliamentary scrutiny on this, including by other Committees, just not by the Defence Committee. On the costs, as the PPS to Lord Cameron, maybe he can say a little bit about what the cost was of the deal they negotiated at the end of those 11 rounds—whether it was higher or lower than the deal we have reached now.

[Paul Holmes]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman. Let me say it very clearly and very slowly, because I know that hon. Members have written their speeches before the debate started: zero. Zero is less than the deal the Minister is choosing. Let me repeat it very slowly for the hon. Gentleman and for Members across the House: the deal was ended. There was no deal. The negotiations stopped. There were no negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will in a second. I just want to emphasise the point so we do not hear it again. There were no negotiations. There was no deal. [Interruption.] The negotiations were stopped. There was no deal on offer, and no money was being offered. I hope that Members will scratch that bit out of their speeches as they go forward.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called the Mauritian Prime Minister on 22 February 2024 and reassured him that

“the UK remains committed to a mutually beneficial outcome…and their teams look forward to continuing to work on this.”

Will he comment on that?

[Paul Holmes]

Yes, I absolutely can. I am not a lawyer, but I would say it is crystal clear in the sentence the hon. Gentleman has just read: “mutually beneficial”. What the democratically elected Government of the day decided, through Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who I said—if the hon. Gentleman was in the debate earlier, he would have heard it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he has other things to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that if he thinks this is very important, he should have been here for the whole debate and not just intervene on a debate that I think is about national security. I repeat the point to him: the Foreign Secretary at the time ended the negotiations because, as the then Prime Minister said, “mutually beneficial” was deemed not to have been the case.

I want to touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Government about hiding behind international law. I cannot do it justice like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is clear that the Government keep hiding behind judgments that they have to follow. I remind the Minister again that it is not a binding judgment. If the Government had chosen to challenge that non-binding judgment, he would have had the support of those of us on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided not to do that and have accepted a non-binding judgment and fast-tracked the capitulation and surrender of a British overseas territory for the first time in a long time. The Minister could have challenged that decision, because it was non-binding. I shall let the record stand with the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who went through the numerous international structures that this Government have signed up to and set out how we did not have to follow that.

Lastly, clause 2 is absolutely disastrous. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) spoke of the historical context here. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech; he is an incredibly brave and principled man who stands up for his constituents. Under clause 2, this Government have decided unilaterally to recognise that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. I remind the House and the Government that Mauritius has never in the historical context of the Chagos islands had sovereignty, and that this Government have chosen to give sovereignty over the islands to a country that has never had it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will in a second.

Some, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said that we want to “return” the islands. I say that is impossible, because it is not possible to return sovereignty to a country that never had sovereignty in the first place. This is a decision and a negotiation undertaken by this Government, and they should hang their heads in shame over the way they have done it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The agreement that was reached between the British and Mauritian Governments in 1965 was to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius. Decolonisation processes of the UN and all others have confirmed that it should never have happened, and that they should never have been separated. If they had never been separated, we would not even be having this debate today.

[Paul Holmes]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by.

This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that.

This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that.

This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories.

I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I remind the hon. Member of two things. First, talking and signing are two very different things. Secondly, some of us on the Conservative Benches remember that no deal is better than a bad deal.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has omitted some of the quote, because he was proven wrong before. He has failed to say that the former Prime Minister said “mutually beneficial”. Some of the gain that came out of that discussion was the fact that it was not mutually beneficial for this country, and we stopped the negotiations.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If Labour Members had spent a little more time actually listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, they would perhaps understand things a little more. I will come back to that point shortly.

Before I turn to the substance, I wish to pay tribute to colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have spoken powerfully about the sheer folly of this deal. They have rightly highlighted its staggering costs, the accounting methods used, the reckless security implications, the lack of transparency and the way in which it sadly sidelines the Chagossian community.

There have been a number of contributions, but I very briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. He has not just demonstrated his extensive legal knowledge and expertise in this area, but questioned the legal uncertainty that Ministers are relying on. He has taken the time to explain and to remind this place of the issues relating to article 298 of UNCLOS, which is very relevant to today’s debate. He highlighted some key unanswered questions. Quite frankly, I urge every Member of this House to have a read of Hansard before they go into the voting Lobby this evening.

Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) highlighted and reinforced the important point about article 298 of UNCLOS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) reminded Labour Members of the red lines put in place by Lord Cameron, who stopped negotiations—it quite clearly seems that they needed to be reminded that talking and signing are two very different things. My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) talked about strategic issues and the costs of the deal. There were valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

One thing that is very obvious is that we need clarity. To give just one example, the Government claim that we may have problems with spectrum if we do not agree a deal, but other parts of the Government have indicated that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to intervene now. These are not passing political points; they are hard truths about the dangers that this deal poses to Britain’s security and standing. Before I move on, though, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his wise and brave words today, and for standing firm as a constituency MP and standing up for members of his community.

Turning to the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I struggle a little to understand their position. They say that they oppose the Bill, but they did not vote against the treaty in the House of Lords—in fact, they chose to prop up Labour, rather than defend Britain and the rights of the British Chagossians.

Strategic Defence Review

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

In many ways, my hon. Friend is doing exactly that in the House by reinforcing the importance of the deterrent at the heart of our security and its importance to jobs, technology, businesses, the supply chain and the strength of economic growth. She is making the case that defence investment can drive economic growth, and we will ensure that it does.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can I push the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about HMS Collingwood? My constituents will look for reassurance that it will have a long-term place in the defence estate.

I also ask the Secretary of State about recommendation 40, which says:

“The Royal Navy should explore alternative approaches to augmenting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to deliver a balanced, cost-effective fleet that maximises the UK’s warfighting capabilities.”

The RFA is already stretched; I have been on visits to the RFA where it has told me that it is stretched with the operational requirements placed on it. It sounds to me like this is a loss of operational independence. Will the Secretary of State commit to an expansion of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary consisting of ships managed purely by the Royal Navy under the defence estate?

[John Healey]

We are proud of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It increasingly does tough jobs that in the past we would have expected the Royal Navy to undertake. Its role and contribution is under-recognised, and I am keen to see its role reinforced and for it to have greater recognition. We will ensure that we do that as we pursue the SDR’s vision.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Abby Dryden, CEO of the Defence Medical Welfare Service. We have until 2.20 pm for this panel. Before I ask Abby to introduce herself, are there any declarations of interest?

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.

Examination of Witness

Abby Dryden gave evidence.

[The Chair]

Q56 Abby, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?

Abby Dryden: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Abby Dryden. I am the chief executive of the Defence Medical Welfare Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

20. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

23. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on the Bill, which should properly be called the Millar Bill. I recently met VAPC chairs to discuss next steps, and we will ensure that the MOD engages with representatives from VAPCs in a series of working groups to set the direction for secondary legislation that will clarify their future role.

[Paul Holmes]

Can the Minister give some more detail on how the Department intends to take forward the recommendation from the Veteran Welfare Service review, and can he outline any timescales to which he intends to work on that review?

[Dr Murrison]

Our response to the independent review of welfare services for veterans accepts the principle and intended outcome of all the recommendations, and we will shortly publish our response to the recommendations of the armed forces compensation scheme quinquennial review. The reviews will inform a programme of improvements in the way we deliver the compensation scheme and how we provide welfare support to ensure a consistently high level of service. The responses will set out our commitment and high-level plans, in particular how we will make our services less adversarial and more user-friendly.

Veterans Update

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The true barometer will be how we implement all 49 recommendations. Yes, financial awards will be part of it but, for some, the restoration and the valuing of these people is just as important.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not a single other Member has talked about party politics or political parties. My point about the overall culpability of society is that my party opposed lifting the ban and his party opposed lifting the ban. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against them and forced them to do it. I came to this House in the spirit of honesty and openness about the culpability of society. Let us not make it party political.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I welcome the apology, which will go some way towards correcting the hurt that our veterans faced. As a proud member of the Royal Navy branch of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the vital role of our LGBT personnel. What efforts is the Secretary of State making to ask the service chiefs to redouble their efforts to make our armed forces even more welcoming in the recruitment of LGBT people?

[Mr Wallace]

We have a strong and dynamic D&I plan to make sure we talk about it. We are sometimes criticised, and it is not an easy line to follow, as we saw with the RAF’s issue in promoting the recruitment of women. We are guided by the Equality Act 2010, but we are also guided by the desperate need and importance of having the whole of society in our armed forces.

I would not appoint a Chief of the General Staff, First Sea Lord or Chief of the Air Staff who did not wholeheartedly believe in having a diverse armed forces community. They would not get past me in the appointments process. As I finish this job, I have appointed all the armed forces chiefs. Every single one of them embraces that requirement and actions it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I can do, by helping the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the resilience of the whole of government is supported by the MOD. There are definitely lessons to be learned, and I will ensure that they are taken away and shared across Government.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department has taken to support defence exports to global allies.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

24. What steps his Department has taken to support defence exports to global allies.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

The UK scores highly in the global rankings for defence exports, which create jobs and prosperity across the country, building the industrial resilience and capacity we need for our national security. Through the defence and security industrial strategy, we and the industry are strengthening our position by diversifying our exports and target markets, and by collaborating more closely.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Department’s announcement that both Germany and the United Kingdom will work together on the development of advanced armour-piercing tank ammunition. Given that these new rounds will be able to be fired from both British and German tanks, supporting compatibility within NATO, what export potential does this new capability have?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight this important collaboration with one of our major allies. Enhanced kinetic energy munitions are a key part of the Challenger 3 and Leopard 2 main battle tanks programmes, and will deliver battle-winning capabilities to UK and German armed forces. I am confident that their advanced performance will be recognised as world-leading, and their export potential to NATO and other allies will be promoted by the MOD, as ever in close partnership with the Department for Business and Trade.