PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 2 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This month marks four years since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people continue to fight with huge defiance and courage, recently retaking parts of the city of Kupiansk, striking military targets deep in Russia, and reporting a Russian casualty rate of 25 to 1 in some parts of the frontline. Putin is increasingly under pressure. He has thrown 17,000 North Korean troops into the fight, and has recruited thousands more from Africa and other nations. Four years on, the Ukrainian courage will be matched by our UK determination. Next week I will travel to NATO and will co-chair the 33rd meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, where 50 nations will step up the provision of military aid and support to keep the Ukrainians in the fight.

Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The doubling in this Parliament of our investment into autonomy will be directed in significant part towards marine technology. Her part of the world—the south-west—plays a leading role in that. She urges action across Government, so I hope she will see that the shipbuilding and marine autonomy plan that we will publish shortly will show exactly what we are doing on a number of fronts.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.

Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.

We would like a further order for Typhoons, but don’t worry!

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

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

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Allied health professionals play a crucial role in supporting the treatment and rehabilitation of armed forces personnel in the UK and on operations.

I take that as an early indication that the hon. Lady might want to serve on the Bill Committee, in which case we welcome her stepping forward. I think she will recognise that the legislative framework, which allows us to take action to bring down malign and menacing drones over UK defence sites and defence bases, is long overdue. I look forward to her support in introducing that.

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

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

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, for the first time, we have in place a security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union. That is part of our stepping up our willingness to work with the European Union. He knows that the SAFE negotiations did not come to a successful conclusion. That was quite simply because it was not in the interests of the British taxpayer and the British defence industry. We will do a great deal more to support the wider security of the European Union and European nations through NATO.

Intensifying security competition in the Arctic necessitates enhanced co-operation with our regional allies. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to invite Canada to join the Joint Expeditionary Force?

The 10 JEF nations, led by the UK—JEF was established by the previous Government—have stepped up their leadership, with support from Members on both sides of the House. JEF is an important part of NATO and allows us to act ahead of unanimity in NATO. From critical infrastructure to exercising in the High North, JEF has led the way and will continue to do so.

Just last week, we launched the single living accommodation review, which is designed to get at exactly these issues to ensure that our serving personnel have the accommodation they deserve.

Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?

I can, indeed; I welcome my hon. Friend’s constituent in the Gallery today. This Government are on the side of those who serve and on the side of those families who support those who serve.

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

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

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

Taskforce Kindred has been a fantastic success of this Government. Can the Secretary of State outline if there are plans to extend the programme and how defence SMEs can get on board with it?

I can, indeed. Taskforce Kindred has been at the heart of the UK’s rapid response and our reliability as Ukraine’s closest ally since Putin first invaded Ukraine nearly four years back. It will continue to play a central role in the future, and it has lessons for the procurement and provision of our own kit and systems for our forces.

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

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

I call the Secretary of State.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]

Order. We have had enough of trying to continue this debate—it now ends.