PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement - 25 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s plan to procure nuclear-certified F-35A aircraft.

The UK will purchase 12 new F-35A fighter jets and join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission in a major boost for national security. The Prime Minister has announced at the NATO summit that the UK intends to buy at least a dozen of the dual capable aircraft, which can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. The Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte, said this morning:

“The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today’s announcement that the UK will now also join NATO’s nuclear mission and procure the F-35A.”

The decision will support 20,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, with 15% of the global supply chain for the jets based in Britain, supporting highly skilled jobs and opportunities for working people and delivering a defence dividend across the country. The announcement responds to two recommendations in the strategic defence review: recommendation 30, that the UK commence discussions

“on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”,

and recommendation 46, on the mix of F-35B and F-35A.

The purchase represents the biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation, and reintroduces a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the cold war. The UK’s commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance’s contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. You will recall that the Government’s plan, announced today, to procure nuclear-certified F-35As was previously covered in The Sunday Times the day before the SDR was published. You therefore granted an urgent question that day on this very subject, but we received no meaningful answers at all. I hope the Minister can be more forthcoming today.

On 25 May, I wrote in the Express that our nuclear forces needed to be “even more resilient”, including in respect of the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also,

“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”

That is because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and its ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able to do the same.

In principle, then, I welcome the announcement, but I have the following questions. What is the anticipated in-service date for the 12 F-35As? Will they already be nuclear certified, or will that occur after delivery? We note that the 12 F-35As will be ordered instead of 12 F-35Bs, but will the Government still order the remaining F-35Bs as planned? How will the F-35As be air-to-air refuelled, given that the current RAF refuelling capability is probe and drogue? On operational sovereignty, we are fully committed to our strong military partnership with the United States, but given that the announcement is about diversity of delivery, has the Department given any thought to additional tactical options for which we have greater industrial input, such as Storm Shadow and Typhoon?

Ironically, it was Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary in 1998, who removed our last air-launched nuclear capabilities. It is noteworthy that, as one of the authors of the SDR, he said to the Select Committee recently that the authors were

“not terribly enthusiastic about it.”

That is before we get to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary voted against the renewal of Trident. On this side of the House, we wholeheartedly back our nuclear deterrent. Does this situation not show why we need a robust plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament, rather than Labour’s smoke-and-mirrors and lack of a fully funded plan to properly increase defence spending in this Parliament?

On the in-service date, as the Secretary of State said this morning, we are hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade. On the tranche being ordered that will now include 12 F-35As, yes, we will still be ordering the remaining F-35Bs, so there will be 15 extra F-35Bs in the next tranche. On refuelling, this is a NATO mission, and NATO will of course be able to do the air-to-air refuelling. It is quite normal for different allies to contribute their different capabilities, whether nuclear capable or conventional, to NATO’s nuclear mission.

I welcome the announcement and, on behalf of the Defence Committee, I welcome the additional detail that has been added to the SDR. It is imperative that we recognise and close some of the gaps in our national defence, including the size and shape of our combat air force, and this announcement does part of that. But 14 years of under-investment mean that some of the choices about basing and complementary capabilities will bring some challenges; will the Minister provide additional detail on how some of them may be addressed?

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is supportive of the announcement. As the House is aware, this Government have increased our defence spending by more than at any time since the end of the cold war. The increase is fully funded, unlike some of the fantasy plans of the previous Government.

It is 2.4%—less than we spent.

We have shown how we will increase spending to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. That is fully funded, and we have made clear how we will get to 3% in the next Parliament, as conditions allow. The announcement was made today at NATO of a 5% target; all allies will focus on providing that funding in due course. Over the next 10 years, NATO will check every year, as it always does, whether its requirements are being met, and we fully expect to be able to meet them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is clear that we have entered a new and uncertain era. Putin’s imperialism represents a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. We must maintain the effectiveness of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent to stop Putin or anyone else launching a nuclear attack. It remains the ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security.

We support more investment in our defence capability, but we need more detail on the proposed use cases for the F-35As, and on their relation to our existing strong deterrent through Trident. We also need a clear explanation of why the Government have chosen this priority over others. There are still huge gaps in the armed forces, including as a result of 10,000 troops being cut by the Conservatives, and those gaps need filling if we are to show Putin that we are serious. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will move further, faster, in rebuilding the strength and size of the other essential guarantor of UK security and deterrence—the British Army?

I am glad that the hon. Lady supports these measures. As I have already made clear, this decision is not at the expense of buying more F-35Bs, which we will do. The extent to which we fully implement the strategic defence review, and the order in which we implement its recommendations, will be decided through our investment plan, which is being worked on now and will be fully published and available in due course. There is no doubt that, as she says, the threats we face are increasing. We need to make sure that we are capable of deterring those threats, with our allies in NATO, and this decision will assist us in that. By joining the NATO nuclear mission, we will be able to play our part. As we said in the SDR, our policy is “NATO first”, and our commitment to NATO is unshakeable.

I commend the Government on the prompt procurement of the F-35A fixed-wing, which is of huge strategic importance, but this is already creating great uncertainty in Lancashire—in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and in my constituency of South Ribble—where the workforce of the Typhoon Eurofighter live. Can the Minister please assure me that the Government will still be constant in looking to procure the Typhoon aircraft for the RAF? Also, with our NATO partners all increasing their defence spending, is there not a huge opportunity to urge them to procure the Typhoon Eurofighter as well?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What we are talking about does not of course preclude any support for the Typhoon. We are very committed to our Typhoons, and we are committed to upgrading them, as per our existing plans. We are engaged in many efforts to export, and one would hope that some of them will come off at some point in the not-too-distant future.

We are very keen on making sure that the skills and abilities of the workforce at Warton are fully used. We of course have the future combat air system and the global combat air programme, which will use those skills in the longer term. Many people working for BAE Systems—not at Warton, but at Samlesbury—make parts for the F-35, and I think they will be pleased to hear the announcement today.

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

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

The procurement of the F-35As and the next tranche of F-35Bs will support 20,000 jobs across the UK, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. That demonstrates yet again that defence can be an engine for growth, because these are good jobs across all parts of the nations and regions of the UK, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

I fully welcome the announcement, and I thank the Minister for making the statement. In an age of uncertainty about the reliability of our US ally, it seems an odd choice to be leaning into them, in the sense that we will be dropping dual-key, US-made munitions from these planes. It makes more sense if this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability, but that would raise questions about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister comment on whether this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability?

It is not such a step. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission. We have just published a strategic defence review that sets out that our defence posture is “NATO first”. We are trying to support our allies in NATO in deterring any threat that might come from possible adversaries; that is what this is about. It is not a stepping stone to anything else.

I also welcome this announcement of increased capability—the F-35As that will be brought to the defence of this country. This announcement, which is in line with the strategic defence review, shows that this country is once again serious about defence. What response have we had from our NATO allies to our joining NATO’s nuclear mission?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. We have had strong support from our allies in NATO. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), I read out the response of the Secretary-General, who was full of praise.

The Minister is well aware of my interest in the F-35 programme. Lockheed Martin manufactures around 150 jets a year, and there are nearly 600 on order by everyone from Switzerland to Singapore. On top of that, there are 1,200 still to be delivered to the US air force, so whereabouts are we in the queue? She mentioned that we would expect the first deliveries before the end of decade, but are we cutting to the front of the line? Given that the orders from some allies are not due to be fulfilled until 2032, will delivery of all 12 planes be completed within a decade? On refuelling, will she clarify that we have no sovereign air-to-air refuelling capability outside of a NATO mission?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in these matters because I have to answer all his parliamentary questions, and I welcome that interest. As the Secretary of State said this morning, we hope that we can start receiving delivery of these planes before the end of the decade. The hon. Gentleman is right that any manufacturing capability has queues, but orders are subject to contractual discussions and arrangements can be made, so that is what we are aiming for. Obviously, we will keep the House informed of how we get on.

I welcome the news that our deterrence capability will be enhanced and made more flexible as we take another step on the escalatory ladder. We are talking about a US aircraft with substantial UK industrial participation, a US weapon, US-UK decision making and a NATO mission. Does the Minister agree that this is a powerful statement about the strength of the special relationship between the US and the UK, and the strength of the NATO alliance?

I agree very much with both points. The decision indicates the strength of our alliance with the US, as well as the growing strength of NATO.

I do not understand industrially or militarily why the F-35 is the default choice. If the F-35 can be delivered only by the end of the decade, why is Tempest, which is more than capable of being delivered by the mid-2030s, not being considered? That is if we agree with the decision to be part of the nuclear sharing enterprise, and I do not agree with that, because no other nuclear-armed state takes part in nuclear sharing, no other P5 member delivers any other nation’s nuclear deterrent, and no nuclear power in the world delivers anyone else’s nuclear weapons.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are committed to buying 138 F-35s in the next tranche of F-35s. We have substituted 12 F-35As for what would have been 12 F-35Bs, so there is that change to the mix, as recommended in the strategic defence review. One of the recommendations was that we should consider the mix, and we have considered it. Another was that we should rejoin the NATO nuclear mission; we have considered that and consulted, and we are acting. We have already implemented two of the major recommendations of the SDR. Given the welcome that the SDR had from Members around the House, we should all be glad to see the implementation of those recommendations.

I thank the Minister for the welcome announcement of the F-35A programme, which comes at a time when this Government are increasing defence spending at a rate not seen since the cold war. BAE Systems, in my constituency, is one of the companies leading on the programme to support avionics for our forces, and there is an outstanding invitation for the Minister to visit the company. Will she confirm that this announcement will mean a significant increase in jobs and opportunities, including apprenticeships for local people, young people, and constituents across my area and the country?

Yes. I have been reminded of my promise to visit; that is on the list, and the visit will move closer to the top of the list after today. I agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to deter potential aggressors and adversaries, it is key that we implement the findings of the SDR and increase our capability, and that is what we are doing.

May I encourage the Government not to be at all bashful about the fact that the decision on whether one of these weapons will be used—heaven forbid—will be an American one? There is a long tradition of American nuclear weapons being based in NATO countries, not least the Cruise and Pershing missiles of the 1980s, which helped to end the cold war. Will the Minister confirm that not only does this fill a gap in our deterrence spectrum, but it reasserts the commitment of the United States to the defence of the other NATO countries?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the decision does all those things, and he has made a very good point.

I welcome the acquisition of the F-35As, not least for the impact it will have on industry and jobs in my constituency. In answer to the question about refuelling, the Minister described very well how this new capability meshes with existing NATO capability. Will she say a little more about how this capability supports the defence of not only the UK, but our NATO allies?

My hon. Friend is correct. In addition to the industrial benefits that we ought to glean from increasing the F-35 order, it is absolutely right that it strengthens NATO. That is what the strategic defence review said that we should focus on, and NATO first is what we are doing. Rejoining the NATO nuclear mission is a striking commitment. We accepted the recommendation to make that commitment and we are now implementing it.

I also welcome this announcement, but can we talk about money? We already know that 20% of our defence budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. It is disproportionately expensive. If we are now extending the nuclear capability with these airdrop weapons, what impact will that have on the budget for the rest of our conventional armed forces?

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support. The F-35As are actually cheaper than the F-35Bs, so replacing 12 F-35B orders with 12 F-35A orders is a cheaper option and she does not have to be too concerned about the direct impact of the decision on budgets. The total cost of the next procurement tranche, including the 12 F-35A models, will be an estimated £3.2 billion, but these are plans that were there and that we are now funding.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Rugby No. 1 branch of the Royal British Legion, who I believe are in Tesco this week for a service, and the Hillmorton branch of the RBL, who will be holding a ceremony on Armed Forces Day? I was pleased to see that this commitment will support 20,000 jobs across the UK in the years to come, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. Does she agree that this demonstrates that our national security and economic security go hand in hand, and that this Government will deliver that?

I commend my hon. Friend’s Royal British Legion branches who are getting on with what many of us are doing in Armed Forces Week, which is attending events that show our appreciation for our armed forces in every part of the UK. He is correct to say that, in addition to deterring our enemy and supporting NATO and our allies more strongly, there is growth potential and economic benefit from the spending that we put into our armed forces and our capabilities.

The proposed NATO 5% target will be split into two categories: a new, broader set of defence-related items at up to 1.5% of GDP, alongside a commitment to spend at least 3.5% of GDP on traditional defence. Will the Minister confirm the UK Government’s commitment to article 2 of the NATO treaty on the development of peaceful and friendly international relations? Will she also confirm that funding for UN peacekeeping missions qualifies as defence spending to NATO and that this budget will not lose out on the increase in the MOD budget?

I would argue that defence spending is there to create peace, not to fight wars. It is cheaper to deter wars than it is to end up fighting them, so I would argue that our commitment to 2.6%, as it will be by 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament and then on to the 5% target—including the 1.5% broader definition—by 2035 shows a very strong commitment across NATO to do just that. Let’s deter these wars.

I welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question. The purchase of 12 new F-35A aircraft will increase our nuclear capabilities and shows that our commitment to NATO is unshakeable. As the chair of the Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire all-party parliamentary group, I am always on the lookout for opportunities for growth in my region. Given that this announcement supports 20,000 jobs and places 15% of the global supply chain in the UK, will the Minister say how that will benefit my region and how she will ensure that all the investment, jobs and growth opportunities will be spread to each part of the UK?

I cannot say precisely whether any of the 100 companies that are UK-based suppliers on this programme are in my hon. Friend’s constituency or his region—I will have to go away and look it up—but I do know that these procurements spread prosperity around all regions and nations of the UK. That is one great thing about the defence industry: it provides jobs and growth across the UK.

I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement’s announcement. This is welcome news for our country. Given that in-service dates for key pieces of military equipment are often later than predicted, has she given any thought to training our pilots in advance of delivery, either on a simulator or by embedding them into a unit that operates these planes around the world, so that we are ready to hit the ground running as soon as they are delivered?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Anything that can bring in-service dates forward slightly by planning and training in advance is something that we will be in favour of trying to do. These days it is much more the case that such arrangements are thought of at the same time as the procurement, so I am certain that we will be on to the point that he makes.

Following on from the previous question, I have to declare that I have flown an F-35—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] It was a simulator. Dramatic pause there. There are companies in Edinburgh that are involved in the supply chain and I was keen to see what they were constructing.

I welcome the Minister’s leadership on this. It is a fantastic sign that we are absolutely committed to NATO, and it is also a fantastic advertisement for our young people who are looking for a great career. They need look no further than the RAF. Much of the discussion has focused on the nuclear capabilities of this aircraft, but can she confirm that it could have a much wider role and be put to much greater use?

My hon. Friend is correct. This is a dual-capability aircraft, which will not only be used to fly NATO nuclear missions but be available to do training and all the other things that our fantastic pilots in the RAF do.

I feel like a lone voice, but in an increasingly unstable world I personally find it quite harrowing that the British Air Force might be flying planes that can drop nuclear bombs and where that might lead. Can the Minister tell us whether, under this agreement, tactical nuclear weapons will be stored on UK soil; and if so, what safety and security measures the Government will be undertaking for their storage?

I am not sure I quite understood that question, Mr Speaker. What I can say, though, is that we do not normally confirm or deny where nuclear weapons might be stored. It is not something that we have ever done. I think that is what the hon. Member was asking, but I am not absolutely sure. I would be happy to speak to her afterwards if I have got that question wrong.

Have any alternative platforms been considered for the potential delivery of a tactical nuclear weapon? In particular, have the Government looked at the Astute class attack submarine as an alternative or additional platform, or at its successor, the SSN-AUKUS?

We are not seeking to widen our range of nuclear capability. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission and contributing to that. As I said earlier, this is not some kind of stepping stone to acquiring tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrent is our submarine-operated continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD—and that is how it will continue.

The prospect of UK fighter jets carrying Donald Trump’s nuclear bombs cannot be anybody’s vision of security. This decision flies in the face of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. It ties us further into a US military that cannot even keep its own classified intelligence secure. It ties us further to a Trump Administration who are the very definition of a loose cannon. Given the inescapable truth that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, and that normalising tactical weapons is incredibly reckless, how can the Minister possibly justify this decision?

First, what I have announced today is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty—

The letter, not the spirit!

It is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission has as a governance the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies—everybody gets a say—so it is not a question of it being Donald Trump or any other US President’s nuclear bomb. This is a NATO mission to defend Europe and to do what NATO was set up to do: deter another war.

On 6 January, I raised with the Minister in this Chamber the fact that refurbishing Typhoons will not touch the sides of maintaining the 6,000-strong workforce at Warton, in my constituency, and that relying on export orders that have not been secured will not keep the workforce in work for now, before the GCAP comes online. When I asked the Minister whether she would give a delayed Christmas present of an order for 25 Typhoons, she replied:

“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]

We were awaiting an order of Typhoons for the Warton site in the strategic defence review, but it turned out to contain an empty box instead of a present. If the Minister was not simply buying time and giving false hope to the workforce then, when will we see the order of 25 Typhoon jets for the RAF?

I do not think the previous Government were committed to buying Typhoons, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so outraged by the fact that after less than a year, we have not yet ordered any more Typhoons. We are committed to the Typhoon fleet that we have. The buying of any more will have to be considered in the investment plan that is being worked on now. Other European nations are buying some Typhoons, so there is some work there, although I know they are not assembled at Warton if other nations buy them. We also have export orders that we are trying to pursue. Although I cannot advance what I said to the hon. Gentleman previously, it is something that I am very conscious of, and we will continue to see what can be done about the future of our Typhoon fleet. We are committed to the fleet that we have and to the upgrades that we need.

In response to an earlier question, I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to seeking to compress the timetable between delivery and the in-service date. I believe I heard the Minister say that the delivery date was the back end of the 2020s. Can she confirm the anticipated in-service date?

I cannot confirm the anticipated in-service date beyond saying that we are hopeful that we will get the aircraft as soon as possible and that we will be able to use them as soon as possible thereafter, subject to all the usual requirements to get something in service. That is as good as I can do for the hon. Gentleman today, I am afraid.

The Minister just confirmed that the UK adheres to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That treaty requires the declared nuclear-armed states not to allow proliferation and to take steps towards nuclear disarmament. What the Minister has announced today is an increase in nuclear capability, with the construction of new nuclear warheads that can obviously be used anywhere in the world by airdropping them. Can she explain how it is possible to say that this announcement is in compliance with the NPT when it is so obviously and clearly the very opposite of that?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I am afraid. It is in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission would carry US nuclear weapons, which are already subject to the non-proliferation treaty. What we are announcing today is the buying of aircraft that are capable of assisting with that mission, not the purchasing of new nuclear weapons. I hope that is clear for the right hon. Gentleman.

Clearly, the aim is to enhance what NATO has as a defensive structure, so will the Minister confirm that this is not a substitute for any of our other NATO allies withdrawing aircraft from service, and that we are adding to the potential cover against threat in case we are attacked?

We are adding some of our capability to the NATO nuclear mission by purchasing these weapons, which has been welcomed by our allies and by the NATO Secretary-General as improving the position for the NATO nuclear mission.

I thank the Minister for her statement. Following the announcement of the purchase of these 12 F-35As, I have read concerns expressed by defence analysts this morning over the size of this fleet and whether it truly represents either a capable offensive launch or, indeed, a capable deterrent. In earlier statements, I think the Minister has said both that these F-35s are part of the current F-35 purchase envelope and, potentially, that these F-35s are in addition to those currently on order. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. Finally, could the Minister offer any reflection on the effect that this purchase will have on our commitment to GCAP?

For clarity, I did not say that this order was in addition to our already committed tranche of F-35s. I said that we were substituting what would have been 12 F-35Bs with 12 F-35As, so it is not in addition. We already have 39, and we have already purchased 48, not all of which have been delivered. This is a tranche of the next 27, 12 of which will be F-35As and 15 of which will be F-35Bs. It is part of acquiring the next tranche of F-35s that Governments of all stripes have been committed to over the time that the F-35 has been in production.

I am sure the Minister recognises that in addition to this plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, the UK must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times. Can she therefore confirm whether these aircraft will be budgeted from the ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget?

The ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget is not for purchasing aircraft; it is for dealing with our submarines. It is a fair question—I hope that that is a clear answer.

I thank the Minister for her answers, which have been positive and strong—it is just what this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs today. I welcome the news that these jets are to be procured. Having watched the Red Arrows’ intricate manoeuvres in Newtownards on Armed Forces Day last Saturday, I know that our skilled pilots are world class, and they deserve the tools to do their vital job. I recently read that the Royal Navy has regularly failed to meet recruitment targets since 2011. What can the Minister do to get boots on planes, on boats and on land by enhancing recruitment, particularly in our Royal Navy, at this very important time?

Part of our commitment to defence reform is to try to improve our procurement and acquisition to ensure that we meet our contract aspirations more quickly and to give us more control of the budget and more direct lines of accountability so that it will be clearer, if things are going wrong, that there should be intervention. The defence reform agenda that the Department is undertaking should improve our acquisition and procurement arrangements.

I call John Cooper.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the rare opportunity against the run of play to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from Strangford. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General, has recently congratulated President Trump on his “decisive action in Iran”, which he says “makes us all safer”. Will the Minister take the opportunity to do what no one in government has so far done and congratulate the Americans on taking out the Iranian nuclear programme? If not, will she explain why we are out of step not only with the Americans, but also now with NATO?

I think it has been fairly clear from proceedings in the House that the Government have said that we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but that, in this instance, we are very keen that diplomacy is the way forward.

In Armed Forces Week, I want to thank our brave servicemen and women who do so much to keep us safe. I welcome the Minister’s response to this urgent question tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition, but can she give us a cast-iron reassurance that our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent will be supported and maintained by His Majesty’s Government, and that they will not contemplate any reduction in the submarine fleet from four to three submarines, which was alarmingly floated by the third party not so long ago?

I and the Government have been very clear about our commitment to the continuous at-sea deterrent and to procuring the new Dreadnought boats and the new warhead, so I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance on that.

The UK has 225 warheads and a number of nuclear-capable submarines that are in a position to fire at any adversary at short notice. We are now investing in aircraft that can deploy nuclear weapons. Given that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, will that not be seen as an aggravating feature by nations that are also subscribed to it?

No, our continuous at-sea deterrent has been the policy of both governing parties for many years and that has not changed. The announcement today is about our joining the NATO nuclear mission, which carries US weapons that are already accounted for under the non-proliferation treaty. This is not about increasing the number of nuclear weapons that we hold, so it is not, therefore, a breach of the non-proliferation treaty.

As a member of the RAF contingent of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Wing Commander Basco Smith, may I take this opportunity to say that the application window is open for next season? If any Member has not applied to it, they should consider doing so. Recently, we visited Marham, the current home of the F-35s. Can the Minister update us on what steps have been taken to remove the risk of attack on centralised basing, and to continue to invest in alternative dispersal bases for our aircraft? While these additional frames are welcome, will the Minister confirm that they are being matched by concurrent investment in the training of pilots and additional crews in the advanced skillsets that will be required for these operations?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that one cannot just buy aircraft and not train the relevant people—whether they be pilots, engineers or ground crew—to deal with the necessity of looking after them and operating them. On the matter of security, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made a statement the day before yesterday about the review that is being conducted into the security of our bases, and I hope that that will be reported in due course.