Luke Pollard
MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“As the Member of Parliament for Devonport, where we not only base-port but refit Type 23s, I know that many of those ships that have given decades of service are no longer able to provide the capabilities we need.”
“It is unlike the SNP to be so positive about defence, isn’t it? The Type 83 and Type 32 were PowerPoints—there was no budget attached to them. That is why in the defence investment plan we set out a plan for a common combat vessel and a hybrid Navy to fulfil the opportunities that the retirement of the Type 45 presents for us.”
“If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a salary of up to £1 billion, he is cosplaying as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), isn’t he? Seriously, we are the third-largest cash spender in NATO. At the spending review next year, we will be setting out an increase in defence spending.”
“My hon. Friend really is the Member of Parliament for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as she is determined to champion it so frequently. She will have seen in the defence investment plan our commitment to the new generation of fleet solid support ships, and she will have seen the work that this Government have undertaken since 2024 to address…”
“I say seriously to the House that my hon. Friend has been an incredible advocate for Rosyth. I have met him on a large number of occasions, and he has been absolutely determined to talk not just about the potential of Rosyth, but about the professionalism of the men and women who work there and the opportunity for young people to have a c…”
“We inherited a situation where the north-east was the region with the lowest Ministry of Defence spend in the country and we have made it a mission to increase defence spending in the north-east. We have an incredible talent pool in the north-east, with brilliant defence companies both large and small doing brilliant work.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,421 lines we hold for Luke Pollard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 109.
“I am happy to take interventions if Conservative MPs can start their intervention with the reason why their Government started the negotiations. If it is true, as the shadow Defence Secretary says, that this is a crazy deal, why did the Conservatives start it? If it is true that it damages our national security, why did they start it? There has not been an answer from a single one of them, but let us see if the hon. Member can give it a go.”
“It went on to say: “Both leaders…instructed their teams to continue to work at pace.” A general election was called less than a month later. It is staggering that the Conservatives are doing this. Let me be absolutely clear: when we came into office, we inherited negotiations on this matter that had already had 11 rounds. We reinforced our terms, adding a 24-nautical mile buffer zone, so that no activity can take place there without our say so, and an effective veto on all development in the Chagos archipelago.”
“It is a curious position to hold: the previous Conservative Government started negotiations because they wanted to act like a trade union. I think that is a poor example. I was asked a number of important questions in the debate, and I am happy to reply to some of them, but I will start with some context. It is staggering that the Conservatives in government held 11 rounds of negotiations—85% of the negotiations were conducted with them—and yet seem to have collective amnesia. They seem to think that they stopped the deal, but according to a statement on gov.uk on 29 April 2024, the then Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister “discussed the progress made in negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on the exercise of sovereignty” over BIOT.”
“The right hon. Gentleman nearly got to why the Conservatives started the negotiations. It did not quite hit my bar for an intervention, but I appreciate him giving it a good go.”
“Again, the hon. Gentleman did not quite hit my bar, but I am sure I will get a parliamentary question from him about it. The Conservatives started the negotiations, I am afraid, and they want everyone to forget it. They want the public to forget it; they want their own MPs to forget it. If they cannot do deals, they are in the wrong place. Some interesting questions were asked today, and I want to try to deal with some of them.”
“Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) has found his voice, but only after completing his chicken run from the seat he thought he was going to lose to his new one. Let me be absolutely clear on this point: it is shameful that the Conservatives are trying to drag other overseas territories into the mess they are arguing over here. In their speeches, Conservatives have tried to create the impression that the sovereignty of the Falklands is not secure. The Falkland Islands Government have noted that the agreement has “no impact on the self-determination of the Falkland Islands people, and the existing and future relationship between the Falkland Islands and United Kingdom”. Let us not hear any more Conservative MPs raising questions over the future of the Falkland Islands.”
“That is what this deal seeks to close off. He was right to raise the matter. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), a former Defence Minister, said that he learns something new every day. Every day can indeed be a school day, and what I have learned today is that when the right hon. Gentleman swapped from the Government Benches to the Opposition Benches, his opinion on the deal miraculously changed, too. He backed it when he was a Minister, and now, on the Opposition Back Benches, he opposes it. That does say something. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) asked the very same question that I started with: why did the Conservatives start these negotiations? It is a question they still cannot answer. I note that the hon.”
“Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who now sits on a different Opposition Bench, raised the issue of resettlement on the outer islands. He made the case that resettlement on the outer islands will help to restore some dignity to the Chagossians, who have been treated appallingly for many decades. He will know that the deal we have signed with Mauritius includes the right to resettle on the outer islands and for visits to take place to Diego Garcia. It might not satisfy all his concerns on the matter, but I hope he can understand that that is a step forward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for his speech, in which he talked about uncertainty. As a Defence Minister, I am most concerned about uncertainty around the operation of the base and continuation of disruption.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked to finish early so that the shadow Cabinet can sit. I do want to ensure that I can get through as many questions as I can before those on the shadow Front Bench need to go and busy themselves in a meeting. I will try to answer a few of the questions. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), asked a sensible question about the amendment that his party tabled in the other place. He will appreciate that it is a wrecking amendment, so we could not support it; he will also be clear, though, that we take the issues behind it very seriously. I am glad that he continues to raise the issues of the Chagossians, which are important. The hon.”
“Annex 1 of the treaty says that there will be “unrestricted access, basing and overflight for United Kingdom and United States of America aircraft and vessels to enter into the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.” It says that unrestricted ability means “to control the conduct and deployment of our armed operations and lethal capabilities; and to control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and hazardous materials” The shadow Defence Secretary forgets that we do not talk about the location of nuclear weapons, but the protections were designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, who supported the UK proceeding with the deal. We continue to work closely with the US to ensure that the necessary arrangements are put in place.”
“The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) spoke for a good 20 minutes, but I am afraid that he seems to have read everything but the treaty itself. He was asking questions about what can be stored on the base.”
“No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has a meeting to get to and I am trying to help him get there. [ Interruption. ] I think he should sit down and prepare for his next meeting. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) was a good voice in this debate. In an important and sound contribution, he talked about the change in the geostrategic picture. His work on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly gives him an added insight into the importance not only of the base and the UK-US relationship, but of making sure that we have a strong defence. We will continue to invest in our national security. I am proud of my country and proud of our armed forces. I am proud that we are increasing defence spending under this Government to the highest level since the end of the cold war, but there is more that needs to be done.”
“I am very pro-Lukes generally speaking, but the hon. Member had 20 minutes in which to speak, and a few more interventions will not correct the quality of his speech.”
“Our base secures a 24-hour nautical exclusion zone around it. Full control of the electromagnetic spectrum is something the shadow Defence Secretary does not seem to understand, but it is actually quite important.”
“To help the Front-Bench team get to their shadow Cabinet meeting, I will not read out the same points again. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister invites me to do that, so I will. We are talking about the unrestricted ability to “control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”; I am very clear on this, but there are a few other questions that I want to get to. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke about value in his good, characteristic style. I liked his approach. When he spoke about comparison of value, it is worth noting that securing the continued operation of the base is roughly about £100 million a year. That compares favourably with the base that the French rent in Djibouti, which is next to a Chinese naval base.”
“That is why we have set up a Chagossian trust fund. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) asked earlier whether the Chagossians will have a say in the trust fund. Mauritius has confirmed, on 12 December, that it is putting in place legislation to enact the Chagossian trust fund. It will be run by Chagossians for Chagossians, and it will include UK-based Chagossians. I hope that goes some way to providing the clarity that the hon. Member was seeking. I said that I would finish at five minutes to 4 so that the Opposition Front Bench can get to their shadow Cabinet meeting, so I will finish at five minutes to 4, because I am a man of my word. Question put.”
“I feel like I have to read out the point for a third time. It is no wonder the Conservatives could not conclude the deal. Annex 1 says that it is unrestricted ability to “control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials.” We do not comment on the location of nuclear weapons. The shadow Defence Secretary might remember that from when he was a Defence Minister. Despite the boisterous amnesia we heard from the Conservatives in this debate, I hope that the voices of the Chagossians have truly been heard. There were some very good remarks about the Chagossians, including from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and the recently Reform-ed hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It is important that the Chagossians have greater involvement.”
“We are clearing up his mess while he focuses on gaslighting the public about the Tories’ record on defence.”
“We will make those decisions as part of the DIP, which will come shortly.”
“The Government will make a final decision on the award of the NMH contract through the wider defence investment plan. As the Defence Secretary has said in this House, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP, which will deliver the best kit and technology into the hands of our frontline forces and, importantly, will invest in and grow the UK economy. It will be published as soon as possible and is backed by the Government’s largest sustained increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war, spending £270 billion on defence in this Parliament alone.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to provide an update on the current status of the Ministry of Defence’s new medium helicopter procurement. Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with the CEO of Leonardo UK and the managing director of Leonardo Helicopters to continue our conversations around NMH exports and autonomous helicopters, and stressed that Leonardo remains an important strategic partner for the MOD. In fact, I had to leave that meeting early to get to this UQ. It is something that remains on my priority list. The NMH programme was first announced in March 2021 by the previous Government, with competition opening nearly three years later in February 2024.”
“I am happy to continue conversations with the hon. Member about this, as I will do with the company and with the trade unions representing the workforce.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He will have heard my first answer, which answers some of his questions, which said that the NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan. That will be announced shortly, so I will not be able to give him an answer today. I continue those conversations with Leonardo, as indeed I have today. It is important that we continue having those constructive conversations because I understand the importance of Yeovil not only to his constituency, but to our wider defence ecosystem and, as a south-west MP, to the wider region as well. Leonardo is expert in not only building helicopters but servicing them, and I am excited about some of the work it is undertaking on autonomous helicopters, as well as its wider business interests across the UK, especially in electronics and other areas.”
“My hon. Friend is right about two things. First, defence is an engine for growth. That is why we are investing more of the increasing defence budget in British companies. Secondly, the Conservatives left huge swathes of their equipment programme unfunded—a problem that we are sorting out because of the mess that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left.”
“Deary me. It is this Labour Government who are increasing defence spending to the highest level since the end of the cold war. It is the Conservatives who hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion. In their 14 years, they never once hit 2.5% of GDP on defence. I remind the House that as the Defence Procurement Minister until the election, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left a defence programme that was overcommitted and underfunded. He left 47 of 49 major defence programmes over budget and delayed. He left forces families in terrible housing and our warfighters with broken kit.”
“As a fellow Unite member, I recognise the importance of good, well-paid, unionised jobs in our defence industry. The opportunities in autonomy were set out clearly in the strategic defence review. We believe that a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems—for not just some but all units of our armed forces—is the right future, in which we can increase our lethality and move towards warfighting readiness faster. When we do that correctly, as we will set out in the defence investment plan, more jobs will be created in British companies—and, potentially, at Leonardo—as they consider autonomous helicopters and uncrewed platforms working together to increase our armed forces’ lethality and ability.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. They are, I am afraid, the same questions that his hon. Friend asked, so I will have to give him the same answers. All decisions on the new medium helicopter contract will be made as part of the defence investment plan. We continue those conversations with Leonardo. I recognise the importance of the skilled workforce. I will continue speaking to the company, as well as to the trade unions, about that—I am meeting Unite later in the week to have further conversations. I want to see more of the increase in the defence budget spent with UK companies, as we set out clearly in the defence industrial strategy and as the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said we will continue to do. I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman’s passion about renewing our armed forces.”
“There will be advantages, given the number of small businesses around Bournemouth that have huge potential to contribute to our defence and national security.”
“Constituencies across the south-west of England and around the country stand to benefit from the increase in defence spending set out by the Chancellor: £5 billion for the defence budget this year, which will rise to 2.5% and then onwards. We know that we are living in a new era of threat, and we are renewing our armed forces as a result. Many of the contracts that we are placing now are for the newer end of technology—autonomous systems and latest capabilities. That retires some of the old capabilities we inherited from the previous Government, who would not give our warfighters the fighting advantage that they need—especially given the lessons learned from Ukraine. Later this month, we will stand up the Office for Small Business Growth, which will help to support more small businesses and procurement in defence.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone in which he asked it, and he is right to say that corporate decisions about where investment goes are important. That is one reason that we have continued dialogue with Leonardo, not just in the UK but also with its parent company in Italy, to ensure that it is kept abreast of our challenges with the DIP, and with the military need and procurement strategy. I am afraid I will not be able to give a date for the DIP. We are working flat out to get it, and it will be published shortly when ready.”
“I recently met Rolls-Royce, and I know it has plans to go even further with its product offer and employment opportunities, and I will continue to keep the House informed about those developments.”
“My hon. Friend is right to say that the defence industrial strategy is a key piece of the puzzle in building up our new armed forces. It was published last year— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Minister is asking where it is, but it is on the internet because it was published a number of months ago, so if he has not read it, he should have a read. My hon. Friend’s question about Rolls-Royce is important. We have given Rolls-Royce a £9 billion contract for new nuclear reactors to support the SSN-AUKUS work. That Unity contract is an important part that enables Rolls-Royce to invest in its infrastructure and, perhaps most importantly, in its skills base.”
“The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there are important defence companies in her constituency, and across the country. We continue to place contracts with the defence industry, with more than 1,000 placed since the general election, and over 80% of those with UK firms, and that is an important continuation of our efforts to renew our armed forces. I entirely understand her argument that we want more investment and certainty, and when the defence investment plan is published—shortly, I hope—that will provide clarity on the kit we are buying, and in what order and sequence. That will help to support the growth of British businesses both large and small.”
“Industry must have full certainty that when something is in the programme, it will be funded, rather than the previous situation when industry saw the press releases and soundbites but not the cash. We are addressing that with the new defence investment plan.”
“I met the chief executive of Yeovil College briefly at the Great South West conference last year, and I understand its involvement and partnership with the private sector in that locality, including Leonardo, but not only that. I want to provide certainty for businesses, which is why I also want to ensure that the defence investment plan is got right. For far too long industry has had promises of funding when the equipment programme has been unfunded, and there has not been money to support those jobs or that certainty. We inherited a programme in which huge amounts were unfunded, so our objective is to ensure that all our defence programmes are sustainable. We must ensure that we are clearing up the mess.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the tone in which he asked it. I have a lot of time for him and his arguments. In fact, I think that “Shifting the goalposts?”, which talks about the rise and fall of defence spending, is one of the very best Defence Committee reports and it was issued when he was Chair of that Committee. I certainly recognise what the hon. Member for Yeovil said about timings. The contract in the procurement of the new medium helicopter included a period where the prices were guaranteed; we are keeping that in mind, because we want to make a decision and not to be timed out.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for his constituents who work at Leonardo. I entirely understand what he says. We are already taking steps to reform defence procurement to speed up decisions, but I am clear that a big decision about the future of the NMH and the funding for it needs to be taken as part of the whole programme. The defence investment programme is so important and it is important that we get this decision right, so that everyone can have certainty and confidence in every single line item in the DIP, which is something they have not been able to have with the equipment programme that we inherited.”
“As the right hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister in the last Government, he will understand the challenge of having an unfunded equipment programme that we are seeking to address in the defence investment plan. In relation to those he represents who work in Yeovil and Yeovilton—and indeed perhaps also in Culdrose, on the wider servicing of helicopters that Leonardo does, not just the building of them—we will be making a clear decision on the NMH in the defence investment plan. He will be aware that this procurement was bounded by the process. We will make a decision, we will not be timed out and we will not be altering the contract.”
“The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a number of very old helicopters. That is one of the reasons that we made the decision to retire Puma—a helicopter that had in many cases been flying for many, many decades. We will continue to look at the military needs and to match those with the capabilities from a rise in the defence budget, but the NMH decision will be made in the DIP.”
“The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have found additional funding for defence; there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year. We have an increasing defence budget for every single year of the decade ahead. Let me challenge his point, as I did answer the questions to which he referred; I just was not able to give the answer that he wanted. The NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan, which will be published shortly.”
“The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that it is really important to have an industrial base that can build autonomous helicopters and autonomous lift, and a number of players are already developing in that space. I want to be able to provide certainty to the workers at Leonardo on the future of the NMH, and that decision will be made in the DIP.”
“The hon. Gentleman comes from a background of knowledge in this respect. As part of the defence investment plan, the military have set out their needs, and they are being matched against the funding of the platforms that we have and the platforms that we want to purchase. As part of that, he will be aware of the SDR objective to move to greater autonomy in our platforms; indeed, a number of projects—including ones by Leonardo—are working to build that up. The new picture of crewed and autonomous platforms will be published as part of the defence investment plan.”
“We have been very clear in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review that we want more of a rising defence budget to go to British companies. That is changing the way in which defence procures, and it is the right change that we need to see as we bring more strategic autonomy back to the UK and as we friendshore and onshore more capabilities in these more difficult times. I am afraid that I will not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the full details, because they will be set out in the defence investment plan, as he has heard from my previous answers.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about small businesses and the wider supply chain. A large component part of the defence industrial strategy talks about those things as well; I am sure he has read that strategy, so he will be familiar with it. We want to see our suppliers in the UK expand. We also want to see more of them selling to the UK military; indeed, lots of our small companies sell to foreign militaries, but not yet to the UK military. We are launching the office for small business growth later this month. That will enable an easier route for UK SMEs to sell their products and services into the UK military—something that, time and again, they have said has been hard in the past. We are making it easier for the future.”
“Yes, I can. We were very clear that we wanted to explore the options for the UK participating in SAFE, but we were also clear that we would not join at any price. Unfortunately, we were not able to make the value for the UK taxpayer and for UK industry match in those discussions with SAFE. We continue to co-operate very closely with not just the European Union, but our European allies—that can be seen from the new agreements we have signed, such as the Trinity House agreement with Germany and more collaboration and co-operation with Poland—and there is more to come.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her question, as well as for the promotion she has given me! Since the general election, we have signed over 1,000 defence contracts, and more than 80% of those contracts have gone to UK companies. We will continue to use more of that increasing defence spending with UK firms, procuring with them wherever we possibly can. That is an important part of meeting the new threats we are facing as a nation and as a NATO alliance. We need to renew our armed forces, retiring old capabilities and bringing on new ones. The defence investment plan will set that out, and implement the approaches that were laid out so clearly in the strategic defence review.”
“The hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of conversations about Aldergrove, and I suspect we will continue to do so. It is important that, as part of the defence investment plan, we continue to maintain lift capabilities across our armed forces. That will include a mix of crewed and uncrewed, and will lead into autonomous systems, as will be laid out in the defence investment plan when it is published shortly.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for the defence industries in Northern Ireland. He will know that this Government placed a £1.6 billion order for new missiles from Northern Ireland. Those are a key component of our efforts to keep our friends in Ukraine safe. We will continue to procure from Northern Ireland businesses. Indeed, we are looking forward to the development of the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which I hope will enable us to take a substantial step forward shortly.”
“I commend that approach, and this statement, to the House.”
“I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked his questions.”