James MacCleary
MP for Lewes · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Primarily, shipping needs to be protected from attacks in the strait of Hormuz. The first way to do that is to reach a settlement that keeps shipping safe in the strait of Hormuz and, as I said in my previous point, that is why we need to reach a diplomatic solution.”
“The UK Government should be working every diplomatic channel they have to get Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. Let me be clear: this was an illegal war started by a reckless and irresponsible President. Trump, together with Benjamin Netanyahu, led the US and Israel into this war without a plan.”
“Roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil moves through the strait of Hormuz, so anything that threatens shipping there shows up quickly in household budgets here in Britain, not just in the Gulf.”
“The picture in Iran remains volatile. We have seen renewed military strikes, threats against ships in international waters and rhetoric that keeps ratcheting upwards. Put together, that is the kind of mix that tips into a spiral that nobody in this House wants.”
“It is a good challenge. Obviously, what I am talking about is a long-term solution. The military option has been tried. The United States, the pre-eminent military power on Earth, has expended a huge number of missiles and other military assets to try to bring Iran to a position that it wants it to be in.”
“I also recognise and welcome the designation of the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, and Russia’s GRU so-called Volunteer Corps. However, designation alone is not enough, so will the Minister tell the House what additional resources are being provided to ensure that the powers are properly enforced?”
The complete record
Every one of 554 lines we hold for James MacCleary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced.”
“and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind. That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations.”
“Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling. We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable. I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.”
“Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.”
“As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill. We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met.”
“Last night, I returned from a week in Ukraine. I visited villages in Kherson, just tens of kilometres from the frontline, and saw the total devastation wrought by Russian forces. Every morning, we woke to reports that hundreds of drones had been destroyed overnight by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine is innovating under Russian fire. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate defence co-operation with Ukraine, so that our armed forces can rapidly learn from, develop and deploy the counter-drone capabilities needed for the wars of today and tomorrow, not yesterday?”
“I regularly meet defence SMEs, and they all tell me the same thing: without a defence investment plan, investment decisions are being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire, and strengthen our national resilience, but continued Government delays are creating damaging uncertainty across the sector. Can the Minister tell me whether the MOD, or indeed any other Department, has conducted an economic assessment of the impact that the delayed publication of the defence investment plan is having on British businesses? If not, will he commit to publishing one?”
“The United States remains a vital ally, but President Trump has shown just how quickly long-standing alliances can be weakened, questioned or taken for granted. That is the reality facing Britain. This should have been a King’s Speech that had national security at its heart. It should have been a moment of seriousness, urgency and ambition. Instead, once again, we got more delay and more warm words that are not backed up by action. We all know that the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces, but this Labour Government cannot simply point to the failures of the past and pretend that is enough. They now have the responsibility to act, but so far they are moving far too slowly.”
“If His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech was meant to show that this Government have grasped the scale of the danger facing Britain, it fell a long way short. We live in a more dangerous world than at any point since the end of the cold war. Vladimir Putin is waging war in Europe, and Ukraine is fighting not just for its very survival, but for the security of our entire continent. Across Europe, we are seeing sabotage, cyber-attacks, disinformation, intimidation and hybrid warfare. Further afield, the world order is being tested by the rise of China, by instability in the middle east and by authoritarian regimes that are watching very carefully to see whether democracies still have the resolve to defend ourselves. At the same time, we can no longer assume that old certainties will hold.”
“As has been pointed out, defence spending has been reduced by successive Governments over a very long period of time, so focusing on the Liberal Democrats’ record alone is somewhat unfair, to say the least.”
“The right hon. Member enjoys raising the coalition quite a lot. You are talking about the nuclear submarines, aren’t you? That is what you asked about.”
“The Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to our nuclear deterrent repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. The defence investment plan is still not published. Industry is still waiting for certainty, and our allies are still waiting for clarity. Our armed forces are still waiting for the investment that they need, so it was deeply disappointing that the promised defence readiness Bill was not included in the King’s Speech. It speaks volumes that the Government’s own Bill on readiness is itself delayed. That matters, because defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild capacity in industry at the flick of a switch. We cannot train personnel, repair readiness, modernise equipment, strengthen supply chains and restore deterrents with vague promises or “working at pace”.”
“Just yesterday, former senior British officers wrote in The Times about the danger that cuts to development pose to our security and described aid as the “first line of defence” for the UK. The Government must urgently reverse course on the cuts, which only undermine this country’s security and soft power around the world. Last year’s strategic defence review highlighted the need for an urgent injection of cash into our armed forces. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate launch of defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years to support immediate, capital-intensive defence investment.”
“Learning from Ukraine has been very important. To be fair, the Government have made some steps in that direction, but we can always do more to learn from our friends who are testing this technology in the field day in, day out. Defence takes time. Industry needs a demand signal, our allies need confidence and our adversaries need to see resolve. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. That is not a slogan or a press release, but a serious plan to make Britain safer. We must also understand that Britain’s defence does not begin and end at our border. That is why forcing a choice between spending on defence and international development is entirely false.”
“That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.”
“That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it. The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life.”
“That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience. The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation.”
“We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe. The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads. National security should not be subject to short-term political games.”
“It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change. Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine.”
“For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow. If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors.”
“The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending. Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was very busy yesterday, as alarmed residents in the town of Seaford in my constituency reported sighting him too. He was apparently there campaigning to support the Reform candidate for Seaford North, who is set to lose his seat to the Liberal Democrats. I understand that it is a common courtesy in this place for Members to inform one another of official visits to their constituencies, but on this occasion, that did not happen. Could you advise me on this issue?”
“1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of compensating 1950s-born women impacted by the maladministration of state pension age changes.”
“The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of WASPI women. In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?”
“Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?”
“It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country. Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay.”
“It would be by reinstating the two-child benefit cap and punishing struggling families. Our surface fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I just heard shouting; I did not realise hon. Members were trying to intervene.”
“Earlier this year, the head of the armed forces, Sir Richard Knighton, issued a stark warning. In describing the current state of our military, Sir Richard said that the UK is “not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict that we might face.” We should remind ourselves of the context in which Sir Richard made those remarks. For years, the Conservatives oversaw the hollowing out of our military, with troop numbers cut by 10,000 on their watch. [ Interruption. ] Now, this motion proposes 20,000 more troops. Let us be clear what that actually means. After cutting 10,000 troops in government, the Conservatives are really proposing a net increase of only 10,000 now. When Liberal Democrats called for a reversal of Tory troop cuts, they scoffed. How would they pay for even that increase?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution, and I support the point he makes. All the cuts he mentions were damaging. Probably the most damaging thing of all was how the Conservatives failed our serving troops, in particular with their accommodation and the deal they gave our veterans over some time.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; that was very informative. We saw our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war while the Conservatives were at the helm, and a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces ushered in by their incompetence. We should not be surprised by the disastrous impact that years of Conservative mismanagement have had on our military. What is the Conservatives’ answer now? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion shows that they have learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It is the same old Tory formula: break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage”
“It is astonishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would not think that they had been in majority government for 10 years since the coalition. All the crimes that have been committed in history were committed by a minority partner in a coalition more than a decade ago. I make speeches at universities where some of the students were not even born when these things happened. It is extraordinary. We need a serious plan to reverse the damage.”
“We welcomed the Government’s efforts to try to reverse that damage last year, with their commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP. But the Government’s persistent failure to publish the defence investment plan is inexcusable Promised last summer, the plan was meant to turn the strategic defence review from warm words into hard action. We have been waiting for almost a year. All the time, Ministers have been working flat out, we are told, which must be exhausting. That delay matters. At the very moment Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—signals to our armed forces, signals to industry, signals to our allies and signals to our adversaries.”
“I hope that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and will perhaps review that decision in future. Reducing certainty for British defence companies is not what we need to be doing right now, which is why we need a defence investment plan. We are eroding our sovereign capability, weakening the supply chains, putting skilled jobs at risk, and ultimately undermining our national security. There must be no more hesitation and no more delay. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before the end of this Session? The Minister should need no reminding of the need for urgency, given the collection of threats that we face. Trump has cast doubt on NATO’s article 5 and trampled on international law, with illegal attacks in Venezuela and Iran—attacks that the Conservatives and Reform have backed uncritically.”
“Britain should be strengthening sovereign capability, not locking itself into systems that could be denied to us by presidential whim. Trump and Putin want to turn world politics into a system where might is right.”
“I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I agree; it is extremely hard to derive exactly what the Conservatives would be doing were they in government right now—God forbid—but I think inconsistency would definitely be the name of the game. Meanwhile, Putin prosecutes his barbaric war in Ukraine, harbours wider ambitions beyond it and expands his campaign of sabotage across Europe. But here is what makes Britain’s position even more precarious: at this very moment we are committed to acquiring F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but they are equipped to carry only American gravity bombs, use of which would require sign-off from the US President. At a time when we cannot trust the White House, we are deepening our dependence on it.”
“] It would be a fixed-term issuance, legally hypothecated to capital defence spending. The programme would be a secure way for people to invest their savings while helping to strengthen Britain’s national defence.”
“Declining ecosystems mean declining food production, and that is a national security risk that we ignore at our peril. It also means the defence readiness Bill, which is currently held up by the Government’s own delays on the defence investment plan. We cannot afford this drift; there can be no delay in beginning that work. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued that the defence investment plan must be accompanied by an immediate cash injection to support vital capital investment in our forces. We have detailed what this programme could look like, raising £20 billion in defence bonds over two years. [Hon. Members: “Yay!”] I am pleased that Conservative Members are so excited about the bonds idea—perhaps they have come around to it at last. [ Interruption.”
“The defining challenge for our nation is how to meet the unprecedented threat posed by an imperial Kremlin and an unreliable White House. It requires thinking about defence in a new way, because to stand up for values that we cherish, we must be strong enough to defend them. That means, at its core, rearming Britain. Meeting this challenge requires more than military hardware. It means a whole-of-society approach to national resilience. It means energy security, investing in renewables so that we are not dependent on fossil fuels from the very dictators we are standing up to. The Conservatives’ plan to raid investment in renewable energy investment undermines one element of UK security for another—it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means food security too. Biodiversity underpins our ability to feed ourselves.”
“I was actually going to talk about something completely different, but the question is a good one. I find it very disappointing that the Conservatives have so little faith in the ingenuity and industry of this country to produce its own independent deterrent. This is a multi-decade project. We understand that the Conservatives do not grasp fiscal responsibility—we saw that from the state they left our economy in—but a multi-decade project requires a serious commitment. In the short term, we should be looking to bring servicing and maintenance of the missiles into the UK to reduce our reliance on others. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members are asking where. We will develop the capability. I understand that the Conservatives do not like investing in Britain’s skills, but we can develop the skills. I have complete confidence that we can do so.”
“We also need to recognise that the long-term regeneration of our armed forces will require even higher and sustained increases to defence spending—up to 3%. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to commit to cross-party talks to agree a shared approach to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will be open-minded about those talks. We must look to secure and expand the UK’s involvement with financial instruments that offer cheap, new access to defence finance. That is why the Government must re-examine the negotiations to enter the Security Action for Europe fund. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a direct role in getting British access to that. Will the Minister update us on negotiations for access to that fund?”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. It would be a chance to back our armed forces, our security and Britain. We know that properly funding our nation’s security is critical to meeting the threats of this new and unprecedented era, and we also need to ensure that defence funding can generate wider growth in our economy. That is exactly what those bonds would deliver, supporting jobs and an expansion of our defence industrial base across Britain. Do not just take my word for it; we need to listen to the voice of British industry, academics and financial institutions. In the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ September 2025 green budget, it was clear that borrowing for defence could lead to higher growth, particularly when that additional defence spending is investment heavy.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. The SAFE fund is a good illustration of what it means to be outside the club. The Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces for a decade; now they want struggling families to pay for the repairs. What we need is a serious plan. The Government must publish a defence investment plan, back it with defence bonds and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Our armed forces have been let down for too long by Conservative cuts, by Government delays and by a failure of political will. They deserve better.”
“First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?”
“There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position. I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain.”
“Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?”
“The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?”
“I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.”
“Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war. Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are.”