James Cartlidge

Voted AYE on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Voted AYE on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

James Cartlidge voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

James Cartlidge voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

James Cartlidge voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

James Cartlidge voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Spoke in debate: Defence Readiness

Parliamentary appearance by James Cartlidge

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

James Cartlidge voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Defence Readiness

One of the most critical issues in defence at the moment is the munitions position. Obviously, we did not publish it; we were not allowed to as it is a highly sensitive document. I cannot state what the figures were. We had a general election and we became the Opposition. However—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being intervened on as I intervene. To be clear on the 14 years point—I hope that those on the Government Benches agree with this—we gave a vast amount of munitions to Ukraine.

Defence Readiness

Bankrupting the country has consequences.

Defence Readiness

The hon. Gentleman is always very generous in giving way. He says that the Liberal Democrats would issue war bonds for the extra defence spending, which is just other borrowing. He has also said that he would maintain aid spending at 0.7%, which is a huge increase in spending. How would that be funded?

Defence Readiness

I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project. On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increa

Defence Readiness

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on the industrial base.

Defence Readiness

My hon. Friend has remarkable foresight, because I will be coming to the Chagos issue. This is the key point: had the Prime Minister held his nerve and reformed the benefits system, toughening the rules for working-age benefits and keeping the two-child limit, as was his previous position, he could have found the billions to fund defence rather than entrenching welfare dependency even further. Given this total failure of nerve from the Prime Minister, he had some brass neck to use his response t

Defence Readiness

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Our legacy Act was based on what happened in South Africa. We may not like it, but if we want peace and reconciliation, any changes in the law that favour those who may have been guilty have to apply to both sides. It is simply a statement of fact. As I think I just showed with Loughgall, our Act of Parliament—the legacy Act—did indeed stop an inquest that would have been damaging to the armed forces but which I do not

Defence Readiness

I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.

Defence Readiness

I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.