Two Governments: Defence

Was the government right to send RAF Typhoons to Saudi Arabia without a vote?

Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT

My verdict: Partly right. Intercepting missiles over Riyadh is defensive enough for ministers to act alone. But renewing refuelling for Saudi operations against targets in Yemen, with no published legal basis, end date or numbers, stretches the word.

What happened

The Ministry of Defence announced on 20 October that RAF Typhoons will fly defensive counter-air missions over Saudi cities and critical national infrastructure. The jets will not conduct offensive strikes against the Houthis. An A400M transport aircraft and military advisers go too.

In a written statement that day, the Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, said the Prime Minister had authorised the package. Refuelling for 'defensive Saudi air operations including to degrade Houthi military targets in Yemen' is extended for a further 90 days. The RAF tanker was first sent on 22 September.

On 22 October the Conservative Tom Tugendhat secured an urgent question. The veterans minister, Calvin Bailey, said a written statement was the right way to adjust the deployment. He withheld 'details that may put our soldiers and service personnel in harm's way'. On 26 October a government whip told peers she could not give the cost or comment on rules of engagement. There has been no Commons vote.

What's really going on

Saudi Arabia has struggled to defend itself and asked allies including Britain for air-defence support, AP reported. A Houthi strike on Riyadh's main airport killed at least 13 people and wounded more than 300. Saudi Arabia has opened an investigation into why its systems missed the barrage. The United States has declined to bomb the Houthis this time.

The British constraint is the royal prerogative, the power ministers use without Parliament's permission. Deploying forces is a prerogative power, and the 2011 convention in the Cabinet Manual commits ministers to a debate but not a vote. Keir Starmer, then Prime Minister, told MPs in March there is 'no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action'. The Commons Library records action without consulting Parliament in 2018, 2024, 2025 and 2026.

So the word 'defensive' carries the weight. The tanker had flown 14 operational missions by 12 October and is renewed for 90 days, while the Typhoons have no published end date. The government whip told peers the RAF cover 'frees up capacity for the Saudis to then prosecute their targets'. The war has killed more than 150,000 people, AP reported.

The strongest case on each side

The case for acting by ministerial decision

Intercepting drones and missiles aimed at an airport where at least 13 died is defensive. No government should wait for Commons time to do it.
Ministers made a written statement, answered an urgent question and took peers' questions. The convention, as governments read it, covers offensive or sustained action.
Parliamentary mandates bring caveats. NATO and British commanders criticised the limits parliaments imposed on ISAF contributors, and codification would invite judicial review.

The case for a Commons vote

Refuelling backs Saudi operations against Houthi targets, and a minister told peers RAF cover frees Saudi capacity for them. No legal basis is published.
The government gives no aircraft numbers, personnel, cost, rules of engagement or end date. Parliament must accept a commitment only the MOD can size.
Ministers decide what is 'defensive', and so whether the convention applies. Egypt's parliament needed a two-thirds vote for Saudi support, held on 26 October.

My verdict: partly right

Partly right. If the package were only Typhoons intercepting missiles over Riyadh, a written statement and an urgent question would do, since civilians died at that airport. Those demanding a vote should admit the convention they cite promises only a debate.

But the same statement renews refuelling for Saudi operations to degrade targets in Yemen, and a minister told peers the RAF cover frees Saudi capacity for strikes. Ministers give no aircraft numbers, cost or end date for the fighters, and no legal basis, though a legal summary appeared for the Iran action in March. A government that defines 'defensive' for itself, then withholds the detail to test it, has taken the prerogative's benefit without its discipline.

What I'd do instead

The 90-day renewal clock already exists in ministerial hands, so I would move it into the Commons and make ministers show their working on what 'defensive' covers.

Move the 90-day renewal clock into the Commons

Put the Saudi counter-air mission on a votable 90-day mandate, timed with the tanker renewal, so Parliament rather than ministers decides whether it continues.

The problem: A time limit already exists, but ministers hold the clock. They renewed the tanker for 90 days by written statement, and the Typhoons have no published end date at all.
How it would work: A government motion authorising defensive counter-air operations over Saudi Arabia for 90 days, expiring unless the Commons renews it. Each renewal comes with aircraft and personnel numbers and a short report on what the jets engaged.
What it costs: No new money. Half a day of Commons time each quarter and officials' drafting hours. The real price is ministerial flexibility, which governments say they need for speed and surprise.
Who it affects: Ministers lose sole control over renewal. MPs gain a vote they currently get only on offensive action, if then. RAF crews fly under a mandate that is public rather than inferred from a press release.
Tried before?: I found no UK precedent. Three private members' bills requiring Commons approval were dropped by 2007, and ministers abandoned legislation in 2016. Egypt's parliament voted on its own Saudi mandate on 26 October.
The risk: Caveats and a lost vote. NATO commanders criticised the operational limits parliamentary mandates put on ISAF contributors, and the Commons could attach its own. Losing a renewal would withdraw cover from Saudi cities mid-campaign.

Publish the legal basis and say what 'defensive' excludes

The Prime Minister's Office should publish a legal position summary for the Saudi mission, as it did for Iran in March, stating whether refuelling Saudi strikes counts as defence.

The problem: Ministers have published no legal basis and never define 'defensive', yet extend refuelling for Saudi operations to degrade Houthi targets in Yemen. Nobody outside government can tell where interception ends and enabling strikes begins.
How it would work: The Prime Minister's Office publishes a legal position summary for the Saudi mission, as it did for Iran on 1 March 2026. It should state what the Typhoons may engage and whether refuelled Saudi strikes count as defensive.
What it costs: Officials' time only. Templates exist from March 2026 and January 2024. What ministers fear is legal action, the reason Michael Fallon gave in April 2016 for not putting the convention into law.
Who it affects: Government lawyers and the MOD, who would justify the refuelling clause in public. Saudi Arabia would learn publicly what Britain will and will not enable, which may be unwelcome in Riyadh.
Tried before?: Yes, twice recently. Summaries were published for the January 2024 Yemen strikes and for defensive action against Iran on 1 March 2026. Nothing has been published for this deployment.
The risk: The summary may show that refuelling strikes to degrade targets sits outside self-defence. Ministers would then have to drop that element or concede the convention applies and schedule a debate.

The trade-off

The cost is Commons time and some ministerial flexibility, with a real risk of a mandate hedged by caveats commanders dislike. The gain is a published limit on a mission that currently has none.

How we'd know it worked

If this works, the next refuelling renewal, due by mid-January 2027 if the 90 days run from 20 October, is decided by a Commons vote. A published legal summary would also say what 'defensive' excludes.

What to watch

Written question 36754, tabled on 21 October, asks the duration and scope of the Saudi mission. It was due for answer on 26 October.
The 90-day refuelling extension announced on 20 October. If the 90 days run from that date, they end on 18 January 2027.
Whether the government publishes a legal position summary for the Saudi mission, as it did for Iran on 1 March 2026.

Sources

Are ministers right to cut heat pump grants to pay for defence?

Thu, 22 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT

My verdict: Partly right. Part of the saving can come from grant money the scheme will not spend this year, with no household losing out. Cutting the £7,500 and £9,000 rates nine months after the Warm Homes Plan would undercut the plan's own goals.

What happened

On 12 October the Guardian reported that the energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, had been told to find more than £2bn of savings for the defence investment plan. Her predecessor, Ed Miliband, had agreed the cuts. Sources told the paper that hundreds of millions of pounds would come out of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme's £2.7bn budget, though the scheme would not be abolished. The Budget falls on 28 October.

The scheme pays households in England and Wales to replace a fossil-fuel boiler with a heat pump and opened in May 2022. The standard grant is £7,500. Since 21 July 2026, homes heated by oil or LPG with no mains gas get £1,500 more, making £9,000, until March 2027. The scheme sits within the Warm Homes Plan, a £15bn programme published on 21 January 2026, which gives it £2,687m from 2025/26 to 2029/30.

An MP asked on 16 October whether that funding would survive the Budget. The energy minister Martin McCluskey answered that the scheme has £400m this year and that the government "does not comment on speculation ahead of fiscal events".

What's really going on

The latest official figures, covering August, were published on 24 September. The next arrive the day after the Budget, so the decision rests on data to the end of August.

The scheme cannot supply the sum on its own. Its £2.7bn to 2029/30 is under a fifth of the £15bn plan, and this year's share is £400m. Most of the saving must come from elsewhere in the department.

The scheme pays a grant only once an installation is finished. From April to August 2026 it paid 13,323 grants, roughly £100m at the standard rate in five months of a £400m year. Demand is rising: applications topped 7,400 in both July and August, the two highest months on record, and 34% of them were for the £9,000 rate.

The median air source heat pump installation cost £12,908 in April to June 2026, 11% less in real terms than in the same quarter of 2023. The £7,500 grant covers about 58% of that, leaving a household about £5,400 to find. The Warm Homes Plan says it will keep "the grant level and eligibility of BUS funding under review".

The constraint is people. The Warm Homes Plan counts about 10,000 trained installers, equal to about 4,000 full-time, and says that must reach about 12,000 full-time by 2030, a threefold increase.

The strongest case on each side

The case for trimming the grant

Defence must be paid for, and a grant that paid about £100m in five months of a £400m year has room to give.
A £7,500 grant on a £12,908 installation still leaves about £5,400 to find, so it mainly helps owner-occupiers with savings.
The Warm Homes Plan itself keeps the grant level under review, and the real median installation cost is 11% below its 2023 level.

The case against cutting it

The Warm Homes Plan set out rising grant budgets to 2030 nine months ago; cutting them now tells installers the plan cannot be relied on.
The plan needs the full-time installer workforce to triple by 2030, from about 4,000 to about 12,000, and firms train to the grant's demand.
Oil and LPG homes got £9,000 from July and took 32% of the grants paid in August, so cutting that rate would hit them first.

My verdict: partly right

Ministers are right that part of the £2bn can come from this scheme without any household losing a grant. It paid roughly £100m in five months of a £400m year, and some may go unspent, though demand has jumped since July. But cutting the £7,500 and £9,000 rates nine months after the Warm Homes Plan would be a mistake.

The plan itself needs the full-time installer workforce to triple by 2030, and installers train against the grant they expect. The scheme's defenders also skate over who benefits, because a grant leaving about £5,400 to find mainly reaches owner-occupiers with savings. And six days before the Budget, the government's only public answer is that it does not comment on speculation; it has not said whether vouchers already issued are safe.

What I'd do instead

I would take this year's saving from grant money the scheme will not spend and promise that issued vouchers will be paid. Any cut to the grant itself should follow a published, dated taper.

Take this year's saving from unspent grant money, and protect issued vouchers

Return to the Treasury whatever the scheme will not spend by March 2027, and promise in the Budget that every voucher already issued will be paid.

The problem: Grants are paid only once an installation is finished. The scheme paid 13,323 grants from April to August, roughly £100m of its £400m for 2026/27.
How it would work: The Chancellor states on 28 October that issued vouchers will be honoured. DESNZ forecasts the scheme's 2026/27 underspend from its monthly figures and returns it to the Treasury.
What it costs: No new money. The saving is whatever the scheme does not spend; no forecast has been published, and it could be small if the summer rise in applications lasts.
Who it affects: Households holding vouchers lose nothing, and applicants keep the £7,500 and £9,000 rates this year. Installers get a written promise that issued vouchers will be paid.
The risk: If demand keeps rising, the underspend shrinks and the Treasury gets little. It covers only part of the £2bn, so other cuts in the department still follow.

If the grant must fall, publish a taper tied to installation cost

Announce any reduction to the £7,500 grant as dated steps from April 2027, linked to the median installation cost DESNZ already publishes.

The problem: A flat cut announced on Budget day gives installers no notice, and nothing published ties the grant to what a heat pump costs to fit.
How it would work: DESNZ publishes a schedule under which the standard grant falls by a set share of any fall in the median installation cost in its own quarterly statistics.
What it costs: Less saving than a flat cut in 2026/27. Savings grow later and depend on costs falling from the £12,908 median; if costs stay flat, the grant stays at £7,500.
Who it affects: Households installing from April 2027 may get less if costs fall. Installers get notice of each step instead of a Budget-day surprise.
Tried before?: The grant rose from £5,000 to £7,500 in October 2023, and the Warm Homes Plan keeps the level under review. I found no published rule linking the grant to installation cost.
The risk: Installers could hold prices up to stop the grant falling, and a dated cut pulls demand forward and then leaves a gap, as any pre-announced subsidy change does.

The trade-off

Returning only unspent money and tapering gives the Treasury less from this scheme in 2026/27, perhaps very little. It would have to find more from the rest of the Warm Homes Plan or elsewhere in the department.

How we'd know it worked

If DESNZ releases after the Budget show monthly applications holding near the July and August level of more than 7,400 a month, the signal to installers held. A fall of a quarter or more would show it did not.

What to watch

The Budget on 28 October
The DESNZ Boiler Upgrade Scheme statistics for September, due on 29 October 2026
The £1,500 top-up for oil and LPG homes, due to end in March 2027