Defence

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

16:14

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Defence Investment Plan has still not been published despite the Government promising Parliament that the plan would be published in Autumn 2025; notes that the Government’s delay has frozen procurement and has stopped the UK from learning lessons from its long-standing support for Ukraine and left the UK vulnerable as the world becomes more dangerous; believes that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 should not be proceeded with because they are a threat to morale, and that the Diego Garcia Treaty should not be ratified to ensure that the UK continues to have sovereignty over its military base; calls on the Government to publish the Defence Investment Plan as soon as possible; and further calls on the Government to increase spending on the UK’s armed forces, specifically delivering 20,000 more troops over the next Parliament, paid for by restoring the two-child benefit cap, and redirecting net zero funding to defence, to ensure that the UK spends three per cent of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.

It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. I join the Liaison Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee in asking the Government one simple question: when on earth will they publish the defence investment plan? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that simple question. It means that, at a time of war and conflict on multiple fronts, and amid the most dangerous time for our country since the cold war, instead of delivering rapid rearmament, Labour is presiding over a procurement freeze. Perhaps that should come as no surprise, given the Prime Minister’s constant habit of dither and delay.

Since 28 February, when the US and Israel started their campaign against Iran, the Conservative position has been that, had we been in government and the US had asked to use our bases, we would have granted permission. In contrast, the Prime Minister has not only dithered and delayed over sending the Royal Navy to the middle east, but constantly U-turned on whether to allow the US to use our bases. That is weak leadership when we need to stand strong in this dangerous world. Now, we are seeing the consequences of the Prime Minister’s weakness on the home front. As war wages around us, he is unable even to confirm whether the defence investment plan will be delivered this week. I urge the Minister to tell us at the outset of his remarks, but before he does, let us remind ourselves of what Labour Ministers have said before.

On coming into office, the Defence Secretary made a choice. He chose not to implement the munitions plan I had produced, which detailed comprehensively how we could rapidly replenish the vast amount of shells and missiles that we had given to Ukraine. Instead, he decided to launch a strategic defence review that would boil the ocean. In multiple written questions, we asked what Labour would do on specific capability, and the answer was always the same: “Wait for the SDR.” So we waited and waited—it was promised for the spring of 2025, and was delivered in the summer—but the SDR did not have any of the specific procurement choices that our entire defence industry is waiting for. After all the hype about the SDR, those decisions were punted into yet another review: the defence investment plan.

In June last year, the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that

“the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]

But summer turned to autumn, autumn turned to winter, and still there is no DIP.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

Maybe the hon. Lady knows when we will get it; I give way.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has some chutzpah, given that one of his Government’s many defence reviews had more pictures than pages. I agree with him that we should be serious-minded on this matter—we need to be prepared for defence—but under his Government, projects were delayed and aircraft carriers were without aircraft, and the ongoing Ajax saga is still be resolved. He needs to take responsibility, too. Across the House, we all want to ensure that we are ready to defend our nation.

[James Cartlidge]

There was no question in that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that the Government need to get on and deliver the defence investment plan. To be fair, MPs from across the House have said so, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. We all know that it is in the national interest for the DIP to be published.

After all, the defence investment plan being delayed has consequences, the most serious of which are for our military personnel, who we want to have the best equipment for their job. In taking the decision to pause urgent procurement and instead boil the ocean, the Defence Secretary walked into a Treasury trap. Procurement has been on hold ever since, and the Ministry of Defence has been forced to focus on in-year savings, including £2.6 billion for this year alone. Such penny-pinching explains why, until HMS Dragon finally arrived on the scene, we had no warships in the middle east for the first time in decades.

One of the most critical consequences of the delay to DIP is the Sea Viper Evolution procurement. The fact that a US destroyer intercepted at least one of the missiles that Iran fired at our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia underlines how important it is that our Type 45s are able defend against the most advanced threats. For the UK, that requires the Sea Viper Evolution upgrade for our Type 45 destroyers.

In my own SDR submission as shadow Defence Secretary, through numerous speeches in the House and in many written questions, I have repeatedly urged the Government to accelerate Sea Viper Evolution as a priority for our munitions plan. I am sure that members of the public who are watching this debate, worried about Iran’s attack on Diego Garcia, would expect such a capability to have been ordered as rapidly as possible. However, in a written answer this January, when I was once again chasing this critical upgrade, I received the inevitable response that continued progress on Sea Viper Evolution remains

“subject to the defence investment plan.”

That is the problem in a nutshell—the impact of Labour’s procurement freeze in real time. The reality is that Sea Viper Evolution is not due to reach full operating capability until late 2032.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

At Defence questions last week, the Secretary of State said that the delay to the defence investment plan was not holding up important investment plans, which came as a surprise to me, given that right now there are UK personnel on NATO’s border with Russia without specific equipment that would otherwise have been procured in my own constituency. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the delay is in fact having significant impacts on defence procurement?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a gallant gentleman who served in the Royal Air Force, knows exactly what he is talking about. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is having a real impact, and it is not just me saying that.

The serious consequence of this paralysis is our brilliant defence industry hanging on by its fingertips. This morning, I addressed a roundtable attended by many defence primes and small and medium-sized enterprises in Westminster. They are the experts at the coalface, and they spoke of British defence companies going abroad or even having to close because of delays to the defence investment plan, and a defence industry under strain when it should be firing on all cylinders.

When it comes to consequences, on a personal basis, what I find most disheartening of all is the impact of this paralysis on our ability to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine. I am incredibly proud of how, in government, the Conservatives stood by Ukraine even before Putin invaded.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I came into this place only in 2017. I was deeply disappointed by what happened in 2014 and our failure to stand by Ukraine on the invasion of Crimea. I think Michael Fallon was one of the few who said, “We should actually take action.” What was the hon. Gentleman’s view and what would he have done?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2014—over 60,000, I think, under Operation Interflex. I think there is a very strong consensus in the House on support for Ukraine. Obviously, there were limitations on what we could do. We have done everything possible. We were the first country in Europe to stand by Ukraine. We sent weapons before the invasion started. We did not wait for Putin to invade so that we could comply perfectly with international law. Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the guts to ignore the Foreign Office and send those weapons, despite that—premeditated. If Kyiv had fallen and the column of tanks heading to Kyiv had not been intercepted, we would have been in an extremely serious situation.

I am making a point about procurement. This is important. By April 2024, we were providing Ukraine with drone and counter-drone capabilities that were proving decisive on a real battlefield, against the peer military threat in Europe. They were not being produced through the old system, full of delays and overspend, but by British SMEs, producing them cheaply, swiftly and with constant feedback from the frontline. We were therefore incredibly well placed to deliver the vision of the MOD defence drone strategy—which I published in February 2024 and is meant to be current Government policy—whereby we would be a leading nation in uncrewed warfare. Most importantly, we would have achieved that by providing in parallel for our armed forces the drone technology that we were giving to Ukraine.

By now, our Army should have been training across the board in drone warfare, the Navy should have been fielding the beginnings of an autonomous drone fleet, learning the lessons from Ukraine’s extraordinary victory in the Black sea, and the RAF should have been maximising investment in loyal wingmen—drones that would fly alongside and enhance the lethality of our current Typhoons. But there was one big problem.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with his Government’s drone strategy was that they did not invest in satellites, making us reliant on foreign satellites for full capability, and they did not invest in the radars, as we have, that cover all of Europe and north Africa, thereby making us fully reliant on the US?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady talks about reliance on the US. I remind her that it was the United States that intercepted the ballistic missile heading for our base—our sovereign territory—on Diego Garcia. The point I am making—and it is incredibly important for the House to reflect on this, because it has not been talked about enough, partly for sensitivity reasons—is that we did tremendous things in Ukraine. We supplied drones made by British companies that had an extraordinary impact. I am not going to say any more than that, but that is a statement of fact.

My strategy—it is fairly simple—was that we should, in parallel, do the same for the British armed forces, but in the summer of 2024 we ran into a big problem, and it is the reason why we have no defence investment plan: money. As was the case when we were in government, the Treasury under this Prime Minister has agreed a funding line for Ukraine; that is correct, and we strongly agree with it. But there has been no agreement to fund parallel procurement for our own armed forces.

This golden opportunity to transform our military was lost because the Secretary of State failed to stand up to the Treasury and demand the cash from the Chancellor. So often have I met British SMEs producing amazing battle-tested kit for Ukraine, with nothing ordered by our own armed forces. It is extraordinary, and I think the Minister, who shares my passion for the uncrewed revolution, knows that. As ever, it boils down to hard cash.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another example is Coventry-based NP Aerospace, which I met again this morning? It is producing body armour for Ukrainians, but because of the delay in the DIP, it has no confidence that it will be able to do the same for the British Army. It is a bit reminiscent of 2003, when several in this House went to Iraq with the most shoddy, appalling personal kit that took months to rectify.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who speaks with his experience as not just a former Defence Minister but someone who served in the Royal Navy and still does as a reservist. I ran an SME—it was not a defence SME, but I know the stress of running a company in tough times, and my heart goes out to companies like the one he talks about, which will be struggling right now. They are selling abroad but getting nothing from the British military at a time when we face intense threats. That is not good enough.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the Government have adopted for planning defence: the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in its own forecasts and figures beyond 2029, and yet the defence investment plan is a 10-year plan. How can the Treasury agree to a 10-year plan when it has not agreed to any funding for defence after 2029? It is just an aspiration.

[James Cartlidge]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly. He is absolutely right. The Red Book details to the penny how much this Government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two-child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years, so how on earth is the MOD meant to change? The key is that the Government are not going to go to 3% in this Parliament. I am going to conclude by setting out five steps, but before I do that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend is never boring in his interventions; on the contrary, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House.

I will conclude with five steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness—positive suggestions from the Conservative Benches. First, we should rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to the Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the defence investment plan, he should use the reserve funding agreed for the middle east operations to place orders for urgent operational requirements, in particular advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for our fighter planes, and Aster air defence missiles for our Type 45s. Secondly, we should deliver drone tech at scale and pace across the armed forces, as we set out in our sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund that we would set a path to 3% this Parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank, ringfencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing £6 billion of research and development funding for drone tech, and restoring the two-child benefit cap to fund a bigger Army.

Fourthly, to save more money for defence, and following Iran’s missile strike on Diego Garcia, we would stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos plan. Finally, to boost immediately the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour’s plans to put our former soldiers back in the dock, simply for the crime of serving their country. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working “flat out” to deliver the defence investment plan. In the national interest this country needs to rearm rapidly. That means the Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill, and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.

16:31

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

I read the motion with a sense not of anger but of disappointment, because at a moment like this, when British armed forces are actively protecting our people and our interests in the middle east, intercepting drones, defending our bases, and preparing for further and potential escalation, I had hoped for a more well thought through and balanced motion to contribute to the debate.

Let me start by paying tribute to those who are serving today, at home and overseas, in the air, on land, at sea, and 24/7 beneath the waves, often in conditions of real danger, doing exactly what the country asks of them. This debate should have been about them. Instead, we have a motion that reads less like a serious contribution to defence policy, and more like an attempt to rewrite the record, and to whitewash what happened over the past 14 years. The House knows the record, and the public know it too. Importantly, the implications of 14 years have an impact on our armed forces, and they are bearing the brunt of it. Opposition Members cannot rewrite it, and they cannot run from it.

Let us be clear about the world we are now operating in. A major land war continues in Europe, where 55,000 drones and missiles have been fired by Russia into Ukraine, and there have been over 100,000 casualties on the Russian side alone—that is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. Conflict is spreading across the middle east, and 10 countries have been struck by hundreds of ballistic missiles and thousands of drones. Authoritarian states are becoming more aggressive, and the way wars are fought is changing at pace. This is the most volatile security environment for a generation. This is not a moment for gestures or political point scoring; it is a moment for a serious decision.

[James Cartlidge]

When is the Minister going to publish the defence investment plan?

[Al Carns]

We will publish the defence investment plan as soon as is feasible. The hon. Gentleman will not find anyone who wants more than me more defence spending at a faster rate, but this is a moment for serious decisions to be taken in the national interest. We need to get ourselves back on track. There has been a whole plethora of funding decisions over the last 14 years, which I lived through, and I am sure some hon. and gallant Members present lived through, that in the current environment are no longer fit for purpose.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am sure my hon. Friend will remember that at one point when he was serving our country the last Government put an extra £4.5 billion into defence spending. However, time after time, every witness that came in front of the Public Accounts Committee told us how it was not solving their funding problem and was overspent many times. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need rigour in spending that actually delivers the kit to our men and women on the ground, in the air and at sea who are serving our country?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. We have a large defence budget, and in the past it has not been spent effectively.

I think we can collectively agree, on both sides of the House, that huge procurement mistakes have been made in the past that have resulted in either the wrong equipment or the money going the wrong way. We therefore need to take our time to get this right. As Conservative Members will know, the other reason we need to take our time to get this right is that conflict is changing; in some cases, it overtakes some of the capability that was ordered years ago.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I thoroughly enjoyed the Minister’s interview on Times Radio, in which he talked about his role in defence and his history and was asked about his leadership. I will not ask him about his leadership ambitions, but I would like to know where the DIP is stuck. Which Minister is it stuck with? Is it stuck with the Chancellor, or does the Ministry of Defence itself have a problem? I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little.

[Al Carns]

Defence is very clear about what it requires. We are working collectively across Government to come to a joint decision on where that spending portfolio will fall.

There are points in this motion that are obvious. The world is more dangerous, and we are investing more in defence, but recognising that is the easy part; the real question is whether we are prepared to make the decisions required to deal with it. Defence is not a shopping list, and it must not be treated as such. It is not about picking a number of troops, as mentioned in the motion, and it is not about shifting money around on paper. It is about building a force that works—one that is properly equipped with the correct equipment, properly supported and able to operate alongside our allies. In my time in uniform and since coming into this role, I have spent time in multiple different operational theatres, and I know that this is not about the size of the armed forces; it is about the plan. This is about the purpose, the equipment and how people will be integrated. Simply stating that we should add 20,000 extra troops to the Army, with no clear or concise understanding of how they will be used, is not the way to go about business.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Minister is making a powerful case. A man with his record and history coming to this place is to be congratulated, and I am enthused to see him in his place today, as I think we all are.

We have talked about the non-appearance of the defence investment plan, but there is another review that has not appeared that has even more impact: the review on China and the threat that it poses to us. That was promised again by the Government. I raise this issue because under Conservative and Labour Governments, I have gone on constantly about the growing threat, and we have not faced up to it. China is critical to this matter; if we watch the tankers going into the strait of Hormuz and out again without any problems, we begin to realise the incredible links that China has with Iran, Russia and North Korea. Is the Ministry of Defence demanding that that review is handed to it and published, or has it forgotten about it?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for a very balanced contribution, as always. On the specific issue, I will come back to you and write to you on where we are and how the review is moving forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not require any correspondence from the Minister, although it is always welcome.

[Al Carns]

Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.

What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war

“whether we like it or not”.

The following week, she says,

“I never said we should join”,

and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I share the respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the Minister and his experience, but the two statements from the Leader of the Opposition that he read out are not incompatible. The fact is that we would not have joined in the military action that the Americans and the Israelis initiated, but it is undeniable that the war has now come to us. What does he think is happening in London? Did he not hear the deputy chief of the Metropolitan police on the radio this morning talking about the rising Iranian threat that is now domestic in our own capital? This war has come to us. As Leon Trotsky said, Madam Deputy Speaker,

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

[Al Carns]

I hope war is not interested in you personally, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Iranian threat—Hezbollah, Hamas, lethal aid in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting terrorist organisations around the world—is not lost on me at all. However, I will be really clear: I have served in every staff college in the career structure of the British military, and I have always been taught that there are three key things. First, you have to have a legal mandate; secondly, you have to have a plan; and thirdly, you have to think to the end. If the Opposition think that we should be involved in the conflict, then by all means they should say so, but if they do not, they should be balanced.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Al Carns]

I will give way in two seconds. What I will say is that a vision without a plan is a dream, and I am concerned that if we had followed the Opposition’s direction, we would have ended up in a nightmare.

[James Cartlidge]

I believe that the Minister was giving way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.

To be clear, the Prime Minister and the Conservative party now have the same position. The Prime Minister would grant the US use of our bases—its bombers have been taking off from our bases. That was our position. The difference is that we have maintained that position from the beginning, 100% consistently, whereas the Prime Minister has U-turned repeatedly. We are the ones who have been consistent; Labour has been blowing all over the place.

[Al Carns]

The Opposition would have dragged us into this conflict quicker than we could possibly have imagined. We have made the difficult but correct decision to remain in a defensive posture. That is the right decision.

Let me deal directly with the record that we inherited. The shadow Defence Secretary himself admitted that defence spending reduced every year because, in his words, people thought we had peace. That assumption has left this country exposed. Ground-based air defence investment, which is now protecting our forces in the middle east with our allies and partners, was cut by around 70% in the Conservatives’ final year. Frigates and destroyers were reduced by a quarter, and minehunters were cut by more than a half. I was the chief of staff of our carrier strike force, which validates our minehunting capability that goes to the middle east. Interestingly, in the 2021 integrated review, the out of service date for minehunters was brought forward to 2026—good decision! Troop numbers were left at their lowest level in modern history. That is the reality, that is the legacy, and that is what we are trying to fix, and we are fixing it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Al Carns]

I will continue and then give way in a minute.

We have taken more action in the past 20 months than the Conservatives managed in the 14 years before that, with more than 1,200 major defence contracts, 86% of which have been awarded to British-based businesses. The Conservatives argued that we should spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030; we are delivering it by 2027.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Al Carns]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.

However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. I will raise them with the Security Minister, and push exceptionally hard.

The motion suggests that we are failing to learn lessons from Ukraine. Let me make it absolutely clear that these are two separate issues. This Government are leading. We committed £4.5 billion in military support last year, building on £3 billion annually. We have co-led the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has helped to secure over $45 billion of investment, and in February alone a further $35 billion was raised. However, we have not just provided funds; we have adapted.

At this point, I want to recall my own history. I left the military in 2024. I left because the Government and the military collectively were not learning the lessons from Ukraine. That is the very reason I left to come to this place. Labour was not in government at the time, and we were already years into the conflict. Opposition Members will recognise this as being one of my hobby horses since I have been in the Ministry of Defence.

There has been a tenfold increase in drone delivery, with a target of 100,000 this year. A new cyber and electromagnetic force has been built on lessons from the battlefield in Ukraine, and £4 billion has been committed to autonomous systems over time. We have seen Project Asgard, a hybrid Navy, a defence uncrewed centre of excellence in the SDR, a cultural change within the Army, Navy and Air Force in respect of uncrewed systems, an increase in uncrewed systems training, and cultural development in phase 1 and phase 2 training. I am therefore confused as to how no lessons are being learned. We must go faster, and we are pushing as hard as we can, but I want to be very clear about this, and I will bring you back to the first point. I left the military because your Government—[Interruption.] I left the military because the Conservative Government were not learning the lessons effectively from Ukraine.

Let me turn to the topic of Northern Ireland and morale. I do not recognise the argument advanced in the motion.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

I will give way one more time.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister gave us an extensive list of some of the spending commitments, but will he set out the exact spending commitments, and explain about the 1.5% required by NATO, which is not included in the defence spending? It was a great big list, but I have not heard the other side of it, and I should be grateful if he could provide those categories.

[Al Carns]

There are clear NATO defence spending targets. That is written down, and will be produced in due course.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The 1.5% is, of course, about security-related initiatives, and it is important that we get to those soon. As for the wider defence investment plan, I would just say a word of caution: we must get it absolutely right. I have been trying to work with colleagues on both sides of the House since the start of the Ajax project in 2016 to find a resolution to some of these problems. We must take great care and be very clear-eyed about the procurement strategy that we follow.

[Al Carns]

I completely agree. We have to get the defence investment plan right, and we have to ensure that it balances all the different problems that we face, whether they relate to air defence in the middle east and the lessons identified there or, indeed, the lessons identified in Ukraine.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

One thing that we need to get right, and which we got wrong in the past, is this. When I was first elected in 2017, there were not Russian spy ships off the coast of my constituency, but now there are, and we detected a submarine before Christmas. I raised this issue with the Leader of the House last week and have been granted a ministerial meeting. Does the Minister agree that there is a Russian threat on our doorstep to vital strategic resources, including pipelines, interconnectors, our offshore wind, and our oil and gas? Look at what happened in the Baltic.

[Al Carns]

We often talk about not having a frontline with Russia, but the reality is that we do. It is in the north Atlantic and in maritime, where we are facing off against Russian capability on a daily basis. We have seen a 30% increase in surface and subsurface capability, which speaks to the complexity of the defence investment plan and to the requirement to balance our assets, given the crisis in the middle east and, of course, the continual and persistent threat from the Russians in the north.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I would like to take the gallant Minister back to his comments about when and why Britain should go to war. It is clear that the Conservatives have forgotten that the Leader of the Opposition made her comments during the offensive action, not the defensive action. Is the Minister concerned that we have a Leader of the Opposition and a leader of the Reform party who, when Donald Trump says, “Jump!”, say, “How high?”

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. We need three levels of understanding before ever putting someone in harm’s way: a legal mandate, a plan and think-through to the finish.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

I am going to make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.

Morale is built on leadership, clarity and trust, and the facts matter. Recruitment is up by 13%, and outflow is down by 8%. For the first time in over a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving—that is the reality. Let us be clear about our responsibility to our veterans: there is no equivalence between those who served to protect life and those who sought to destroy it. This Government are putting in place proper protections for veterans following the legal uncertainty that was left behind, and we are backing that with action.

Actions talks. Op Valour is putting £50 million into our veterans programme—more than ever before. Op Ascend is helping veterans into meaningful employment, with funding to tackle veterans’ homelessness and to deliver real improvements in housing and pay. We have delivered the largest pay rise in two decades, including a 35% increase for new recruits. We have bought back 36,000 military homes and are investing £9 billion to improve them. We have funded 30 hours of free childcare for under-threes across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, saving forces families up to £6,000 a year. That is the difference that practical support makes, and it is why we are seeing a change in morale. If the Conservatives want a debate about who is delivering for our service personnel, I am more than happy to stand on our record and to compare theirs with ours.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

I am going to a make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

We come to perhaps the most revealing part of the motion: the suggestion that defence should be funded through changes to the two-child benefit cap. Let me say this plainly: you do not strengthen national security by setting it against support for working families, you do not ask the country to choose between security abroad and stability at home, and you do not build credible defence policy on that basis. It is the job of the Government to make life easier for families, not harder.

I will say something else. I grew up in a family where decisions about money took place, and I see the same pressures on the communities that I now represent. Security is not just about what happens overseas; it is about whether families feel that they can cope, whether they feel stable and whether they feel that the system is working for them. The Conservatives’ motion is not a serious way to approach defence funding, because the strength of a country rests both on armed forces that can deter and defend, and on a society at home that is stable, resilient and confident. Pitting one against the other does not strengthen either; it weakens both.

This Government are taking a different approach. We are making decisions in the national interest, and we will not be pushed into those decisions by noise or pressure—we will take them carefully and responsibly. We are increasing defence spending, strengthening our forces—whether it be recruitment or outflow, or the morale component as a whole—and ensuring that our forces are ready to face threats both now and in the future. We will publish our defence investment plan, but we will not rush it for the sake of a headline. As has been demonstrated over the past 14 years, a plan that is not properly funded or deliverable does not strengthen our security, but weakens it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been an interesting knockabout. On the question of what we are achieving, I refer the Minister back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the Conservatives were in office, on the numerous wastage scandals in defence procurement. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years; I go back so far that I remember Lord Levene being appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We are never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement. We have the sixth biggest defence budget in the world, but we do not get bang for our buck. I do not have any instant solutions, but is this not something we can all unite around? Can we not just insist that we stop these huge projects, which are not fit for modern warfare, and go back to actually being able to fight a war?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I note that many colleagues wish to contribute; no doubt he is coming close to his conclusion.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We are moving in that direction; the national armaments director is providing professional oversight now and is looking at reviewing the system. I think we can all collectively agree on whether we have got value for money over the past 14 to 20 years. We need to make sure that we do get value for money in the future; if we had in the past, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.

In closing, this motion asks the House to express regret about a Government who are delivering the largest increase in defence spending, leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed to protect British lives, the Opposition offer a motion built on a record they would rather forget and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring but a time for leadership, and this Government are providing it. I urge the House to reject the motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:57

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

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? 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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James MacCleary]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sir Julian Lewis, I have never seen you behave so badly.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Can I share a little secret with the House? For slightly longer than the duration of the second world war, I was a shadow Defence Minister, but in 2010, I found myself back on the Back Benches because the Liberal Defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. I think the hon. Gentlemen’s amnesia is therefore somewhat selective.

[James MacCleary]

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

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[James MacCleary]

Perhaps the shadow Minister has one in his pocket.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member; he does always give way on this point.

There is one capability that keeps us safe 24/7 more than any other, which is our continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Was it, or was it not, a condition of the Liberal Democrats joining the coalition that the programme was delayed, putting massive pressure on the boats, with the result that they are now doing tours of more than 200 days? The Liberal Democrats should be ashamed of that.

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Mike Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I would just like to draw—[Interruption.] Do Conservative Members want to hear this?

[Hon. Members]

No!

[Mike Martin]

Well, they will hear it anyway.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order! We need less noise in the Chamber.

[Mike Martin]

On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one immediate action the Government could take to reverse some of the damage that the Conservatives have done to our armed forces is on the Conservative decision to shut down Winchester’s Army training regiment, which trains 20% of our troops. No replacement for that facility will open in the next few years. That decision needs to be reversed.

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Cameron Thomas]

President Trump recently derided the UK as cowards for not joining his directionless operation in Iran—a pretty hollow statement for a draft dodger who understands neither courage nor calculation. Regardless, does my hon. Friend agree that, based on comments from the Leader of the Opposition just a month ago, under a Conservative Government we would now be engaged in offensive operations in a war for which there seems to be no plan and without the preparedness that this motion calls for?

[James MacCleary]

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. 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.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for giving way. I think he is warming up to his leader’s new Dr Strangelove plot to have his own independent nuclear weapon. Could he tell us how much it is going to cost the UK?

[James MacCleary]

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.

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. 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.]

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.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing the intervention. I cannot describe the laughing and bickering that is going on right now, when we have troops in harm’s way. There has to be a level of seriousness, whether we are discussing the nuclear deterrent or investment opportunities and mistakes made. We have troops in harm’s way, so I ask Members to provide an element of seriousness to the debate.

[James MacCleary]

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. 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?

[Cameron Thomas]

Given the virulence of threats and chastisement from Washington towards European allies—including the UK—and, further, given the UK’s lack of access to the EU’s SAFE fund, which would otherwise support our rearmament, does my hon. Friend recognise that leaving the European Union was a historic mistake that has gravely undermined UK sovereignty?

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Brian Leishman.

17:11

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Forgive me; I was slightly distracted. We now have a speaking limit of eight minutes.

[Brian Leishman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times.

In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy.

Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers.

Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is any military threat to this country from abroad?

[Brian Leishman]

Yes, I do. But when I look at the threats that we face in this country, I have an inbox full of constituents who are saying that they have to make the incredible decision of whether to feed their family or put the heating on. That is actually killing people. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about perceived threats, but those are the actual threats that I am dealing with in my inbox.

As I say, there is a choice. We can build hospitals to save lives and schools to educate our children, and upgrade infrastructure—we all know that local authorities most definitely need that, as they need investment in public services. These are the things that really will improve people’s living standards up and down the United Kingdom.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Whatever side one takes in the argument that he presents to us, does he agree that in the hopefully unlikely event of Scottish independence being achieved, two things would happen? First, Scotland, on forming its own navy, would have the greatest difficulty defending the strategic assets to which I referred in an earlier intervention; and secondly, an independent Scottish Government would have the most hideous choices to make, exactly along the lines that the hon. Gentleman is presenting, between armaments, and badly needed hospitals and other social investments.

[Brian Leishman]

The hon. Gentleman focuses on the constitutional question that is such a huge part of Scottish and UK politics. I honestly have no issue with people who voted yes and I have no issue with people who voted no. The politics that I try to bring to this place is not based on nationalism versus Unionism; it is about class, which I think is the overriding political force in this country and has been for centuries, regardless of whether that is north or south of the border.

I mentioned the choice that I would want. The other choice is to spend tens of billions of pounds on military hardware, with that money inevitably flowing to private capital and corporate shareholders. For me, that will only serve to create even more inequality. It is very much an either/or. Do we build or do we destroy? I feel that workers and communities, certainly in my constituency of Alloa and Grangemouth, need the former and not the latter. It is my opinion that militarism will not make the UK a more equal country or, indeed, the world a safer place. I fear that, given the way that we are going and when we look at geopolitical forces, in January next year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will move the second hand closer to midnight once again.

17:18

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I listened to the Minister’s remarks with great care. Many of the things that he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he says, I do not believe that he quite so fervently believes. I ask him, being the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is, to consider whether criticising those who criticise Government policy on the basis of the question “How dare you criticise the Government at such a serious time?” reflects the same kind of attack made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters even as late as 1940. As they went through the Division Lobbies in May that year, they taunted those coming through voting against the Adjournment of the House: “Quislings”, they said.

To implicitly brand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as some kind of warmonger who is out of control—that is what the Government are basically saying—reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill: that he loved war so much, he was not objective. Yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster.

I appreciate that it is perhaps obligatory for the Minister to say these things about the two-child benefit cap for the satisfaction of many of his Back Benchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe the two problems have something to do with each other. If we could just spend the same on in-work or out-of-work benefits for people of working age as we were spending before covid, we could save £50 billion a year, but that does not seem to matter to the Government at all.

The Minister talked, I am sure with great sincerity, about how important it is to have a system that works “for them”—I think I am quoting his very words; he said that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the Government are presiding is failing. We now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training—the so-called NEETs. Even those operating on the frontline of food banks—I visited a food bank recently—understand that if we keep indexing benefits with inflation, but do not index tax allowances, that means that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and if we increase benefits, such as by removing the two-child benefit cap, and do not uprate the tapers to protect the better-off who are receiving universal credit, we create a disincentive to work.

When I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair’s Government—they were not originated under the Conservatives—there used to be a tiny number of people who were permanent beneficiaries of food banks; the vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted until quite recently. At the food bank I visited at the weekend, 80% of beneficiaries are now permanent clients, because they say there is no point in them trying to take work, as it does not pay. The system is not working for them, because we are spending too much on welfare and we have not cut taxes enough.

The next question is: are we at peace or at war? Much of the discussion in the Liaison Committee was about that. I cannot find a Minister who denies that we are at war, and I am afraid that makes the question of whether we choose to get involved rather redundant. We are involved, and we cannot help being involved. Our sovereign territory is involved, because it is being attacked. Indeed, we have been involved in a war in defence of the west, NATO and Ukraine probably since as far back as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the nature of Putin’s regime had become apparent by then. They are quite explicit: Lavrov has said that Russia is at war with NATO, so that war is already here.

What kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflicts, including hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed and is of such a varied nature, and what one might call cognitive conflict, which is the capacity and determination of Russia and China, and probably Iran, not just to interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth. This is aimed at reshaping the societal, economic and informational environment, at undermining people’s faith in democracy and democratic values, and at destroying the faith of our voters in our democratic system.

The question now is: what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing? I know that in bits of Government, many small parts of the Government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things that are of crucial importance.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations is very substantially—I will not say hopelessly—dependent on the good will that the United States shows towards us. That was the basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson—the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States was our closest ally and could be relied upon. Whether that will be true in the future, we do not know. Some things that have happened have very much shaken our faith in that, but the idea that the Government should choose this moment—this very moment, when we are begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front—to further alienate President Trump from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error.

Going back to the second world war, when Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom did not seem to have an independent foreign policy, Churchill said, “No, we don’t. We’ve got to do what the Americans want us to do in order to get them to come into the war.” I am afraid that we are not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans, and pontificating about their moral judgments or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive for the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, we need a deterrent stance.

But what is the Government’s response? Well, we are waiting for a plan, but that plan is a long time coming. Drones have transformed the last few months, but the Government have not kept up with the change. We are still waiting for a plan, and it is not enough.

17:28

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I am going to start by doing something unusual in these debates: I am going to agree with the Opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on defence, I agree that we are in a once-in-a-century moment where the safety and security of our nation are fundamentally at risk, and I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one. Now, before my Whip has a heart attack, I will set out where I disagree with the Opposition. To take their point seriously, their plan to pay for what they set out in the motion would make this nation weaker and more divided. On top of that, it is very narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, without considering how we spend it or scale up.

To put the two-child limit back in place and have children go hungry would make our nation weaker. How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today we will let them go hungry and that we would take money from them? I say to Opposition Members who spoke about this that we should remember that 60% of the children affected are from working families. Beyond that and more than that—no ifs, no buts, no exceptions—no child should be going hungry in this country. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? When we live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? It leads to fear, frustration and fury, but more than that, to division, and a divided nation cannot take and meet this moment.

On energy, the Conservatives want to make us more dependent on fossil fuels supplied by dictators such as Putin and more dependent on the middle east. That would make us weaker. In the 14 years they had, with all the licences they granted, how many days of gas were there? There were 36 days. The North sea is operating on a declining basis; it will not give us security.

[Lincoln Jopp]

With the points the hon. Member has just made, it seems he has forgotten that a year ago his own party suspended seven of its Back Benchers for voting with an SNP proposal to lift the two-child benefit cap. If he is going to be quite so forthright in his criticism of us, could he explain why his Government have done such a volte-face in the intervening 12 months?

[Dr Sandher]

I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.

[Dr Murrison]

I am following the hon. Member with a great deal of interest. Is he able to name a single major western economy that after 1989 did not take a peace dividend?

[Dr Sandher]

To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member just explain where we were in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where we stand today?

[Dr Sandher]

My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it.

Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the percentage of GDP, but a defence economic strategy means far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how we produce more fighting forces, munitions, drones and soldiers. Clearly, that is changing, and at this moment, in a pre-war situation, we have to decide what that means. It means having production lines available, and crucially a supply chain of drones, as the innovation cycle is moving so quickly. It means being able to secure crucial input such as steel and training welders and engineers should we need them. Most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. It is not just about spending 3%, 4% or 5% of GDP, although I take the point; it is about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10% to 20% and use that effectively.

A defence economic strategy is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production, as we do now, but about ensuring that we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are not used to. It means, first, capital control to ensure that investment goes to the right place; secondly, rationing so that we have the investment that we need; and thirdly, ensuring that we can prepare to fight the war that we face. A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount we spend on defence. I would expect the Treasury, the Government and No. 10, who take the defence of this country seriously, to be preparing for that right now. Of course they take it seriously; it is the first and most fundamental duty of any Government.

We stand here today a century on from people who failed on these Benches. In fact, we stand in a Chamber that is a testament to that failure. They did not prepare for war, we ended up in war in Europe, and this Chamber was bombed and had to be rebuilt. That failure should live with us and shock us. We should remind ourselves of it when we look in the mirror every single morning.

Let me share a story. I have a friend who serves in the Army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. He said, “Jeevun, here is the thing. I have a 30-year-old Land Rover that was in the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in the Baltics. All I want is a Range Rover that can drive.” This Government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all past investment failures so that our forces have what they need to defend our country. That is what falls to us now.

I say to Conservative Members that we must have the courage to face this moment and look forward. I could criticise them all day—I have done it before and I will probably do it again—but we must have the courage to face this moment, and to look in the mirror and know where we stand, at a moment when we must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear that in mind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am imposing a six-minute time limit.

17:36

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I do not think that I have heard anyone call for 20% of spending on defence, but I like it. I am not sure how we would maintain the reversal of the two-child cap if 20% of spending went to defence, but he made a very good speech.

I will set out a few key points on what we are looking at, where the world is today, where we have been, and what we must do to deal with the threat. As I have said many times—colleagues are probably getting sick of me saying it—there is a challenge to the world order as we know it. I do not believe that anybody alive has experienced such a significant change. We face the ultimate volatility, like the fall of the Berlin wall or 9/11. Given the current position of the US Government—on Venezuela, in what they said about Greenland, and in the attack on Iran—everything has been thrown in the air.

Many people expect life to fall back to where it was and to continue, but there is a challenge to the world order between China and the US, and there is a commodities race over oil and rare earth metals. How do we get global supply chains working and moving forward? Rare earth metals are not actually rare, but it can take 15 to 17 years to get them out of the ground once they have been found. Most of the electronics that we have on us, including wearables, require such metals. At the moment, about 90% of those resources are controlled and processed by China, and there is a huge push to change that. The US is moving to change it, and our policy seeks to shift around that.

When AI and quantum come together, defence technologies—including drone and autonomous warfare—will take a huge leap forward. If we do not get this stage right, we will be so far behind. The second world war was about who could produce the most tanks, planes and troops at scale, with the right strategy. Now, technology can shift the dial exceptionally quickly. I know that the Minister has spoken about the drone passion, autonomy and things like that. That is the right direction. It is not either/or; there is a whole plethora of things that we need to. The defence investment plan unlocks the next phase of where we can go.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I do not think many people in the House fully appreciate how utterly profound the drone revolution is. It means that in Ukraine, they do not have to mass troops to defend in the way they once did; they can mass drones. If we want to defend NATO, if we want to defend London and Akrotiri, we need to be able to mass very cheap drones in order to get that protection and deterrent capability, so that the option of pushing large numbers of troops over a NATO frontier at some stage is not available to Russia.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. How warfare is fought is catching people by surprise—we are seeing that played out in the middle east at the moment—and we have to be prepared. We have stood with our head and shoulders high on the world stage, and I want to see us continue to do that.

I want to throw out some numbers. We say that the Great British Army has always been the best army of its size. In 1981, we had 333,000 troops. In 1997, the number went down to 210,000, and it went down to 174,000 in 2010. It is currently about 138,000. With the use of technology, it is not just about mass, although I would always be happy to have a larger military. We need to make sure that we are able to work in a changing environment and that we have the operations to do that. The world as we know it is changing, and we must pick that up very quickly.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to respond to a crisis and to deliver mass quickly would be to scale up the reserves during this Parliament? Does he find it surprising, as I do, that the relatively small cost—in a £60 billion budget—of scaling up the reserves would help to deliver some of that response?

[Stuart Anderson]

I definitely do. I have had the reserves deployed with me when I have been on operations, and they were a great asset. Scaling up the reserves is vital. We have the article 3 NATO commitment, and we need to ensure that we can fulfil that. It is not just about the reserves staying here and the regulars flying overseas. Integration is key, and I would be keen to see that.

Let us look at how the rearming of the world has changed. After the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, the world sat up. At that stage, defence spending was at 2.1%. I will be clear: as soon as I was elected, with hon. Members from across the House, I called for 3%. I felt that even 3% was not enough during the previous Government, and I said that all the way through. The Defence Committee was united. We did procurement reports right the way through 20 or 30 years of procurement failings. I am not just saying this to make a point now. I still believe that if defence spending is not at least 3% of GDP today, we do not have the ability to put the plan in place on the scale we need.

From 2021 to now, we have gone from 2.1% to 2.4%, but the problem is that the NATO average is currently 2.76%. In that short space of time, we have gone from being roughly the third highest defence spender according to percentage of GDP to being the ninth or 12th, depending on which table we look at. It is good that, as the Government say, we have made the biggest increase since the cold war, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, we need to look at what it was like post war. We are not moving as fast as all the other peer nations. We had a great start, but that has now started to deplete over decades of a peace dividend. We need to take this seriously as an urgent priority and invest on the necessary scale.

The delay on the DIP is having an impact. I know that if Ministers had a choice, they would have the DIP here today. We have to get this right. It has gone past the time when we expected the DIP to be produced. I have spoken to so many in the industry and so many serving personnel who are screaming out for it. I have struggled to find anybody who thinks we have the time for this. I hope the Minister will take away the importance of the DIP being produced—I am positive that he wants it today—to unlock the next phase.

There are many areas where there is consensus in this House on how we should move forward and prepare this country for war. We are losing standing on the world stage because of our current capability, which has seen getting on for 30 years of under-investment. We do not have the ability today to project power on the scale that we did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what I perceive to be a very constructive speech in which he is generally trying to support the Minister. I promise I will not mention Cheltenham markets to him. He talks about our power. I recently visited Estonia with the Education Committee. Does he agree that part of our power is in how we work with our allies such as Estonia, and that soft power—I am looking at the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), given his passion for the World Service and BBC Monitoring—is an important part of this country’s overall defence strategy?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member is right on that. How we work with our partners is important, but we have to invest and have a clear plan to hold our head high on the world stage.

I will finish on this point. We are told that the Department is working at pace on the DIP. I probably know about pace better than anybody in this House. I was proud to be a member of the Royal Green Jackets, which had the fastest pace in the British Army at 140 paces per minute, and the double-off was 180—unmatched by any regiment in the British Army. We need this pace now. We need the defence investment plan to be delivered to unlock the next phase of doing what is best for the British people.

16:29

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

First, I should note that, for all their chatter outside this Chamber on defence, there is not a single Member of the Reform party here. They are utterly incapable of having a serious conversation when it comes to defence.

I would like to congratulate the shadow Defence team. I did not believe it was possible to reduce their credibility on defence any further, but they have managed to lower the bar once again and slither under it. To suggest that we should restore the two-child benefit limit to pay for defence spending shows such a lack of understanding of what is happening in society. Under their Government, for 14 years, the people living at the poorest edges were working—those people on benefits were working and still could not pay the bills to feed their families and put the heating on. That tells us that the Conservatives do not understand working people. They assume that anybody receiving a benefit is a scrounger or does not want to work. [Interruption.]

I will not give way, because I have heard so much from the Opposition on this. It is outrageous. The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Defence Procurement Minister who left 47 out of 49 programmes not on time and not on budget. The Tories’ legacy was a procurement programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by more than 50%. There was a lot of pearl-clutching when they were asking where HMS Dragon was, but we know why HMS Dragon was in dock: it was there because it was under maintenance. We could not send it because it is the only one we have, built under the Labour Government, and the Conservatives did not bother to build any more during their term of office.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Michelle Scrogham]

No, we have heard quite enough.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Why not?

[James Cartlidge]

Take an intervention!

[Michelle Scrogham]

No, I will not be taking interventions. Lots of Members would like to contribute to the debate who have not had a chance to speak because the time has been taken up. The Opposition can feel free to mutter from the other side, but they should perhaps use the ears that are painted on instead of flapping the lips.

I am astonished at the brass neck of shadow Ministers in criticising our readiness, when it was their Government who slashed £12 billion from defence in their first term, and continued that trend throughout their sorry record of 14 years, including by slashing spending on counter-drone systems by 70% in their last year in office.

Few MPs will feel the cost to their communities of the chaos and choices made by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition as keenly as I do in Barrow and Furness. The Opposition Benches are filled with those who were responsible for wreaking carnage on the communities I grew up in. The price of the coalition was to delay the nuclear deterrent; the cost to my community was economic devastation, with 10,000 families where the main breadwinner was out of work, 10,000 skilled workers losing their livelihood, and an industry that is struggling to recover to this day.

It takes nuclear welders 15 years to train and achieve the level of experience that we need to build those boats, but the coalition Government threw that away like a spoiled child with a toy, who expects it to be there when they want to come back to it. Critics at the time said that delaying the replacement for Trident would cost the taxpayer more in the long run as it risked losing skills, and increase the costs of repairing existing Vanguard submarines, which would have to last for longer. MPs at the time said that they did not think the delay would happen, because that would be the “maddest” decision to take—and yet they did it. Those critics forgot to mention the impact on our incredible submariners, who are spending over 200 days at sea on Vanguard, as we stretch that capability beyond its limit. Had it not been for the recklessness of the coalition Government, Dreadnought would be in service now.

After 14 years of hollowing out our defence capabilities, Conservative Members have the nerve to come here today and attempt to blame this Government—a Government who have increased defence spending to its highest sustainable level since the cold war, and who are investing in our armed forces to give them the largest pay rise in two decades and the homes they deserve in order to turn around the recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Tories. This Labour Government are once again cleaning up the mess left behind by those on the Opposition Benches. We do not get to decide when other countries attack, and we can never predict instability around the world. We can, however, predict that history always repeats itself. We can never take peace for granted, but this Labour Government are delivering on defence where the Conservatives failed.

17:52

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a bit of a pity, is it not, that we seem not to recognise what is going on today? It would probably help to recognise that defence spending was cut from the end of the cold war to 2022, when the whole NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I have heard today—I am sorry to some of my colleagues—was from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), because he had the honesty to stand up and point out what the choices are. I disagree with him, but he made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. I believe that if we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I am afraid that we are now in war, and things have to change.

I was in the United States last week in my role at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There are several concerns to bring back from that, not least that the American commitment to NATO is always predicated on saying to other members, “That is why we need you to spend 5%.” That gives it that little bit of wiggle room to say, “Well, if you’re not going to spend that, we can’t defend you any more.” Perhaps even more worryingly—this is where some of the dots need to be connected—one of the think-tanks that we were at made it clear that the Democrats, who will probably take the House in the mid-term elections, will use their leverage to control the amount of money that can go to the White House and the commander-in-chief. He can direct troops, but Congress has to fund that and it will say no. As a consequence, the President will say, “Well, I’ve already got assets and I’ve already got money, so I will use those,” which is to say in Europe. That should bring into sharp focus the threat that the defence of Europe faces.

What we are picking up in many of these debates, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said, is talk about article 3. A lot of people overlooked article 3 for a very long time. Article 5 was never about the United States guaranteeing European security; it was about ensuring that we all acted as one. Article 3, which obviously comes before article 5, says, “You must be able to defend your borders for three weeks.” There are very few European nations that can do that.

I will touch on Security Action for Europe, which I am afraid to say is becoming a single market issue. It is becoming about protecting the borders of the single market, rather than the borders of Europe. We really do have to stand back and say, “Do we think the single market would exist if the borders of Europe did not exist?” We need to wake up and realise what is going on.

In the Czech Republic, we were given the example of a company that makes drones. Some 25% of the materials used to build those drones came from Canada. The AI to run them made up 20% of the spend and came from the USA. Under SAFE, both would be shut out, because those countries are not willing to pay into the budget just to have access, and that will set us back. We should be more concerned about the fact that the NATO industrial base does not have the ability to deliver on what it needs. The Americans themselves had $135 billion of exported arms last year and $160 billion of domestic arms manufacturing last year, and that did not even scratch the surface.

What the Americans are good at, which we have frankly never been able to deliver in this country, is the diversification into small and medium-sized enterprises. It was recognised that the big companies do not have the flexibility to develop at the speed that is needed in a rapidly changing world. We visited a company in Nevada that is making energy-focused weapons—or lasers, as we might call them—that are used to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky.

I have very little time, and I could expand on so many more areas, but I make the point that we cannot fight the last war. We have pretty much used up all our munitions and weaponry in Ukraine, and the Russians know exactly how those weaponry and munitions work and how to defeat them. We cannot just restock what we have used before; we have to be able to develop, and that means that we need to be light on our feet. To be fair, in Bavaria in Germany there are drone factories that not only produce drones, but react quickly to the changes in drone technology.

To be fair to the Minister, he outlined some of the things that need to be developed in the Royal Navy—a service that is close to my heart. There is no doubt that this is about decisions that have been made over a very long period of time. I will gently prod the Minister and say that when we are talking about Royal Navy procurement, I think of the story of the aircraft carriers, which was probably not the greatest moment of the Labour Government—they spent tens of billions extra by changing their mind. We have to be able to adapt quickly.

There is plenty more that I could say, but the war exists today. Talking about what has happened ever since the end of the cold war and trying to place the blame on the last 14 years, on the last 10 years or on what has happened from 1997 onwards is irrelevant; we are at war, and we have to be able to develop. I am afraid that in the current political climate, Europe will have to look after itself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Sam Carling.

17:55

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I, too, will start by agreeing with a member of the Opposition, specifically the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He was quoted as saying that under his own party, our armed forces had been “hollowed out”.

[James Cartlidge]

Under successive Governments!

[Sam Carling]

The shadow Secretary of State says, “Under successive Governments”—that includes his own, for 14 years. It is not often that I agree with Ministers from the last Government, but the former Defence Secretary was absolutely right. The smallest Army since the Napoleonic era, a record 13,000 complaints about defence housing in a single year, and investment grievously cut under austerity—that is the legacy we are looking at, no matter how much the Opposition want us to forget it.

As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), the shadow Defence Secretary is criticising delays, but he was the Procurement Minister when 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on time or on budget, so we need to take what he says with a little bit of salt.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman is quoting some figures. Does he have the figures for the percentage of GDP spent on defence in 1991 compared with what it was in 2010, and how many troops there were in 1991 compared with how many there were in 2010?

[Sam Carling]

What I am very happy to say about defence spending is that when we last hit 2.5%, it was under a Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do so throughout their time in office. Although it has been quite entertaining in some respects watching old marital woes play out on the Opposition Benches today, it sounds like everyone agrees that bad things happened, but the two former partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—are evidently more interested in taking chunks out of each other than owning up to leaving the mess.

The motion before us today also calls for some of the Government’s legislation to not proceed on the basis that it is “a threat to morale”. The reference to morale is quite interesting, given that satisfaction with life in the services fell from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2024. When it comes to satisfaction, one key issue is housing, so I welcomed the Labour Government’s decision to insource a huge number of houses that were wrongly privatised by a previous Conservative Government back into our ownership. Some 431 of those houses are in my constituency, and I hope we will be able to radically improve their condition, particularly through the work we have done to make defence housing subject to the decent homes standard at long last, which I welcome.

Unfortunately, we have a Leader of the Opposition who appears able to shoot from the hip without thinking too much about the consequences, and who has now changed to a very unclear position that none of us seems able to grasp. In contrast, this Government have taken the right decisions at the right time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Was the hon. Member in the Chamber to hear the Prime Minister make his statement on the war in the middle east, in which he said that British sovereign bases, British troops and British people had been attacked? He said that it was therefore right that we defend ourselves, but that we cannot shoot all the drones out of the air and they have to be attacked on the ground. Does the hon. Member remember the Prime Minister coming to this House and saying that, and would he like to repeat his point that the Prime Minister has been absolutely crystal clear on his position throughout this conflict?

[Sam Carling]

I am not 100% sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has put it on the record. There is a huge amount of drone activity going on, and a lot of ways in which that needs to be dealt with.

I am heartened by what this Government have done so far, including, to name just a few achievements: the largest pay rise in two decades for armed forces personnel, many of whom are my constituents; the first veterans’ strategy in seven years; the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, including a pledge to reach 3% of spending on defence by the end of the Parliament; and a £9 billion plan to renew those 36,000 military homes. Again, that last one has been so critical for my constituents working at RAF Wittering. Life in the services has to be made rewarding—a rewarding career and a rewarding life—and I am afraid to say that for too long, that has not been the case. It is no wonder, therefore, that the number of troops plummeted on the previous Government’s watch.

Some comments were made about trying to boost the reserves, which I very much agreed with—we need to do some work in that area. We also need to sort out the ongoing issues with recruitment, which again became significantly worse under the previous Government. I have spoken to a number of people who have tried to join the military and found that the bureaucratic process is incredibly difficult, and we have heard about that on several occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope we will make some progress in tackling those issues soon, because we have a Government who are willing to invest in our forces and improve the quality of life for those serving.

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is in the Chamber, and I notice that his name is on the motion as well. I found some of his criticisms of this Government’s record on defence surprising, given that so much work is going on in our own area of Huntingdonshire around defence. The local council and the Ministry of Defence—represented by the two Ministers who are in the Chamber right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—visited RAF Wyton in December and signed a statement of intent, committing to work together to support the growth of Project Fairfax and establish Wyton as a nationally significant area for defence intelligence and innovation. With that will come the redevelopment of the North Hunts growth cluster, which will deliver new homes, jobs and investment. That will be brilliant for the local area.

Very briefly, I will respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said about investment in defence being spent on weapons and bombs. Those are not the only things that defence investment goes on—military intelligence is a huge part of the local economy in my area, and ideally it will make up more of our local economy. I think it is useful to recognise that there is a broad spectrum of things that we spend funding on, but of course I respect the points that he made.

I am very glad that the Conservative party has called this debate, as it is a great opportunity to highlight the good work we are doing and remind us all of the many ways in which the Conservatives let our armed forces down for a decade and a half. It is a good thing that they can only comment on policy rather than make it, a fact for which I am sighing in relief.

18:04

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Whatever has gone well in defence and whatever has gone wrong in defence in the United Kingdom over the last 50 years, it is the responsibility of the two main parties, one currently in opposition and one currently in government, and the ping-pong back and forth today has been a bit difficult to listen to. I heard the Minister’s plea earlier for us to inject some seriousness into the debate. He directed it over here although he could equally have directed it to those behind him, but I agree with him that this is a serious issue, not just because we have troops deployed but because, as others have pointed out, the first duty of Government is to defend the state and the people. I also agree with him that the motion in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition is a bit of a catch-all. It is a spleen-venting motion, and there is absolutely no way we can agree with it, much as we might agree with some of the priorities that the Opposition wish to be advanced purely on the defence side.

In response to the Opposition’s stated wish to fund their ambitions through the reinstatement of the two-child limit, the Minister referred to the importance of society. We do not invest in the importance and the priority of defence by marginalising people in society. It is essential that our communities have a sense of belonging in defence, and that defence has a sense of belonging in them. I speak from experience in Scotland, where defence has become an increasingly remote activity, as it has in large parts of England as well. I am not making a constitutional point. As defence has contracted into the south-east of England, it has become increasingly irrelevant on the rest of these islands. It is something that happens somewhere else, and there is a price to be paid for that, as people choose other careers and see other political and fiscal priorities as being more important than defence.

[Sam Carling]

The hon. Gentleman has just made a point about the concentration of defence investment in the south-east. Can he remind us where Trident is based?

[Dave Doogan]

I think the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being smart. I do not need to be reminded where Trident is based, and neither do the people of Scotland. We do not need to be reminded where the bullseye of the target on these islands is based. I do not need to be reminded how many Scots were asked whether they would like the UK’s supposedly independent nuclear deterrent to be based in our waters. I do not need to be reminded of that for one second—and in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusions, which he apparently is, let me point out that the United Kingdom spends more money on defence in the south-west of England than it spends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He might like to reflect on that.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

I will make some progress.

A key problem for the current Government is that when they took over in 2024, they set great store by their strategic defence review. They said that they were going to fix defence from the ground up, and that it would all be in the strategic defence review, but when the strategic defence review was published it contained more questions than answers, principal among which was the defence investment plan. That was going to come in the summer. Then it was the autumn and then it was the winter and now it is the spring, and we do not even know whether we will get it in the following summer. It is critical for businesses to plan on this basis. I know that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) takes a dim view of business and its role in defence, and takes a dim view of defence manufacturers. I respect his position, but I deeply disagree with him. We cannot honour our service personnel in uniform and then besmirch the manufacturers that equip them to do the job of defending us that we require them to do.

Similarly, the Government must come clean on the defence investment plan. It is simply not tenable. The Minister was clear with us in saying that Defence was very clear about what we required from the defence investment plan. That, alarmingly, tells us what the problem with the defence investment plan is, and it is the Treasury. Some of us have the privilege of speaking on defence and on the economy, and the fact that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is the arbiter of how our nation, or rather this state, will be defended in the future is deeply concerning given her competence in generic fiscal matters, let alone issues to do with defence.

[David Smith]

There are many things in the hon. Gentleman’s speech that I agree with, but as someone who grew up on the Clyde, does he welcomes the naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and the sales to Norway. Those who live in Scotland—I grew up 15 miles as the crow flies from Faslane—are also protected by the nuclear deterrent.

[Dave Doogan]

We will disagree on that last point, but I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit of complex warship manufacturing in Scotland. It would be nice if it was occasionally framed as something other than a benevolent gesture from Westminster towards Scotland, as opposed to what it actually is: the United Kingdom benefiting from the skills and engineering expertise that have been present in Scotland for an awful long time. [Interruption.] I would not go that far.

That leads me to an intervention that was made on the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who declared that an independent Scotland would be completely defenceless and penniless. Classic Unionism! It totally ignores the fact that, at current rates, hard-working taxpayers in Scotland contribute £5 billion every single year to the defence of the United Kingdom. That has been airbrushed from reality.

[Brian Leishman]

I have been very clear—I have said it outside the Chamber, and I will say it inside—that I do not want Scotland or the United Kingdom to have any nuclear weapons. What is the hon. Gentleman’s personal opinion?

[Dave Doogan]

The United Kingdom invests so much in the independent nuclear deterrent—more than £100 billion over a 10-year period—but the Government cannot even tell us the 10-year rolling price. It is not independent, and I do not believe that it makes us any safer. We would be far safer if we invested that money in playing a leading role in Europe in conventional defence. I further disagree with the unilateral decision of the UK Government to suddenly go and buy F-35As for gravity-drop nuclear weapons without even so much as a debate in this House. I think that clarifies for the hon. Member my position on the non-independent nuclear deterrent. I implore the Government to get their finger out and get the DIP published.

18:11

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by hon. and right hon. Members, but I will focus on one specific point: the country’s technological capacity, which is being delayed because of the delay to the defence investment plan. Some 8% of UK GDP—£454 billion—is reliant on satellite services, and the importance of space to our defence, intelligence and security is ever increasing. The previous Government understood that, and set out a clear strategy to make the UK a meaningful actor in space when we published the defence space strategy in 2022. However, the situation has now changed, and this Government are completely failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging our existing commercial capability so that we can operationalise the space domain at pace.

Earlier this month, I attended Space-Comm with the shadow Science Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and it could not be clearer from the conversations I had that Britain is at serious risk of lagging behind our neighbours when it comes to the new space race. Countries such as Germany have recognised the opportunities, with a commitment to invest €35 billion. We must match that ambition.

Another point that came up time and again was that the missing defence investment plan impacts on our ability to encourage new people into the sector. The Government promised that it would be published in the autumn of last year, yet we are still waiting. However, given that their strategic defence review was late and kicked big procurement decisions down the road, it is no real surprise that the DIP is late too.

The Government simply have no evidenced plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence, and this is leaving our domestic defence and space industry in the lurch. Many companies tell me that they have plans that are ready to go, but they cannot action them without the publication of the defence investment plan. This kind of paralysis will only serve to see us fall even further behind our neighbours.

I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is currently not in his place, cares about the investment in our armed services and takes it deeply personally—as does the Minister for Veterans and People—and I put on the record my personal respect for him. I would hope that he would agree with the Conservatives on the urgency with which we need to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the Government will make the same commitment; otherwise, we will lose the opportunity to lead and develop the technologies that will take us to the new scientific and defence frontier.

18:15

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When I was new to this place, I clearly did something very wrong, because the accommodation Whip allocated me an office that is geographically nearer to Trafalgar Square than to this Chamber. There is one compensating benefit, which is that when I look out of the window, I can see the statue of General Bernard Law Montgomery, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) moves his head a bit, I can see Field Marshal Alanbrooke, on whose statue is written: “Alanbrooke, Master of Strategy”. The Minister will be aware that the art of strategy is the matching of ends, ways and means. In the few short minutes that I have, I want to use that framework to reflect on the approach that the Government have taken recently.

I wish to also use the model of the three components to fighting power: the moral, the physical and the conceptual. The Minister will be fully aware of this. We know that this is a good model because Napoleon made the observation that “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.”

Let us quickly run through the physical component and some developments that we have seen. On the base at Diego Garcia, despite Conservative Members asking a thousand times for the reason why the Government asserted that our position was untenable in the long term and that they had to do this leaseback agreement with Mauritius, we have never, ever been given a definitive view on which court or jurisdiction made it untenable. It has never been delivered in this place or anywhere else, and that has undermined the Government’s position a little.

The Defence Committee heard representations from the Ukrainians we were training that, although they loved the training and were grateful for it, we were starting to lag behind. This was in November 2024. The absence of drones in the British military armoury and the environmental constraints on Salisbury plain meant that although the training was good, it was really lagging behind reality.

It is a shame that the Minister for the Armed Forces is no longer here, but he has given us a decent amount of time. He said that we cannot rewrite history and we cannot run from it, which is absolutely right. I just wanted to remind him of the reason we had only one Type 45 at six weeks’ readiness to go to sea. After the widely lauded 1998 strategic defence review, which I appreciate was before the time of the Minister for Veterans and People, the Government came to the conclusion that we needed 12 Type 45s to fulfil the strategic defence review. Subsequently, the Labour Government cut that number down; I think the first cut was to eight, and then down to the six that we have now. They also chose a home-grown propulsion system that was subsequently proven not to work, which has meant that, having cut the original fleet in half, we are now having to cut what remains in half—quite literally, in order to take the propulsion system out of the side.

We then had the strategic defence review. I sat on the Defence Committee and heard the reviewers say that the answer was 2.5%, after which they came back and said that it was actually 2.7%, and then that they had been told it would be 3% some time in the future, and then 3.5%; then, on the eve of the NATO summit, it went up to 5%. I am not surprised, therefore, that the defence investment plan has been a long time in coming.

We do not have time to rehearse the arguments about the moral component of fighting power, and the huge undermining of the Government’s actions over the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the remedial order, and, indeed, the revelation that our own Prime Minister volunteered to work for free for Phil Shiner in attacking British service personnel such as myself; I do have to declare an interest as a veteran who spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland.

Lastly, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, where I spent five years, we had a saying: “plans without resources are hallucinations”. Without the defence investment plan, the SDR is meaningless. When the Minister winds up, I would like her to acknowledge the fact that on 10 March, the Defence Committee was privy to a secret briefing in the Ministry of Defence. To a man and woman, the all-party Defence Committee came out of that briefing and took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement that, in our view, the Government should adopt Conservative party policy and go to 3% of GDP within this Parliament. That is unprecedented, and it needs to be listened to.

17:04

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

South West Devon is home not only to 42 Commando Royal Marines, but to Plymouth and South Devon freeport, with Langage and Sherford offering significant development opportunities, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, and plenty of space for defence. We have Turnchapel Wharf, home of the Plymouth National Centre for Marine Autonomy. Devonport naval base is in the neighbouring constituency, which is involved in the upgrading of our nuclear deterrent. GMD Eurotool, Bluestone Technology and DTM Global Procurement, which I am visiting after Easter, are just some of the many SMEs that rely on defence. Members can therefore imagine the anticipation in my constituency for the strategic defence review. Indeed, at the Oceanology International event, it was clear that there are businesses queuing up to come to South West Devon.

The strategic defence review brought forward welcome promises: regional clusters in areas like Plymouth; the hybrid Navy, with the introduction of new autonomous systems; a boost for UK export potential; and the use of uncrewed vessels and autonomous systems in our own military, with improved regulations to enable the autonomous experimentation required. Indeed, recommendation 39 says:

“More flexible regulation is needed to enable experimentation in areas such as autonomy. By April 2026, Defence should establish options to enhance the mandate of the Defence Maritime Regulator to allow the Royal Navy and industry to use a dedicated regulatory ‘sandbox’ to test and deploy new technologies.”

We are a couple of weeks away; I wonder where that is.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend, my constituency has a number of really important defence SMEs, and I make sure that I meet them. The delay behind the defence investment plan and the lack of action on the strategic defence review are filling them with utter dread. Those SMEs are going abroad to sell a lot of their technological advances, particularly in autonomous vehicles, because they cannot get into the Ministry of Defence. There is paralysis in procurement, where there is not the money to have that so-called sovereign capability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are talking about sovereign capability a lot, but they are not actually delivering on it, which means that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom are going without?

[Rebecca Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. That is exactly what I am beginning to hear in my constituency. I referred earlier to a queue of companies wanting to come to South West Devon. My concern is that the queue is going to get shorter if the investment under the DIP does not come forward.

Following the strategic defence review came the defence industrial strategy. Again, it was another lauded document, with further references to industrial clusters, which it called

“critical for the competitiveness of the IS-8 and national economic resilience”,

including to “maritime autonomy in Plymouth” and so on; it kept promising. There was a fantastic paragraph in the strategy about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, to which I have already alluded. It was an exciting prospect and has been a positive development. The city has got going; we have Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver. But the defence investment plan is required to fulfil this aimed-for growth and to enable contracts—like those just mentioned by my hon Friend—to be brought forward, with the jobs that have always been promised. For businesses, the SDR and the defence investment plan were exciting, but they are still missing the funding. This is a threat to our national sovereign capability and to the economic growth that the Government seem convinced that they are going to deliver.

Furthermore, there is a delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and that is hampering growth too. Businesses in my constituency want the green light in order to go forward on their testing, but those trial areas have not come forward—we just see more dither and delay. I raised this matter recently in Prime Minister’s questions, asking for the changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and hundreds of pages of applications.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Member celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to create Team Plymouth. She celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to designate Plymouth the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, and she celebrates the countless defence technology companies crowding into our wonderful, vibrant city. Can she acknowledge, in the spirit of balance, that this Labour Government have delivered some good things for defence?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his comments, although if he had been listening, he would have heard me say that I welcome all those things, but without the defence investment plan it will disappear in a puff of smoke. I am sure that, like me, he wants to see Plymouth and the surrounding area capitalise on the strategy. We can see the things that Team Plymouth will bring, but without the defence investment plan, we will see people walking out of the door.

We have the King’s Speech in May, I believe—that has been the worst kept secret—and I would suggest that is the perfect opportunity for the Government to deliver the changes required to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. At the moment, they are saying that there needs to be a legislative opportunity and are looking at other Bills, but if they were serious about delivering for defence and growth, why not bring forward a unique Bill? It need not take very long, and it could be included in the King’s Speech. That would show that the Government have the ambition to make the necessary changes. We need to get deals across the line, and we need to give the businesses investing in our community the funding to enable those deals to happen. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say to reassure my constituents in that regard.

To conclude, I had an incredibly constructive letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), about marine autonomy test sites and the regulations. I think this is the hook:

“Marine autonomy is a cross-departmental priority of the Government, as detailed in the Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy…the Modern Industrial Strategy…and the Strategic Defence Review…The draft legislation for maritime autonomy exists and the Department for Transport will continue to seek parliamentary time for these important clauses.”

I make my point again: what are they waiting for?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty, on an immediate four-minute time limit.

18:26

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I will start with a quote:

“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”

The answer is: not enough. The defence investment plan was due last autumn, then by Christmas, and then it was to be delivered as soon as the MOD finishes working flat-out. If the MOD spent as much time on the DIP as it has done telling everyone that it is working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now.

Let us look at the impact of the delay. In the air, we are yet to see investment in the capability that has been committed to. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his prior role as Chief of the Air Staff, last year confirmed that the RAF has

“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term”.

Given the evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35B is due to graduate as a Government major projects portfolio programme by the end of this month, but will it? Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35Bs by the end of next month, as scheduled?

The Royal Air Force is yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35As that are due to qualify us to join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission. That was announced nine months ago, with no orders placed and no progress made. It might as well just be a poster on the Defence Secretary’s bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35Bs has also not yet been ordered from Lockheed Martin. This goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 F-35Bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery, and one fell in the sea. That leaves us with just 10 planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We are maxed out.

Later this year we may be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth-generation platform, with no current plans to purchase any more—and if/when we do purchase more, they are years away from delivery. But are we actually going to buy any more? Given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global combat air programme and inevitably short-cutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system-of-systems does not augur well. We are already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of the delay to the DIP, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan. When I challenged the Prime Minister on the delay, he would not commit to when the contract would be signed.

On the high seas, Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. HMS Dragon has finally arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, but it was one of only three Type 45s available. I use the term “available” loosely, as it had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group One commitment—a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available. The Government have no plan to facilitate that commitment and are presumably hoping that HMS Dragon can be recalled.

The Royal Navy has to deliver Type 26 and Type 31, with all ships coming into service, optimistically, within the next nine years. Type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June, but my understanding is that that programme may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I would be surprised if Type 91 made the cut either, given that it is currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability.

Decisions are pending on: the future cruise anti-ship weapons system; batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; the global decision support system, the maritime aviation transformation programme; Project Beehive; and Project Vantage. Charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid Navy looks perilous at best—I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand.

On land, despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation programme that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next Parliament. If there is one capability that we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard, which the Chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about last year in his Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference speech. He said:

“It’s a project that, through AI-fuelled, software-defined and network enabled capabilities we are confident has made 4 Light Brigade capable of acting 10 times faster and 10 times further than it could last year.”

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is an old quote—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise it, given his service—that while veterans talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics. He is outlining a dire situation, because we are not gripping the logistics problem.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur. There is a huge need to ensure we have the correct amount of logistics, and that includes supply of troops, in particular in munitions and energetics. The Government have pledged to build factories; we are still not entirely clear where they will be, but ammunition supplies will be key to anything we do going forwards.

Project Asgard is the programme in defence that could arguably be delivered quickest and to the most immediate effect, trading space for time and allowing us to develop our most exquisite capabilities with longer lead times in slow time. Alongside its RAF equivalent, Project Boyd, it presents the vanguard of future capability and outlines where the armed forces are going in these domains. There is a painful conversation to be had about the use of AI in the kill chain in the not-too-distant future.

The Government must commit to 3%, must commit to delivering the right capability and must commit to armed forces that are fit to fight the next war, not the current war or the last war.

“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”

18:31

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Governments of all colours reduced defence spending after the cold war to spend more on health, education and welfare, but the world of today is not the world of 1991. This Government must deal with President Putin rather than President Yeltsin. Since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, it has become increasingly clear that we need to spend more on our armed forces. The Government have admitted as much. Last year, they said they would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a good start, albeit not enough—but thus far they have failed to set out a programme for how that money will be spent. Where is the defence investment plan? Twelve months have passed and no extra money has gone into advancing our military capabilities. Meanwhile, the Government have found billions of pounds to spend on welfare so as to placate their Back Benchers, to try to save the Prime Minister’s skin. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not regard defending our country as important as defending his own job.

Three weeks ago, the Government finally announced a £1 billion contract for the new medium helicopter. That contract will keep Leonardo operational in Yeovil. That is vital for Somerset’s economy as well as for the UK’s defence infrastructure, and I welcome that announcement, but the deal was announced at the last minute only to stop the factory closing. That demonstrates how unserious the Government are about setting their plans for defence. If they were serious, they would have published their defence investment plan as promised in the autumn; instead, we have had delay and excuses ever since. The Government are happy to set out their plans for welfare spending years ahead, but they cannot tell us their plans for defending the country.

An additional problem is that the Government are run by human rights lawyers. They see all matters on the global stage through the prism of international law rather than what is in Britain’s national interest. I imagine that Lord Hermann lives in the hope that Russia and China will one day adopt such an approach, but I fear that he will be disappointed.

The Government apply that myopic approach to how they treat our military personnel and our veterans as well. There are about 4,400 veterans living in my constituency—I have met many of them at the Bridgwater and Burnham-on-Sea branches of the Royal British Legion—and I pay tribute to every one of them for their service and the sacrifices they have made for our country. They have told me how worried they are by the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those men faced down terrorists who threatened our country. Now, decades later, they are not being honoured for their service; rather, this Government treat them as suspects. Terrorists who murdered British soldiers have effectively been granted an amnesty—we know that no future action will be taken against them—but veterans who served the British state are to be hounded like criminals for doing what they were ordered to do.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member mentions quite rightly the brave men who served in Operation Banner. Does he agree that women also served in that operation?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the additional time.

The legacy legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government intended to halt that injustice is now being repealed by Labour. That is disgraceful. Not only is Labour’s campaign against our veterans deeply unfair; it endangers us in future conflicts. In a more dangerous world, with a looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces. What signal are the Government sending to young recruits by prosecuting our veterans and showing that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare, with the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General?

The Minister knows that republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour’s naiveté to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events. I call on the Government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

17:19

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

When I spoke from this Dispatch Box barely a month ago, I had literally just returned, hot foot, from Ukraine. Those who were here that evening might recall that I conveyed to the House a personal warning from the Speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament:

“No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” —[Official Report, 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 423.]

Not only is that war in Ukraine sadly ongoing—and has been for 12 years, not four years—we now face a very challenging situation because of the two concurrent conflicts in the middle east and Ukraine. Yet again, as we debate defence in this House, the plastic patriots of Reform are absolutely nowhere to be seen.

Tonight’s debate is all the more pressing given the Government’s fundamental failure to display the requisite sense of urgency that is now clearly required. As an example, the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review, published last July, states on page 43:

“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”

That is nine years from now. Our Chief of the General Staff is on record as saying that he believes we might have to fight Russia by 2027 and the First Sea Lord estimates only a couple of years after that, yet it is the official policy of His Majesty’s Government that we will be prepared to fight a peer enemy almost a decade from now. That has terrible echoes of the so-called 10-year rule of the 1920s, and we all know what happened after that.

The all-party, Labour-led House of Commons Defence Committee, with its excellent Chair the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), recently accused the Government of proceeding “at a glacial pace” in improving Britain’s war preparedness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) reminded us, on 10 March, after a classified briefing, the Committee issued a joint statement and urged hitting 3% on defence spending in this Parliament. That is already Conservative party policy. The matter cropped up yet again at the Liaison Committee yesterday, when the Prime Minister was clearly floundering about the ability of his Government to respond to emerging threats and about why the defence investment plan—the DIP—has still not been published.

Nowhere is the complete lack of strategic thinking from this Government more abundantly clear than in their barmy proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money to lease back the vital strategic outpost of Diego Garcia, which belongs to us in the first place. There is no credible legal threat to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, and certainly none that would justify the expenditure of that much of taxpayers’ money. Instead, that money should be spent directly on our own defence.

Why do I say that the threat is not credible? First, when we signed up to the International Court of Justice, we specifically included an opt-out for any cases involving current or former Commonwealth countries. Any judgment by the ICJ—even a mandatory one, and we should remember that this one is only advisory—would still not be legally binding on the UK, because of that crystal clear opt-out.

Secondly, the Government attempted to argue that via the International Telecommunications Union, which is a UN agency like the ICJ, we could somehow lose control of our military spectrum. Again, that is absolute nonsense, because article 48 of the ITU treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly:

“Member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.”

Again, that legal threat simply does not exist. Even the Government’s then telecommunications Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) confirmed that in a written answer to me a year ago on 12 February 2025.

Thirdly, the Government’s last trench, as cited on Second Reading of their Diego Garcia Bill, was the desperate argument that we could somehow lose a case under the UN convention on the law of the sea at the international tribunal for the law of the sea. However, article 298(b) of the UNCLOS treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly that we have an opt-out in the event of any disputes concerning

“disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service”.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

We can throw in the Pelindaba treaty on nuclear non-proliferation, which Mauritius has signed and will prevent basing of nuclear weapons on the islands anyway, and, crucially, the 1966 Anglo-American treaty, which means that the United States has a formal written veto over Labour’s deal with Mauritius. The Americans are now almost certain to exercise that veto after we denied them the initial use of the runway, which our Ministers allegedly sought to protect in the first place. Ministers must surely know that the whole benighted deal is as dead as a dodo, and still they cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are totally and utterly in denial over Chagos.

The same obsession with human rights from a Prime Minister who once described himself as a human rights lawyer first and a politician second—he was not kidding there, was he?—has also led to the utterly despicable position of the Government, in their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, seeking to pursue our veterans through the courts via a process of lawfare and two-tier justice. That is while alleged terrorists, who those veterans were sent to the Province to fight, effectively walk free with letters of comfort in their pockets. Not only is that morally wrong on a whole range of levels, but it has a debilitating effect on recruitment and retention, especially within our own special forces community. That is an area where, even to this day—as I am sure the Minister for the Armed Forces would agree—our nation remains world-class.

Then we come to the delay to the defence investment plan, which is simply unconscionable with not one war under way, but two. When the Government published the strategic defence review last year, they delayed most of the decisions on equipment capabilities to a subsequent defence investment plan, which we were promised would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised it would be published by Christmas, and here we are in late March, all promises broken, and there is still no DIP. Ministers have been claiming for months that they have been working flat-out on this plan. What would have happened if they had not been trying?

The reality is that we still do not have this document, because the Ministry of Defence is totally and utterly at war with His Majesty’s Treasury. That vital intergovernmental relationship has effectively broken down, and the Prime Minister is simply too weak to bang heads together and force the plan to be published.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr Francois]

If I may, I will make just one more point and then give way. Moreover, Labour claims repeatedly that it is introducing the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, but that is simply not true. In the current financial year, it has actually done precisely the opposite. It has introduced a £2.6 billion efficiency savings programme that viciously cuts operational spending across the British armed forces at the Treasury’s behest. That means fewer ships at sea and longer times to regenerate them, as with HMS Dragon; fewer training hours for our pilots; and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain.

So here we are, with two wars under way, and nine months later this completely dysfunctional Cabinet is still unable to publish a forward equipment programme for the British armed forces. Do Labour Members not realise that they can also see this in Moscow, in Beijing and, indeed, in Tehran? If Labour Members believe, as I always have, that the role of the armed forces is to save life by preventing war and by persuading any potential aggressor that they could not succeed were they to attack us or our allies, how in God’s name are we supposed to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping if we are unable to publish the forward equipment plan for our own armed forces that is now nearly a year overdue? On what planet do Labour MPs think that this is an act of credible and effective deterrence?

To be fair to the Government, they have published something today. Just a few hours ago, they published the defence diplomacy strategy. They have been working flat out on it for months. They have been absolutely knocking themselves out to get that one away. I apologise to the House that I have not had the opportunity to read it yet, but I hope that it contains one very firm recommendation: “If you are going to maintain effective diplomatic relations with your strongest ally, the United States, whatever you do, don’t send to Washington an ambassador who had to resign from the Cabinet not once but twice for effectively being a crook and who has now had to be fired third time around.”

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I cannot; I do apologise.

The international skies are rapidly darkening, and the response of the Labour Government is, first, to cut operational spending in our armed forces by £2.5 billion and, secondly, to be completely unable to say when they would reach spending of 3% of GDP on defence, which all three authors of the SDR have said repeatedly is fundamental to delivering it. Until they do that, they cannot deliver it. Thirdly, because of the utterly dysfunctional relations within Government, with a Prime Minister whose authority is shot to pieces, they are totally unable to produce the defence investment plan, even though the House rises and we go into purdah for the Scottish and Welsh elections 48 hours from today.

This has become a farce, but it is a very dangerous one. We are now, quite literally, a laughing stock in Washington, and there is no way we can possibly deter our adversaries if we carry on like this. It is just not a credible defence posture to maintain, so I conclude by saying to Ministers: you have had long enough to produce it; if you can’t do the job, get out of the way.

18:47

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

Our debate today reflects—or should reflect—the seriousness of the global security situation we now face. In eastern Europe, in the Mediterranean and around the world, our service personnel are working so hard, sacrificing so much and facing risk on our behalf. We have lived through—and I served through—a Government that refused to acknowledge the changing world, refused to take it seriously and refused to take the steps necessary to raise funding and invest. The architects of that neglect are sat in front of me. Sleeping on stag is a serious offence in the British military. In the Conservative party it was defence policy.

I shall now turn to the contributions made by hon. Members. I would like to remind those who have voiced their concerns about British bases that the threat of the growing situation in eastern Europe was clear in 2014—it could be argued that the signs were there in 2008—yet the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, chose to close down our bases in Germany and withdraw our armoured infantry brigade. We can now see what a mistake that decision was.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the importance of fighting inequality. Like him, I see in my inbox the challenges that people face in my constituency, in his constituency and in the constituencies of Members across the House. We have seen what happens when instability around the world does not stay in eastern Europe or the Med, but affects us right here. It affects the energy bills we pay and the cost of goods. I am well aware of the challenges and the duty we have to face those challenges, but I say to him that sometimes war comes to you, and our armed forces are the ones who stand between us and those threats. It is vital that we give them the kit and equipment they need to face those threats and defend us.

Turning to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), that is the first time that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and Winston Churchill compared. We will see over the coming weeks, months and years who is correct, but I expect that that comparison will age like milk.

We had an obviously fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher)— I declare an interest, although I do not comment on operational matters—on the importance of looking at the defence economy in the round. He said that it is not armies that win wars but nations. I agree that it is young people who we send to fight wars, and we need to ensure that as a state we have invested in those young people—in the very children who will grow up to face the world that we are creating for them.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) raised the important need to grow our reserves. We are taking measures to do that and, indeed, we are reinvigorating the strategic reserve, of which I am a member, to ensure that it is ready to meet the challenges ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke about the importance of getting the DIP right. That is a crucial fact that we must all bear in mind—we must get the DIP right because jobs and capabilities depend on it.

The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right that we must support our SMEs. That is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to boost opportunities for SMEs and why we have committed to spend £2.5 billion with them by May 2028.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who always speaks up for those in his constituency who serve in our armed forces, rightly raised the importance of ensuring that we are able to recruit young people into our armed forces as quickly as possible. We are treating this as a priority and doing various things, such as improving the medical process and bringing in novel ways to enter the armed forces, such as through cyber direct entry.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke movingly about the child benefit cap, and I will return to that point in a while. He rightly noted the important role that Scotland plays in the defence of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the importance of space. It is important to mention the wonderful work being done by UK Space Command. As someone who used to work in a company that used a lot of satellite data, I understand the importance of it and welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we are spending on defence space technologies.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke eloquently, and I know that he is passionate about this matter. He is absolutely right when he says, “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.” The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke passionately, and I take his points on board. I have absolutely listened to every one of his points, but for me, what he said reiterates the importance of getting the DIP right. A lot is at stake, and we must get it right. I say to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that his law has given terrorists immunity. It is unlawful, and I am glad that we are changing it.

As the House knows very well, the Government are fixing the mess that we inherited, which included an equipment plan that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we now face. The Conservatives slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. The shadow Defence Secretary was the very Minister for Defence Procurement who left 47 out of 49 major programmes not on time or on budget.

I am reading those stats, but I lived through them, and this is deeply personal to me. I was serving when the previous Government were in office, and I could see the damage that they were doing all around me. While the threats to this country grew and grew, the Conservative Government refused to acknowledge that the world had changed. Labour is now fixing their mess, delivering for defence and for Britain. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election—86% of them to British businesses—including the £650 million upgrade to our Typhoon fleet, securing 1,500 jobs.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

No, I need to make time.

Our £1 billion contract for new medium helicopters has helped to secure the future of the Leonardo plant in Yeovil, sustaining more than 3,000 jobs. We have spent millions more on drone procurement and development, including, earlier this month, an order for 20 uncrewed surface vessels, which will be built by Kraken in Hampshire and take us a step closer to our vision of a hybrid Navy.

That is not a frozen procurement pipeline; it is a Government delivering for British security and the British economy. It is possible only because we are investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and we are growing our defence industrial base by backing UK-based businesses and UK workers. That vote of confidence is matched by record foreign direct investment totalling £3.2 billion since the election and the most successful year on record for British defence exports, bringing a defence dividend to every part of the country.

The Opposition have got one thing right today: we do live in an increasingly dangerous world, and we see every day the skill, professionalism and expertise of our personnel in defending our people, allies and interests in the middle east. It is all the more staggering, then, that the Conservatives cut frigates and destroyers by 25%, cut minehunters, and—in the words of their former Defence Secretary—left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is their record, and today we have heard no acknowledgment of it, so it falls to this Labour Government to take action to put that right.

Last June, as part of the SDR, we announced up to £1 billion extra, above Conservative plans, for air and missile defence. We have been leading NATO’s initiative on delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—DIAMOND—and this year alone we have boosted spending on counter-drone systems by five times, and spending on ground-based air defence has increased by 50%. In an era of growing threat, we are delivering for defence, and we will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes.

I was surprised to hear the Conservatives speak about morale, which plunged to record lows on their watch, when they slashed real-terms pay and saw record numbers of housing complaints. This Government have delivered the largest pay increase in two decades. We are investing record amounts in statutory services, including £9 billion in forces housing, and renewing and repairing nine in 10 forces homes. The Conservatives left serving personnel in damp and mould-infested homes. I am so pleased that we have funded 30 hours of free childcare for the under-threes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have taken more action in 20 months that the Conservatives managed in 14 years.

Let me address two points, if I may. As soldiers, we talk about how we fight, but it is also incredibly important to talk about why we fight. When I stood to become involved in politics, one of the things that I was most looking forward to—I knew that it would not be possible right away, but I hoped that it would be possible during this Parliament—was the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.

That vote—being able to walk through the Lobby to scrap the cap—has been one of my proudest moments, because we cannot balance the books on the poorest children in this country. In closing, with the highest—

[Mike Wood]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Main Question put.

19:01

Division 460

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 98

Noes: 306