Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Dan Jarvis

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I echo your sentiments, Mr Speaker, about Sir George Howarth, and pass on the Opposition’s condolences to his family and friends? Also, for their first oral questions, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front-Bench team.

Today’s reports of Russian provocation illustrate the scale of the threat from Putin, but they also show why Britain needed a defence investment plan that was fully funded, instead of one with a £5 billion IOU for the next Prime Minister. On that point, the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister, responsible for producing the DIP, admitted on the media round last week that he only found out about the missing £5 billion after the DIP was published. When did the Secretary of State find out?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me gently respond by saying that we inherited a Ministry of Defence that was underfunded, over-programmed and completely unsuited to the threats that we face now and will face in the future. This Government have committed £298 billion. The hon. Gentleman mentions £5 billion; let me tell him that we are spending more than £5 billion on the largest ever drone investment for the UK, learning the lessons of Ukraine. We have been clear about the need to spend more on defence, and we will do that, but I will not be taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

[James Cartlidge]

This is not good enough. The defence investment plan has completely unravelled because, despite it being many months late, the Government still have not worked out where they are going to get the money from. Either the Secretary of State knowingly signed off a defence investment plan with a £5 billion poison pill for the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), or the Defence Secretary was, like his procurement Minister, kept in the dark by the Chancellor. Which is it?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry to say that that is performative nonsense from the shadow Secretary of State, who should know better. We inherited a Defence budget that was underfunded, overcommitted and simply not fit for the threats we face. This Government have committed £298 billion over the next four years, alongside £15 billion of additional resource for the DIP. Yes, we will need to do more, and the spending review will provide the opportunity to do that, and I hope that perhaps we can establish political consensus on the importance of doing that.

Defence Investment Plan

Debate between James Cartlidge and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

After months and months of delay, we finally have the defence investment plan, but it is quite simply a case of too little, too late. It is too little because there is virtually no more cash than there was in the plan that led the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), to resign because he believed that it would make the country “less safe”. It is too late not just because the plan is months overdue, but because much of the capability that it contains will not be in service until the 2030s, when the threat we face is right now.

If Labour Members do not agree that this plan is too little, they do not need to take my word for it. The Chief of the Defence Staff said he needed £28 billion to fund the armed forces over the next four years, but this plan fulfils barely half that requirement. The right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, who was the Secretary of State for Defence until a few weeks ago, said that the proposed spending

“falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”,

because

“it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under his revised plan, the GDP figure for defence in 2030 remains unchanged, at 2.68%? That begs the obvious question: if reaching 2.68% by 2030 was a resigning matter for the previous Defence Secretary, why is it good enough for him?

This DIP is not just too little financially; it is too late. If Labour Members do not agree, they should remember that it was promised for last autumn and is now 10 months overdue. Most importantly, the drones that Labour promised in today’s headlines mainly enter service in the 2030s, when the threat we face is today. Autonomous drones to fly with the Apache, uncrewed surface and underwater vessels, and the prototype for the RAF’s autonomous fighter jet will all enter service in the 2030s—far too late in this fast-changing world of tech-driven warfare.

On that subject, it was ironic that the Prime Minister announced the DIP at Malloy Aeronautics in Maidenhead, where I launched the MOD’s first ever defence drone strategy back in February 2024. Back then, we were world leaders in drone warfare, having supplied Ukraine with cutting-edge drone capabilities that were not on a press release. It was real kit used on a real frontline against Europe’s peer military threat, the Russian armed forces. So what happened? Labour came to power and put all that progress on hold, which paralysed procurement while we waited for the strategic defence review and then for the DIP.

But the big question is, why all the dither and delay? In a word, money. Is the harsh truth not that the drones could come into service far sooner, but the Government are unwilling to commit the cash before the 2030s? Is this not the inevitable result of having a Prime Minister who is unwilling to cut welfare, and who is prioritising a bigger benefits bill over properly funding defence? That begs the next big question: where is the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) in all this? Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the putative Prime Minister has been consulted on the DIP? Most importantly, has he given it his blessing? If not, is the DIP even worth the paper it is written on?

It is rumoured that the current Prime Minister may have ambitions to be the next Secretary-General of NATO. If that is true, might it have been advisable to include in the DIP a funded plan to get to 3% on defence? Can the Secretary of State tell us in which financial year Labour will spend 3% on defence?

For all the focus on drones, our people—not just our regular personnel, our reserves and their families, but our cadets and our veterans—remain our most important capability. I was proud to make the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington, a deal that the previous Labour Government left untouched. Given that I thought we all wanted to deliver homes for heroes, can the Secretary of State confirm—this is a critical question about the accommodation of those who serve our country—that the defence investment plan includes cutting hundreds of millions of pounds from the budget for forces housing, shifting it from this Parliament into the 2030s? Can he confirm that, and can he also confirm that he is cutting cadet funding at the same time and over the same period?

On veterans—I hope he has had a chance to think about this after my previous question—does the Secretary of State agree that a top priority for the new Prime Minister must be to back our former soldiers, and scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?

To conclude, after months of dither and delay, it has taken the sudden end of his premiership for the Prime Minister to finally publish the DIP in a desperate search for a legacy, but it is a legacy of failure, with an underfunded defence investment plan that is too little, too late. The men and women of our armed forces deserve much better.

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Defence Secretary talks about legacy, so let me remind him that the previous Government cut back our service personnel by almost 50,000, the morale of our troops was through the floor, 46 of the biggest 52 projects were delayed or over budget, and there was an equipment plan without the funding to back it up.

I have to say that I am also quite perplexed that the shadow Defence Secretary wants to raise concerns about the announcement we have made on drones. We have just announced the largest ever investment in drones in our country’s history. When he gets the time, because I know he will want to look carefully at the detail, he will see that, over the past two weeks, we have reprioritised activity to bring forward spend so that we can deliver operational capability sooner than would otherwise be the case.

The shadow Defence Secretary mentioned housing, and I understand why he would want to raise that, because housing is hugely important for defence and for the armed forces community. I know what it is like to live in armed forces accommodation, and I said earlier that we absolutely have a moral responsibility to those who serve to ensure we provide them with the best possible living accommodation. That is why we have recommitted today to £9 billion of investment over the next 10 years, which will see investment in the housing estate growing in real terms in each of those years. That is an absolute commitment that we have made today.

The shadow Defence Secretary also mentioned, and again I understand why he chose to do so, the importance of cadet forces. All of us in our constituencies will no doubt engage with cadet forces, which are an absolute force for good in communities around the country. That is why we have made a clear commitment to continue to invest in and modernise our cadet forces and to continue to improve outstanding opportunities for young people.

The shadow Defence Secretary asked specifically about the percentage of GDP that we will be spending on defence. I gently point out to him that, when we came into government two years ago, we inherited a figure of 2.3%. That was the figure we inherited. It is currently at 2.5% and will be at 2.7% by the end of this Parliament, with a clear commitment to spend 3% in the next Parliament and an absolutely critical commitment to spend 3.5% by 2035. He will have heard the points I made about the importance of defence spending and the commitment this Government have made to ensuring that defence spending is the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Dan Jarvis

Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s defence procurement system.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

We are driving the delivery of capability to the frontline. When requirements, budget and risk are clear, we have proven our ability to deliver. The majority of our programmes are on or ahead of time and budget. The Ministry of Defence has set out an affordable 10-year equipment plan to ensure that our armed forces are being given what they need, while living within our means.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I heard what the Secretary of State said about Atlas. He has previously given me a commitment that there will be no loss of capability, but today, Deborah Haynes at Sky News is reporting that the UK will be left dangerously exposed when the C-130J is cut next month. That comes amid concerns that its successor, the Atlas A400M, has yet to be cleared to perform the niche but mission-critical functions of the C-130J. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that our defence procurement system will ensure no loss of operational capability?

[James Cartlidge]

I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is a great deal of affection for the Hercules, but to go back to what the Secretary of State said about the recent performance in the important operation in Sudan, the largest number of evacuees that the Hercules carried out from Sudan was 143. The largest number in an A400M was about 100 more than that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

1. What recent estimate he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of public funding that will be required to build core Northern Powerhouse Rail.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

May I begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you and all of your brilliant House of Commons staff a very merry Christmas?

The integrated rail plan, published last November, set out an estimate of £17.2 billion at 2019 prices for the core Northern Powerhouse Rail network, with a further £5.4 billion for the TransPennine route upgrade. That includes building 40 miles of new, high-speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire, as well as upgrading and electrifying the rest of the route between Liverpool and York, and the existing line between Leeds and Bradford.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. The Chancellor has rightly spoken about the importance of capital investment to the long-term growth of the economy but, at the same time, he has downgraded the £40 billion vision of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was agreed on a cross-party basis with northern leaders, to the much-reduced £17 billion core scheme. Decisions on Northern Powerhouse Rail will shape the future of the railways in the north of England for generations to come and unlock massive economic benefits. Will the Minister look at refocusing Treasury appraisal of NPR on its long-term transformative benefits and whole-life value, rather than on short-term factors? Otherwise, a massive opportunity, not just for the north, but for the whole of the country, will be missed.

[James Cartlidge]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great passion on these issues. He is right that the Chancellor is absolutely committed to the long-term benefit to the economy of capital investment and infrastructure schemes like these. Just to be clear, the IRP set out the Government’s view that the core NPR network is the most effective way to deliver rail connectivity benefiting the north. Our plans would deliver substantial journey-time saving and capacity benefits all the way from Liverpool to York. It will do so far more quickly and cost-effectively than alternatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

10. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of reviewing HMRC mileage allowance rates to promote retention and recruitment in the public sector.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

The Government keep the approved mileage allowance payment rate under review. As the rate is set using an average, it is more appropriate for some drivers than for others. Employers, including public sector employers, can agree to reimburse a different amount that better reflects their employee’s circumstances.

[Dan Jarvis]

Petrol costs are up by a third since January, but mileage rates for keyworkers have now been frozen for a decade. That means, for example, that midwives attending home births, social workers safeguarding vulnerable children and palliative nurses providing end-of-life care cannot afford in many cases the petrol they need to do their jobs. Will the Minister look to increase the mileage allowance payment rates?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we are all conscious of the general increase in costs faced by keyworkers and all our workers, but let me make this point about the specific HMRC-approved mileage allowance payments rate. He will appreciate that, ultimately, it is there as an administrative convenience for both employers and employees. The employer can choose to pay more, though of course they would have to check the tax impact with the employee. We do sympathise about the cost of fuel, but that is why we took that crucial measure in the spring statement to cut the rate of duty on petrol and diesel by 5p a litre for 12 months. That is worth £2.4 billion for everyone who uses an internal combustion engine, whether in the public or the private sector.