Finnart Oil Terminal Purchase
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am today announcing that the Ministry of Defence has completed the purchase of Finnart oil terminal, representing a multimillion-pound investment in the west of Scotland.
This is a strategically important investment that strengthens the United Kingdom’s national security, reinforces our energy resilience, and underpins the operational effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
At a time of heightened global uncertainty—including instability in the middle east and increasing Russian aggression—this acquisition ensures that the Royal Navy can sustain operations in the north Atlantic and remain ready to respond to current and future threats. It increases the Royal Navy’s operational reach and secures a reliable fuel supply.
Crucially, this investment strengthens sovereign control over critical energy infrastructure while expanding the UK’s defence footprint in the region—directly supporting our NATO-first approach and our commitment to collective defence.
Finnart will play a vital role in ensuring that the United Kingdom is warfighting-ready. By expanding our fuel storage capacity, we are enhancing the resilience and endurance of our naval forces, in line with the First Sea Lord’s warfighting readiness plan.
The investment also delivers tangible benefits for the west of Scotland. As activity increases, the Finnart oil terminal will support a broader ecosystem of employment and skills development in local communities, while strengthening supply chains.
The Finnart oil terminal will be owned by the Ministry of Defence and managed by the Oil and Pipelines Agency, which has a strong track record of operating fuel infrastructure safely and securely across the defence estate. The site will continue to meet the highest regulatory and safety standards, ensuring reliable, robust support to the Royal Navy’s operational requirements.
This investment in the Finnart site will form part of the Clyde transformation programme—a multi-decade, multibillion-pound programme to regenerate HM Naval Base Clyde. Together with our broader investments in Scotland, including Project Royal Oak and the defence growth deal, this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening national security, supporting defence as an engine for growth, and investing in communities across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS247]
Naval Base Infrastructure
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am today announcing the largest investment in the United Kingdom’s naval bases since the end of the cold war.
As set out in the strategic defence review, improving readiness and strengthening our ability to generate maritime forces at pace is central to the Government’s approach to national security in an increasingly uncertain world. Our naval bases are critical national infrastructure, and their condition directly affects the availability, credibility and effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
As confirmed in the defence investment plan, I can announce today that the Government are delivering Project Royal Oak, which is the collective name we have given to the extensive strategic investment we have committed for improvements to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport, and His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. Collectively, this represents approximately £26 billion[1] of investment over the next 10 years to increase the readiness, availability and lethality of the Royal Navy.
Investments at HMNB Clyde are governed by the Clyde Transformation Programme. This will see a multi-decade, multibillion-pound transformation of the site covering everything from dock infrastructure to training and accommodation facilities. It will also include Programme Euston which will see three new floating docks and shoreside infrastructure for submarine maintenance with a renewed focus on asset management that will sustain infrastructure over the long term. There will also be a separate, offsite engineering facility established to boost maintenance capacity. This comprises £15.1 billion over the next decade.
In the south-west, forecast investment of £7.1 billion over the next decade at HMNB Devonport will deliver major upgrades and new and replacement infrastructure across the naval base and dockyard. Devonport is the UK centre for submarine deep maintenance and supports the continuous at-sea deterrent, submarines, ships, sailors and the Royal Marine Commando Force. The programme includes upgrades to 15 Dock, modernisation of 10 Dock and work on 14 Dock to enable submarine defueling to recommence, and wider renewal and maintenance across the site. This reflects both previous under-investment in infrastructure and a changing operational requirement.
On the Solent, forecast investment of £3.9 billion at HMNB Portsmouth will ensure recovery from years of disinvestment alongside vital modernisation to meet the emergent demands of a hybrid Navy which is maximised for warfighting readiness. This includes Project Bentham to upgrade jetties, berthing and support systems; a capability accelerator to support the hybrid Navy and fast-track technological development; a skills development centre for apprentice and adult learning; and expansion of the Royal Navy warfighting centre.
Taken together, these projects will modernise docks, jetties and engineering facilities and support infrastructure across the naval estate, ensuring our bases are resilient, capable and fit to support current and future fleets.
In these uncertain times, this investment will ensure that the Royal Navy is better placed to meet the challenges it faces, strengthen deterrence, and protect the United Kingdom’s security and interests at home and overseas. The House will be kept informed as these projects progress.
[1]Some of this funding sits within the nuclear ringfence.
[HCWS236]
Armoured Cavalry Programme
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am releasing this statement to the House today to provide Parliament with a further update on the armoured cavalry programme, commonly known as Ajax, following issues raised on Exercise Titan Storm in November 2025.
Since Exercise Titan Storm, there have been a number of reports and investigations undertaken to understand the causes of the issues presented. I can now provide an update on the status of each of these reports and the associated next steps:
Army Safety Investigation Team investigation—as I outlined in my previous statement to the House on 28 Apr 26, the ASIT investigation has concluded, and found that there was no single causal mechanism, but rather a combination of multiple factors. Work is already under way to progress the findings of this investigation.
Defence Accident Investigation Branch investigation—the DAIB undertook initial investigations at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the incident and passed responsibility for the further investigation to ASIT.
A ministerial review was conducted to examine the quality of advice given to Ministers, senior officials and military leadership—I provided an update on this in my statement to the House on 22 Jan 26, and on 28 Apr 26 advised that a further review had been commissioned. This further review will be chaired by Jonathan Simcock and will evaluate the four previous reviews, looking specifically at the events leading up to the declaration of initial operating capability. Jonathan Simcock has significant experience of Government major projects, having led the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, as well as holding a portfolio of non-executive and advisory positions across Government. This review is due to complete by the autumn. I will provide a further update to the House on this review in due course.
Ajax independent expert panel review—I can confirm that this review has now concluded and the findings have been provided to Ministers. The panel comprised 51 independent subject matter experts from defence, science, medicine and industry. The panel agreed with the ASIT report that the platform is safe when operated and maintained within the correct parameters, but noted that further action is required to improve the user experience. The report made 41 recommendations, which are categorised into four groups: technical and maintenance; training considerations; environment, motion sickness and psychological factors; and vibration and noise. All priority recommendations have been agreed in principle and work is under way to align with extant ASIT activity. This will be completed in the summer, including a timetable for resulting actions. We are also considering whether any of the recommendations have broader applicability against other programmes and platforms, as a precautionary measure. I will report back to the House on progress against the recommendations in due course.
The strategic case for Ajax remains extant. The capability is critical to a fully networked, persistent and lethal capability that sits at the heart of the British Army’s recce strike complex.
We have resumed acceptance of the Ajax vehicles, with 16 vehicles accepted. Trials have now restarted and Army training is planned to commence shortly.
The safety of our service personnel remains paramount throughout this process, and we continue to work closely with General Dynamics to deliver the vehicle that provides the world-leading capability they need. I will continue to keep the House closely updated on the progress of the programme.
[HCWS237]
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The defence investment plan sets out plans for a more lethal and larger Royal Navy, based on the hybrid model. Despite a lack of investment in docks and late ordering of ships under the previous Government, I can confirm that the Royal Navy continues to meet operational and NATO commitments. This Government are ordering more ships and securing British shipbuilding, and we are serious about delivering the world’s first hybrid Navy of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous vessels.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
With the retirement of HMS Iron Duke, the number of deployable Type 23s is reducing. In government, we ordered a total of 13 Type 26s and Type 31s. With the Chagos deal now dead, does the Minister agree with our policy that the immediate saving of £400 million should be used to accelerate the commissioning and launching of the Type 26s and Type 31s?
Luke Pollard
As the Member of Parliament for Devonport, where we not only base-port but refit Type 23s, I know that many of those ships that have given decades of service are no longer able to provide the capabilities we need. That is why we are accelerating the out-of-service dates for a number of those platforms while still investing in accelerating shipbuilding on the Clyde, where we are building the Type 26s, and investing in the hybrid Navy. We are delivering more uncrewed vessels, which will be especially active in the anti-submarine warfare era. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we have set out the defence investment plan, with an increase in defence spending, and we will be using that to support our Royal Navy to be more lethal and larger.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I welcome the move to commit to the procurement of six common combat vessels in the DIP. I hope that they will be based on the hull of the Type 31, which is being built by the very skilled workforce at Rosyth in my constituency. Will the Minister take immediate action and work with me to progress the CCV programme so that hopefully we do not see a gap between the end of the Type 31 programme and the start of CCV construction?
Luke Pollard
I say seriously to the House that my hon. Friend has been an incredible advocate for Rosyth. I have met him on a large number of occasions, and he has been absolutely determined to talk not just about the potential of Rosyth, but about the professionalism of the men and women who work there and the opportunity for young people to have a career in shipbuilding. The common combat vessel is a huge opportunity for us to expand the number of our hulls in the Royal Navy and build the latest capabilities not just in air defence, but as a mothership for our hybrid Navy opportunities. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We learned from the defence investment plan that there will be no new Type 83s or Type 32s, but we will get some unspecified, undetermined and uncrewed—and currently unbelievable—replacement. That is precisely the same sort of budget-cutting, finger-crossing nonsense from the MOD that sees the geriatric Land Rover not replaced until 2030, Sandown and Hunt removed before they are replaced, and C-130 retired before low-level parachute drops can take place from the A400M. Those are just three examples of the MOD missing its targets. Will the Secretary of State get a grip on the bean counters in the MOD, who apparently are not very good at counting beans? Will he commit to building all future complex warships on the Clyde or at Rosyth—preferably both?
Luke Pollard
It is unlike the SNP to be so positive about defence, isn’t it? The Type 83 and Type 32 were PowerPoints—there was no budget attached to them. That is why in the defence investment plan we set out a plan for a common combat vessel and a hybrid Navy to fulfil the opportunities that the retirement of the Type 45 presents for us. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take back a message to the Scottish Government that we can work in partnership to commonly fund the two defence technical excellence colleges that will provide the skills to allow the work on the Clyde and at Rosyth to continue. I hope that he and I can be together on that, but let us keep going. We want to see more shipbuilding in Scotland, and that is what this DIP delivers.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Royal Navy fleet obviously sits alongside the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Will the Minister confirm that he is committed to the RFA and its fleet expansion?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend really is the Member of Parliament for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as she is determined to champion it so frequently. She will have seen in the defence investment plan our commitment to the new generation of fleet solid support ships, and she will have seen the work that this Government have undertaken since 2024 to address concerns raised with us about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The workforce is making substantial improvements on rig, training and welfare. There is one more item that I want to get over the line, but she can see a shipbuilding pipeline and a bright future ahead for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary with this Labour Government.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
After the last Government tied up HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, never planning to send them to sea again, this Labour Government are bringing back amphibious ships. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Three Opposition Front Benchers at once is a bit much. Mark, you were a shining example earlier; do not start going wrong now.
Luke Pollard
Mr Speaker, if it takes three of them to take on one of me, keep it coming. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition is for the first ship to enter service in the 2030s.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On the day of its publication in June 2025, the headline promise of Labour’s strategic defence review was a commitment to buy
“up to 12 attack submarines”.
At the time, the Labour Government could not answer the question of exactly how many submarines that meant in practice, but they assured us that the detail of all their SDR promises would be set out in the defence investment plan, so exactly how many attack submarines are they going to buy?
Luke Pollard
The defence investment plan clearly sets out our intention to buy up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines. Their delivery is conditional on the improvements in productivity that we are working with BAE Systems to deliver at Barrow, not just in workforce but in production shipyard facilities. We plan to buy up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
We inherited a situation where the north-east was the region with the lowest Ministry of Defence spend in the country and we have made it a mission to increase defence spending in the north-east. We have an incredible talent pool in the north-east, with brilliant defence companies both large and small doing brilliant work. We are determined, now that we have an uplift in defence spending, that more of it will be spent with British firms, and I want to see more of that spend in the north-east as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My salary is “up to” £1 billion a year, but sadly that does not make me a billionaire. [Laughter.] Does the Secretary of State accept that when checking how much money a country is spending on defence, the accepted way of doing it is by percentage of GDP?
Luke Pollard
If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a salary of up to £1 billion, he is cosplaying as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), isn’t he? Seriously, we are the third-largest cash spender in NATO. At the spending review next year, we will be setting out an increase in defence spending. That is what every Defence Minister wants to see and, I imagine, what those on all sides of the House want to see. It is not just what we spend on defence that is important; it is how we spend it and on what capabilities. As can be seen from the DIP, we are transforming our armed forces to be more capable, more lethal and better able to defend the UK and our allies.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
A high proportion of my constituents proudly serve in our armed forces or are veterans. They want to know that the investment in the DIP is being spent cost-effectively. Given that more than half the capital budget is to be spent on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise—more than on every other bit of technology, equipment and kit for the entire armed forces put together—can the Secretary of State assure me that value for money analysis has been undertaken in line with the Treasury Green Book, and will he improve parliamentary scrutiny?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member will know that the Labour Government were elected on a manifesto containing a triple lock for our nuclear deterrent—not only maintaining the continuous at-sea deterrent and the new submarines, but providing all the upgrades that are required. We will make sure that the Defence Nuclear Enterprise provides value for money, increased deterrence against threats, and more job creation for people up and down the country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Luke Pollard
Harlow was centre of my thinking when it came to increasing defence spending. My hon. Friend and I have recently spent time talking about the brilliant defence companies that are based in his constituency. Having growth in defence spending and a clear focus on British companies is an opportunity for graduates and apprentices to have a career in defence.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On Armed Forces Day, I had the huge honour of unveiling a veterans’ buddy bench in Sunbury Park in my Spelthorne constituency. The idea is that the bench is dedicated to veterans; veterans go there, and members of the public are encouraged to go and sit with them. As the Front Benchers go around the country, will they encourage other constituencies to get a veterans’ buddy bench?
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Local residents, including service personnel living in my constituency, are deeply concerned by the proposal to create a new asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, who is currently in his place on the Front Bench, promised me last week that there would be absolute transparency for the affected communities. Will the Minster clarify when MOD officials first began speaking to the Home Office about the proposal; whether any—and if so, how many—contracts have been issued by the MOD to assess the site; and whether any serving personnel, MOD staff or MOD contractors are under non-disclosure agreements in respect of the proposal?
Luke Pollard
The Prime Minister asked all Departments to step up to support the cross-Government mission to close asylum hotels. The Ministry of Defence has done so, making available a number of sites that we no longer use for military purposes. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with my colleague, the Minister for Asylum, to discuss this further.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is nearly two years since the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful. Does the Minister believe that it is morally or legally justifiable for British bases to continue to be used to transfer weapons to Israel as part of this ongoing conflict?
Luke Pollard
I can confirm that it is a 10-year plan. One reason that we set out the first four years in detail is that we can see the technologies that we are purchasing in those years. We know that we will be making spends in drone technologies and a number of other areas, but we do not know precisely which platform due to the fast iteration of these technologies. We will continue to increase defence spending, delivering 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans. Will the Minister look closely at those applications for funding, and look to support the fantastic work of the Veterans Hub in Weymouth?
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Can the Secretary of State explain to this House, the British people and our NATO allies how it is that our welfare bill is increasing by roughly £19 billion this year, we spent £13 billion on foreign aid last year and £15 billion has been committed to net zero schemes, and yet the defence investment plan still has a funding gap of £4.7 billion?
Luke Pollard
We are increasing defence spending—that is what the Labour party is doing in government. Look at what Reform has been doing: one of its politicians was accepting bribes from Russia. I do not accept what the hon. Lady is saying. We are increasing defence spending.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State set out how the defence investment plan and the record investment of nearly £300 billion over the next four years will help to strengthen local supply chains in my constituency and create good, unionised, well-paid jobs as well as to stimulate economic growth?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend’s constituency is going to receive not just support via the £50 million Wales defence growth deal or the deep space advanced radar capability programmes at Cawdor barracks, but help for small and medium-sized enterprises in places like Castlemartin in his constituency. It is a good deal for Wales.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Civil compensation is disregarded from pension credit entitlement calculations, but military compensation is not. I know that the new Minister for Veterans is sympathetic to addressing this injustice, so I wonder whether he would meet me and the family of Pauline Cole—a veteran who was fighting to address this matter—in order to put it right.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Last week in the statement on the defence investment plan, I raised with the Secretary of State the unacceptable truth that the north-east sends the highest proportion of its young people into the armed forces, yet receives the lowest proportion of investment spending, and he said that was a “reasonable challenge”. Will he meet me and colleagues from the region to see how we can ensure that the bravery in battle of sons and daughters of the north-east is at the very least reflected in the defence investment spend?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend knows that this south-west lad is a big fan of supporting the north-east industry to grow and create more opportunities. I will be very happy to meet with her and other north-east colleagues to look at what opportunities are available in the defence investment plan with its £298 billion spend over the next four years.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Last month the former Defence Secretary said that he believed he was misled by his own Department while he was Defence Secretary. Former Scotland Secretary Baroness Liddell, who sat on the Philip review panel, said that she was misled. Given that, surely the Secretary of State must support the Chinook Justice Campaign families’ long-standing pleas for a fresh inquiry into why their family members were put on that particular flight?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
All the military hardware we can buy will not serve its purpose if our nation goes hungry, should our reliance on food imports be turned against us. What reassurances can Ministers give that they are leading conversations across Government to ensure that if push comes to shove, the UK has the necessary food security to stand on its own two feet?
Luke Pollard
Food security is national security. Although farmers do not wear the uniforms of our men and women in the armed forces, they are equally as vital in making sure that we can protect our national security. One of the reasons that we are investing so much in the hybrid Navy to keep the strait of Hormuz open is because we know that importing, be it food or energy, is vital to our security. That is why we are investing in new capabilities.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Today the Department confirmed to me in a written answer that over the years 2018 and 2019, the Ministry of Defence paid almost £12,000 to Jeffrey Donaldson in respect of a peacekeeping consultancy for the Cameroons. How common is it that sitting Members of Parliament are paid consultancy fees, and who else has been paid?
Luke Pollard
I know that my hon. Friend represents a large number of constituents who work at Defence Equipment and Support at Abbey Wood, and who do so really well. In the DIP, we have set out our support for the whole team effort between civilians and military personnel, and we are looking at creating more efficiencies and using new technologies to do so. I value the work of our civil servants, and I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to further discuss Abbey Wood.
Defence Spending and Readiness
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank our armed forces for their work to keep this nation safe every single day—the regulars, the reserves, the cadets, the civil servants who back our forces, and the men and women of our defence industry who keep our fighting forces on the frontline with the kit and equipment that they need to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I have heard the pride in our armed forces from both sides of the House today, and though there was quite a lot of politics, in particular from the Opposition Front Bench, I think that all those who serve in uniform can take from this debate that, regardless of party, we back them and we will continue to support them.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that it is a shame that Reform Members are still not here for a defence debate. None the less, in their absence, I will press on. There were a number of common themes raised today, but before I mention them, I will say this to the House. I am proud to be a Plymouth MP; I am proud to represent Devonport, the largest naval base in western Europe; I am proud to be the son of a Royal Navy submariner; and I am proud to be an RCDS graduate. I wish the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) all the best for his graduation in due course.
On Saturday, I will be on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day, which is a brilliant annual event. I know that there is cross-party support for the men and women of our armed forces, but in particular, I thank one set of armed forces personnel who have done an amazing job in Plymouth over the last year, clearing all the second world war bombs that we keep finding in our city. The armed forces have a lot of roles, but the role that has been on the TV news is the one played by the brave men and women who have been moving second world war bombs around, putting their lives at risk to safeguard others from a conflict that took place many decades ago. I thank them for that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In Armed Forces Week, will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the brave men and women, the staff and the recruits of HMS Raleigh, the local community that keep them going and especially the reservists, who are such unsung heroes in this important week?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her comments. HMS Raleigh is an important training establishment for the Royal Navy. Right across the country, whether in the Navy, Army, Air Force or the new direct entry scheme for cyber, we have some brilliant people training the next generation of talent in our armed forces. I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who serve at HMS Raleigh.
This has been a good debate with some passionate speeches across the House. People are passionate because they care about defence; indeed, that is why I stand here as a Defence Minister. I care about defence, I care about our national security and I am proud that I am part of a Government that also do. A number of themes have been discussed and I will detail them here. Across the House, we have spoken about defence spending, readiness, armed forces personnel and veterans, and about how we deal with the inheritance left by the previous Government, how we value our people more and how we publish the defence investment plan. I will return to each one, but first I will turn to the DIP.
Those who were present at Treasury questions this morning will have heard the Chancellor say:
“The Ministry of Defence is producing a defence investment plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new defence investment plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.”
I think that answers the question.
Luke Pollard
I will make some progress. That was a clear answer to the questions that have been asked on the matter.
When it comes to defence spending, which was raised by a number of colleagues across the House, let me be clear: this Labour Government are spending more on defence. I welcome a debate that asks how we can spend even more and faster, but we should be clear that we are spending more on defence. Next year, we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. That figure was not met in a single year of the previous 14 under the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The shouty people on the Opposition Front Bench say the world has changed. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) must be terrible when he goes to the cinema in terms of being shouty. I agree that the world has changed; that is why we are spending more on defence. Would I like to spend more? Of course I would.
Luke Pollard
No, I will make some progress.
We are spending more of this increasing defence budget with British companies. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) mentioned Kraken in his constituency, which I visited very recently. He will be pleased to hear, if he is not familiar with this, about the increased orders that we have given Kraken for its K3 Scout. I believe there is a K3 Scout on show in Speaker’s Court at the moment. Kraken is a brilliant company investing in cutting-edge technology that we are backing not only for 47 Commando in the Royal Marines, which is in receipt of K3s for Project Beehive, but for the autonomous hybrid Navy options, especially in the strait of Hormuz. It is a brilliant company doing brilliant things.
When it comes to readiness, let me say clearly that we need to develop our warfighting capabilities, moving from an era of expeditionary warfare. The strategic defence review set out clearly the change that is required. Our forces have been postured and resourced for a period of expeditionary warfare for quite some time, leading up to where we are today, and the SDR set out that we need to move away from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness against a peer adversary. That means a number of things. First, it means retiring old kit and equipment that is not suitable for that task. Secondly, it means massively reforming our procurement system so that we can procure faster.
We inherited a broken procurement system that we are fixing, and I am pleased that the new national armaments director is leading much of that work. I know that we can achieve improvements in procurement because the brilliant men and women of our Ministry of Defence do so in the support that they provide to our friends in Ukraine. On one side of their desks, they can use increased permissions to procure kit and equipment for Ukraine faster. On the other side of their desks, we are trying to make it easier for them to procure what could be similar equipment for our own armed forces.
Luke Pollard
No, I am going to make some progress.
The third area that people have spoken about today is armed forces personnel and veterans, and I am grateful to a number of Members from across the House for mentioning people who are doing incredible things in their own constituencies. I believe it was the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who spoke about Tony McCawley, who runs the veterans breakfast. I thank him and the hundreds of people like him who run veterans breakfasts up and down the length of the country. I know it makes such a difference for veterans, especially those who might be having a tough time, to go somewhere where there are other people who have walked in their boots—maybe in a different unit and maybe at a different time of service, but having someone they can relate to makes such a big difference.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who spoke about Muster Point and Stuart Mendelson from Stevenage, who is doing such a good job in supporting veterans in his community as well. I know that if there were more time, every single Member who has spoken would have been able to single out brilliant people doing brilliant things in their own constituency, and I thank them.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me now answer the questions about the inheritance that we face. I have already spoken about the SDR wanting us to move from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness, but we now need to deliver the changes that we have set out. We have made good progress, but we inherited a situation where 47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed. I believe that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was responsible for those delayed programmes when he sat in my seat.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me also be clear about the inheritance that we have in housing and in morale. We inherited a situation where many of our armed forces were living in housing that was frankly unacceptable. They had black mould in their children’s bedrooms, leaky boilers and leaky roofs. We are sorting that out with a generational repair, and nine in 10 military homes will be either refitted or rebuilt in the next decade. We have already delivered the first 1,200, with the worst homes on our military estate being able to be refitted. That has been delivered by taking those houses back into public control.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your guidance. In this Opposition day debate, many of us have spent four and a half hours in this Chamber seeking answers from a Government Minister. When he refuses to give way, how do we ensure that he responds to our questions? Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will still have my say. Is it in order for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech?
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) did say that I was a good Minister, which I am sure is a kiss of death for my career, but I welcome it none the less. He asked me how I am trying to answer the questions; I am answering the questions by not giving way, so that I can answer the questions that have been asked. I have taken copious notes.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress; I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The fifth area that we have spoken a lot about in the debate is how we value our people more. Valuing our people more means improving their conditions, and that means improving defence housing and improving childcare for deployed personnel, including deployed personnel in the United Kingdom, such as those deployed and based in Scotland. We have taken an important step in addressing that.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress, as I have said a number of times. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start listening.
I am exceptionally proud of the biggest pay rise for 22 years. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the effective real-term pay cuts to our armed forces under the Conservatives. Well, they have had above-inflation pay rises from this Labour Government.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to be answering the questions raised and not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Let me turn to the questions that have been asked. [Interruption.] They are very shouty, Madam Deputy Speaker—a little bit angry as well.
I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and rate him highly. I appreciate his honesty in speaking about decisions that his party made when it was in coalition with the Conservatives. I have not seen that level of honesty in many of the speeches from Conservative Members, but I am grateful to him.
Luke Pollard
I am still not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) made a good point about numbers versus capabilities. I have responded to a number of urgent questions and debates around the defence investment plan, but I want more discussion about the new capabilities we need to bring on board. For instance, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned, how can we invest in more deep precision strike and integrated air and missile defence? How can we ensure that we are looking at F-35As? That is precisely what we need to invest more in.
I listened carefully to the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and I am grateful to him for making it. In particular, his experience of having to bury men from his regiment shows what an important, experienced figure he is; we in this House need to listen to him. He asked about the national armaments director ripping up the rules around procurement.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Point of Order
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a point of order in relation to my answer to the urgent question on 15 June in this House. In my answer, I said that the Defence Secretary was
“currently with His Majesty the King”,
as that was my understanding from the Defence Secretary —[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.]
Although the Defence Secretary was indeed summoned by His Majesty on Monday 15 June, he arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ. I was unaware of this fact when I spoke in the Chamber; I believed him to be with the King and therefore unable to take the question himself. However, at the time of my answering the urgent question, the Defence Secretary was no longer with His Majesty. I wish to correct the record on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his point of order. He has now corrected the record and put his remarks on the record.
Defence Investment Plan
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.
Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.
Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.
After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?
You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?
There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?
Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that
“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]
That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.
The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.
The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week.
The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions, and for the condolences on behalf of his party. It was polite of him to promote me in his question; I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he had to say.
It is important to set out that we have not waited for the defence investment plan to deliver the new capabilities, the new contracts and the new investment. The hon. Member mentioned small businesses, and earlier this year we stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to create a single doorway for small businesses to access defence. We have supported more small businesses, and we have increased the target for direct spend by the Ministry of Defence by 50%, which is an extra £2.5 billion of direct spend going into small businesses.
We will continue to support SMEs. The 1,400 major contracts I mentioned in my response to the initial question support not only companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales—the very large defence primes—but the entire supply chain, with many of those contracts going to small businesses. We want to see the innovation, job creation, energy and dynamism of small businesses have a bigger role in defence, and that is especially true in areas such as autonomy, in which many of the companies from which we are buying capabilities are small businesses with huge growth potential. When the defence investment plan is published, the hon. Member will see that we are backing those innovative companies and SMEs.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difficult decision made to move 0.2% of GNI spent on international aid to defence spending was an important one. It showed that, in this new era of hard power, we need to increase spending on defence and to increase capabilities, which is precisely the decision taken in the past. We are very proud to be increasing defence funding. Compared with the Conservatives, who cut defence spending in their first Budget, we increased defence spending in the first Labour Budget.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House.
That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I think everybody will know—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee—that the Defence Committee has been calling for the DIP to be delivered for quite some time. The businesses in our patches, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need urgent clarity on where they go and where they invest. That is vital.
I say kindly to those on the Opposition Benches who have been yelling from sedentary positions that they should not be proud of what they delivered in 14 years. I gently say that what the Government inherited on defence was an absolute bin fire, and the Opposition should be ashamed of the mess they left us. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely right the DIP is presented accurately and for the situation in which we find ourselves today, not three years ago when the world was a different place?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.
We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have seen for myself the skill and experience of the workers at Samlesbury and Warton in supporting our Typhoon operations and building parts for the F-35 programme. One lesson we can take from the war in Ukraine—a key learning recommended in the strategic defence review—is that we look at the growth of autonomy in particular. We can see that already in how drones have massively changed the frontline, the fighting doctrine and the force structure required to deter and fight in the 21st century. That is true on land, in the maritime domain and in the air domain. A key part of the DIP will be to provide the latest technology for our forces, and to support our industrial base to not only build more of those capabilities in Britain, but ensure we can export them to our allies, too.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?
Luke Pollard
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is suggesting we delay the DIP further, but I understand his argument. We will publish the DIP before the NATO summit. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and we will do that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.8 million Bournemouth University has received to develop cyber-defence, intelligence and autonomous system courses. They are due to start in September and will equip the next generation with the technical skills they need to contribute to the UK’s defence capabilities, and ensure that we lead on the development of new technologies. In that context, can the Minister confirm that an increase in defence spending will be spent not just on kit, but on skills, and that universities such as mine will continue to be part of our strategy to address the challenges the nation faces?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for defence businesses in and around Bournemouth. I am really pleased that we were able to announce yesterday the universities and colleges across the country that will receive the uplift in student places, with the supplementary places grant that will enhance the skills provision. We have already enhanced the provision of skills for further education, with the announcement of five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland if the Scottish Government will support a second one, and one in Wales. We need to go further with more higher education places in defence and defence-adjacent courses. The money announced yesterday, not just for Bournemouth but for universities and colleges nationwide, will help to support the next generation of talent to work in defence—good, well-paid, decent jobs.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.
Luke Pollard
I equally have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, which is why I will say politely that I disagree with her characterisation. I will also politely say to her, as someone who reads the media speculation on what is in the DIP and what discussions have taken place, to not always believe what is written down online.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham.
My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is certainly right that recruitment matters, and that this Government inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the Conservatives. I am pleased to report to the House that inflow to our armed forces is now up 11.6% in the last year, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up three points in the last year alone. My hon. Friend make a good point about recruitment, and I would be pleased to arrange a meeting between him and the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after recruitment.
My hon. Friend is also right about disposals. We work closely with our friends in Ukraine to provide them with kit and equipment direct from British industry, supporting procurement with our allies as well. Also, when we retire UK kit, we look at whether there is a Ukrainian need for it, so I assure him that that is a process that is under way. I continue to speak to my Ukrainian counterpart about the additional support we can provide not just for the fight tonight, but for the deterrence that Ukraine will need in the future, when peace has hopefully arrived, to prevent Putin from ever invading again.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We have had some huge wins for defence firms in Yeovil, such as Leonardo and Honeywell, but lots of other small and medium-sized enterprises doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that they cannot properly plan without the DIP. What reassurance can the Minister give Yeovil’s defence SMEs that the limbo will end so that they can plan investment and provide quality jobs? Will he meet with them to discuss that further?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?
Luke Pollard
As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.
Luke Pollard
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?
Luke Pollard
I sit in his chair now, so that explains what happened with the previous Minister and the voters. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was one of the few Defence Ministers re-elected as an MP at the last election, with many others not returned to the House. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of long-term security, which is why we are setting out the investment in our kit and capabilities, effectively replacing the equipment plans that were published previously, and looking at our personnel, skills and infrastructure. One of the areas that was hollowed out and consistently underfunded as capital was taken from those budgets was our defence estate. We know the scandal of the armed forces housing that many of our constituents were asked to live in, which is something we are addressing with a £9 billion programme. We have to look at lessons to improve our personnel and experience.
We are in regular dialogue with our friends in Ukraine, learning lessons on kit and capability, how Russia fights, how we deter Russian aggression against NATO allies, and how we invest in the capabilities that Ukraine needs. Programmes such as Brakestop, as a low-cost cruise missile informed by the work of our friends in Ukraine, deliver that. The lesson I take from Ukraine and Iran is that we will need more autonomy, drones and understanding about mass as well as exquisite high-end capabilities. Expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan when it is published.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.
Luke Pollard
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate the way in which he asked the question. Scotland is an integral part of our national security apparatus. From the aviators who fly from RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, to the submariners who serve from Faslane, as well as the extraordinary number of defence companies, large and small, across Scotland—not just in the central belt—there are huge opportunities.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to pass on to the Scottish Government the importance of signing up for the second defence technical excellence college. I am still waiting for a reply to the letter that the Scottish Secretary and I wrote to the Scottish Government. We will fund one DTEC in Scotland, and if the Scottish Government can support the initiative with a second, we can have one in both the east and the west of Scotland, supporting the hugely important defence industry there. I hope that is a point on which we can find consistent cross-party support. If we are looking for more cross-party support, I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to back the brilliant submariners who support our independent nuclear deterrent, which sails from Faslane. The independent nuclear deterrent is the foundation of our national security, and something that we will continue to support in the defence investment plan.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside airport is benefiting from a £173 million MOD contract for Draken. Looking at that contract and at the others the Minister has set out, I think it is fair to say that the Department is not waiting for the defence investment plan to get moving, although we do, of course, need to see it very soon. The elephant in the room is what we are seeing in Ukraine, where capabilities are advancing and becoming obsolete in a matter of weeks—it is happening extremely quickly. What assurance can the Minister give that the DIP, when it arrives, will be flexible enough to deal with the changing nature of warfare in the months and years to come?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?
Luke Pollard
I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
First of all, I would like to say what a great honour it was to attend Windsor castle on Friday to see the presentation of the new colours to the Royal Marines. It was an absolutely superb event and carried out to extreme precision.
It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence is considering delaying or scrapping plans for the Type 83 destroyer, the long-term replacement for the Type 45, due in the 2030s. If that is the case, will the Minister confirm what alternative the Government will review to ensure the future of the Royal Marines’ anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People are suffering due to the cost of living crisis, and taxes are at an all-time high. The delayed investment decisions are paralysing planning for defence businesses, which are stuck in limbo. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to use innovative mechanisms such as defence bonds and the rearmament bank to support the defence sector without placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her continued interest in defence, even with her new role in the Liberal Democrats. We are continuing to place contracts with British industry—1,400 since the general election, announcing a number of those in just the past few weeks—which is seeing jobs growth and both capital investment in infrastructure and investment in people and the skills that are required. The hon. Lady refers to innovative finance. We will set out the spending in the defence investment plan. As the hon. Lady will know, we are increasing defence spending, and I welcome a debate about innovation and how we can get more value out of the pounds we spend. Under the Labour Government, fewer contracts will be sent abroad—something that was commonplace under the Conservatives. I want to see the activation of more private capital to look at how we can support not just the supply chain, but, potentially, defence capabilities. We have committed to doing that with the development of a defence finance and investment strategy, which we are working on currently.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?
Luke Pollard
For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.
Richard Tice
Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?
Luke Pollard
No, but I understand entirely the Conservatives’ partisan attack line on this one—and it is good to see the hon. Gentleman joining in. Let me be very clear: we have increased defence spending. We did so from the very first Budget that the Chancellor delivered at this Dispatch Box, and we are continuing to do that. Defence spending is £11 billion more per year today than under the last year of the Conservative Government, and we are directing more of that money at British-based firms.
We are fixing military accommodation, which is in such a state. The first 1,200 of the worst military homes have now been refurbished, and we will continue that work until nine in 10 military homes are refurbished. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years—a 14.1% cumulative pay rise under this Labour Government compared with the pay freezes that many of them endured under the Conservative Government. We are rearming and backing Britain, and when the defence investment plan is published very shortly, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Following the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), I want to welcome the Gripen contract, which benefits my constituency. Others have mentioned the fast-paced development of uncrewed weapons, but I am concerned about the domestic attacks the UK might see on our cyber, energy and food security. Can the Minister assure the House that the DIP will address that risk and fund public awareness of the threats to our home security and the role we must all play in the defence of the realm?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for championing the defence firms that she has around her constituency. They are a really important in making the case that defence is an engine for growth.
The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face as a nation are more complex than they have been for a very long time. They are not just military threats. The United Kingdom is under constant cyber-attack from our adversaries; that is one of the reasons why we have invested so much in our cyber defences and will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady also hits on the really important point that defending our nation is not just a job for the Ministry of Defence: it is part of a cross-Government effort that must include securing our food—because food security is national security—and our energy supply. That is one of the reasons why we are investing so much in our clean power mission to generate more of our energy in the United Kingdom. By investing in renewables, we can have good clean green jobs for the UK while also reducing our reliance on energy from further afield. Iran’s reckless actions in the middle east have shown to everyone in the House why investing in our energy security is so important. It is about home-grown energy, not relying on imports from abroad.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about military housing, which is not just for our armed forces personnel but, importantly, for their families. As someone who represents a military area in Plymouth, I know that when our forces are deployed abroad, if their families back home are living with black mould in their kids’ bedrooms, leaky roofs or broken boilers, it affects their ability to do the job we have asked them to do—on the frontline or wherever it may be. That is why in opposition we committed to making defence housing a priority.
In government, we have announced the defence housing strategy to improve, rebuild or refurbish nine in 10 military homes—along with our substantial commitment of £9 billion—and we have already made substantial progress on the 1,200 worst family homes. We are looking at what we can do not only with service family accommodation, but single living accommodation, because those who live on bases should also be reassured that we value their service and want them to live in decent accommodation, whichever service they may be in and wherever they may be deployed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. Every single nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the defence investment plan. Wales is already the recipient of one of the five defence growth deals that we announced, with new capabilities and new investment in skills. We look forward to speaking with the new Welsh Government in due course about how we operationalise that. The MOD’s main objection to the development of wind farms predominantly relates to the impact on air defence radars. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me some details in advance of us meeting.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As somebody who represents Devon as well as Somerset, may I share the Minister’s sentiments about the very tragic loss of lives in west Devon last week?
I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the Ankara summit is imminent, but is he not deeply concerned that the Government’s dither and delay in publishing the defence investment plan is seriously undermining our credibility with our friends in the world and sending a signal of immense weakness to our foes, and furthermore that at a time when we should be showing leadership the Government are showing lethargy?
Luke Pollard
I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.
Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.
Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Luke Pollard
indicated dissent.
Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Lead, like other critical minerals and the broader range of chemicals that go into producing energetics and ammunition, has seen constrained supply over the past five years. That is why we are taking a strategic approach to our munitions management, including rebuilding depleted stockpiles, investment in always-on facilities and munitions, and building new energetics factories in the UK.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the ammunitions industry, the upcoming ban on lead in commercial bullets is going to cause significant problems for the police and armed forces, in terms of cost and supply. Viking Arms, in my constituency, which supplies the military and the police, is deeply worried about this issue. Will he meet it and any other suppliers to hear their concerns about the problem?
Luke Pollard
I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. We inherited stockpiles that were much lower than we would have liked, and this Government are determined to refill those stockpiles; anything that goes into rebuilding those is important to me. I am happy to meet and discuss this further.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Yes, we have accepted the strategic defence review recommendation that we introduce a defence readiness Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, readiness measures are already included in the Armed Forces Bill, which will be before the House again tomorrow. Engagement across Government and with industry is under way on the defence readiness Bill. I am proud that a Labour Government are planning to introduce such a Bill; when his party was in power, the Conservatives neither introduced such a Bill nor thought of it. That shows that in these changing times, Labour is on the side of our armed forces and a stronger Britain.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Government’s constant refrain is that they are “working at pace”, but the reality is that our adversaries are doing exactly that. In an increasingly unstable world, the lack of a defence readiness Bill is a significant disadvantage. Will the Minister set out when the Bill will be published, and the specific date on which it will come before the House?
Luke Pollard
It is so disappointing that all the hon. Gentleman wants is a timetable; he does not say what measures he wants to see in the defence readiness Bill. He does not care what is in it. [Interruption.] We care about the content of the defence readiness Bill: we will get it right, and we will bring it before this House. When it comes before the House, I hope he will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the chair of the parliamentary Labour party for letting me get in. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a defence readiness Bill, as well as the record funding for the defence of this country, and the 1,200 defence procurement deals that have already been signed. As I have not yet mentioned Harlow in the House this week, will the Minister assure me that he will work with defence manufacturers such as Raytheon in Harlow to ensure that we are prepared for the terrible things going on in the world? Will he have conversations with them, as part of his preparations for the defence readiness Bill?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for Harlow. As we are increasing defence spending, we are directing more of the increased defence budget at British companies, including British small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as larger companies. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can support the SMEs in his constituency, so that they receive a greater share of this Government’s increased defence budget.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a broken procurement system of red tape, delays and high costs. Some 47 of 49 major defence programmes were delayed or not on budget when we came to office. We are speeding up procurement, buying British and aiming to increase direct SME spend by 50%, which represents an extra £2.5 billion that we will spend with UK SMEs.
Edward Morello
In the south-west, the defence sector and associated supply chains provide more than 40,000 jobs and contribute more than £3 billion to the economy. In West Dorset, firms provide skilled employment and apprenticeships, but they are frustrated by repeated delays to the defence investment plan and a slow and uncertain procurement process. Companies in my constituency tell me that, at this rate, they will be headquartered in Europe or the US by this time next year. We risk losing jobs, sovereign capability and billions of pounds of investment. I welcome the Secretary of State announcing that the DIP will be released before the NATO summit, although I am sure the House will note that with a degree of scepticism, but how will the release of the DIP and the procurement process benefit businesses in the south-west, especially small and medium-sized enterprises?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow south-west MP, I know how important defence is for businesses large and small in our part of the world. That is why we have signed 1,200 major defence deals since the general election, and analysis of just 500 of them shows that they are delivering benefit for 8,000 SMEs and micro-SMEs. We will continue to increase the amount of direct spend with small businesses, just as we are speeding up procurement. We inherited a system that was broken and did not work, and we are speeding it up to ensure that we can get more contracts to those brilliant innovators in our economy as soon as we can.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Those of us interested in subsea cables will have been delighted to hear the news announced over the weekend about the AUKUS arrangement, which the Government spoke about, and the development of new technologies with unmanned drone vehicles for subsea capability. Beyond that, will the Minister look at drone capability in this country, specifically at companies such as Skycutter and our other sovereign capabilities, to ensure that we get the right investment with the investment plans into those companies and ensure that they stay here in the United Kingdom?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After many years of much talk under the last Government about AUKUS pillar II, this Government have delivered a project and a capability that, in the hands of our British, Australian and American warfighters, will make a real difference.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about autonomy and drones, for which the Government are committed to increasing funding. We have invested in more capabilities in the United Kingdom, and we are actively exporting those capabilities to our friends and allies abroad. He should expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan, which will be published soon.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
FalconWorks, which is part of the BAE Systems family and the enterprise zone at Warton, has been at the cutting edge of learning the lessons from rapid deployment and redesign of unmanned aircraft in Ukraine. A key part of that is including the pre-investment in research and development as part of the procurement of defence systems. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with companies such as FalconWorks that support huge numbers of jobs in Fylde and across Lancashire?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in commending FalconWorks and BAE Systems for their innovation. The Government have established UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million annual budget to support innovation. That is making a difference in bringing more innovation to the market as well as dual-use potential. We will continue to invest in that, just as we set out that 10% of our equipment budget will be spent on novel technologies, helping to drive the latest kit and equipment for our troops.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I note with interest that the Minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is gaining more and more ground, but are we anywhere near understanding in the Ministry of Defence the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter-drones that will need to be produced now and in the future, and on a mass scale, should any conflict break out? Can he assure the House that that is understood in the MOD?
Luke Pollard
Yes, I can. One of the key pillars of the strategic defence review is learning the lessons from Ukraine. When it comes to autonomous systems and drones, that is not just about the continuing investment that we are making in high-end drone capabilities—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, one-way strike and others—but about how we can deliver mass effect. Due to the rapid iteration of drone technology, it does not necessarily always make sense to have a warehouse full of millions of drones. However, having the ability to produce millions of drones while recognising the shortages in the supply chain, especially around motors, magnets and cameras, is the way that we can enhance our capabilities and our deterrents. We are actively working on that.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I regularly meet defence SMEs, and they all tell me the same thing: without a defence investment plan, investment decisions are being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire, and strengthen our national resilience, but continued Government delays are creating damaging uncertainty across the sector. Can the Minister tell me whether the MOD, or indeed any other Department, has conducted an economic assessment of the impact that the delayed publication of the defence investment plan is having on British businesses? If not, will he commit to publishing one?
Luke Pollard
I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the 1,200 contracts we have signed since the general election, because we are not waiting for a defence investment plan to sign contracts with companies large and small. Those companies are producing new jobs and apprenticeships, more demand for skills, and new technologies that are being used by our frontline forces and exported to our allies. All the work that the hon. Gentleman refers to is part of our bigger picture for the defence investment plan. We know that increased defence spending will produce more UK jobs. We are spending more with British companies, and will continue to do so. I will stand up for our armed forces and our defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to talk our defence industry up, rather than talk it down as he has today.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
SMEs are crucial to our success. Through the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, we are cutting red tape and proceeding towards our ambitious SME spend target of an additional £2.5 billon by summer 2028. Last week we announced, with Sweden, the Gripen contract for £500 million of benefits to be shared not just by large companies but by small businesses across the United Kingdom, reinforcing the fact that defence is an engine for growth.
Alex McIntyre
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Romania? Last week I visited Romania through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and met armed forces personnel who are part of the NATO air policing mission. The Russian drone incident showed how important that mission is, and demonstrated the good work that our armed forces personnel are doing in Romania as we speak.
I recently visited Permali and Cherry & White in my constituency, two local SMEs that are working in the defence industry and doing an excellent job. Both are important local employers, and are keen to expand their businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to support such British SMEs through defence procurement, and will he agree to visit Gloucester and meet representatives of those brilliant businesses?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his words about our armed forces and the Typhoons that we have in Romania, which are doing essential air policing roles. With a NATO-first approach, we will continue to do that. I would be very happy to meet him to talk about Cherry & White and Permali, two outstanding companies that provide communication systems and composite materials to defence. Other SMEs wanting to supply to defence should look at the success of such companies, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss their interest.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Defence SMEs are key supporters and indeed organisers of Somerset Armed Forces Day, but the day will not be a success if the glitches in the application software are not resolved, and volunteer veterans have to shoulder tens of thousands of pounds of debt, given the way the funding works. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the organisers to resolve those challenges so that Somerset Armed Forces Day can go ahead?
Luke Pollard
I am not the Minister responsible, but that Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman’s pleas and would be very happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
This Government are proud to support Typhoons. We have announced a £500 million upgrade for Typhoons, including new radar, and we have helped secure the deal to export 20 Typhoon jets to Türkiye. We are continuing to support the brilliant jobs in Typhoon production at Warton and Samlesbury and across the United Kingdom, and we are expanding into more autonomous craft as well, supporting the Typhoon for many years to come.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Luke Pollard
As the hon. Member will know, we are increasing sanctions on Russian oil. [Interruption.] We are increasing sanctions. I entirely appreciate that the Opposition have decided to depart from the principle of cross-party support to play party political games, but that does not stop it being true. We are increasing sanctions on Russia.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?
Luke Pollard
Yes, we do agree. We know that climate change is driving a number of increasing threats. We also know that as a Department we are cutting our carbon emissions and supporting nature recovery. We do that not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it increases our warfighting readiness. We know from Ukraine that a diesel generator can be seen by an ISR drone many, many kilometres away. We know that if we continue with the use of fossil fuels, we are at a strategic disadvantage on the battlefield. That is why we continue to invest in new technology in that regard.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
There were concerning reports at the weekend about the global combat air programme’s being delayed. We know the funding for Edgewing, agreed in April, is due to run out this month. Can the Minister guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place before the end of June?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The Government support GCAP and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
We have set out our intention to increase the amount of sustainable aviation fuel that the RAF uses. Far from being a sign of weakness, that is a sign of increasing security and sovereignty over our fuel supply, recognising the changing world that we live in and ensuring that the RAF will continue to fly, whatever the constraints on fuel in the future.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Having recently visited Wiltshire cadets in Old Sarum, I very much welcome what the Minister said about National Cadet Week. Will she ensure that all schools, particularly those in Pride in Place areas, such as the one in Salisbury, are made aware of the transformational opportunities of attending the cadets? That will be a great way of expanding the uptake, which I am sure she is aiming for.
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say to the hon. Member that although I totally agree that we need this order—Lancashire MPs are fully committed to it—when we are on topicals, we need shorter questions. I am sure that the Minister will have got the drift of why we need the order.
Luke Pollard
We are proud to support Typhoon, and I was proud to be in my hon. Friend’s constituency to unveil the defence technical excellence college. In her constituency there are some brilliant students undertaking amazing training that will give them the skills to work in BAE Systems producing Typhoons for our allies, and potentially other craft in the future. We will continue to support Lancashire and its aerospace sector.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Thursday I was on the water with King’s Lynn Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets. As the Minister will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are wholly funded by the Ministry of Defence. What provision will the Royal Navy make to fund vital equipment, such as the new boats that those cadets need?
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
As my ministerial Friends will know, MBDA, which makes the Storm Shadow missiles used in Ukraine, has doubled its workforce in my constituency since 2010 and is investing £4.8 million annually in training. What more can the Secretary of State do to support businesses in the training and resilience of their workforces?
Luke Pollard
In the defence industrial strategy, we set out a £182 million package to invest in skills not only to support people entering defence for the very first time, creating a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them, but to support people retraining their skills. The companies in Stevenage are great examples of how to use that training money well. I am very happy talking to my hon. Friend about how we can go further with that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
RAF Benson primary school in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction in its rolls as a result of the scrapping of the Puma fleet. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium helicopter coming online?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This Government’s plan for defence technical excellence colleges in the east and west of Scotland will give the young people of my constituency training opportunities. Have the Scottish Government responded or agreed to match our ambition with their share of funding for our colleges?
Luke Pollard
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I wrote to the Scottish Government a number of months ago now, but we have still had no reply to our offer of two DTECs in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish National party MPs present will be able to hurry on their Scottish Government to give young people in Scotland the DTECs they deserve.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work in the NHS and that, if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given that defence medical services and the NHS have to work together, will the Government set out what plans they are putting in place for this?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who asks so many parliamentary questions, has not kept up with those two planes. I will be sure to write to him to give him the full details—or perhaps he will get another PQ in which he will be able to inform himself of the information.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Bovington camp in South Dorset has a long list of outstanding repairs—pothole-ridden streets, persistent fly-tipping and no working street lights on King George V Road, to name just a few. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation carries out much-needed repairs and fulfils its most basic maintenance responsibilities?
Luke Pollard
Bovington is an important base for me, and I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend mentions. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can resolve them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the date on which the very first documents relating to the Chinook air disaster were closed and why it is that Ministers seem to have absolutely no oversight, responsibility or accountability over when decisions are made to close documents to the public.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing SMEs. At the start of the year we established the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is supporting dozens of SMEs already. We are also increasing direct spend with SMEs and reducing contracting time to enable SMEs to bid for more defence contracts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Chinook disaster, when we lost so many of our high-ranking anti-terror and security experts. Yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. We had a saga, with the Department claiming for years that it was pilot error, only to have then to reverse that decision, and we still do not have the truth. There are still documents locked away for 100 years, and families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour, but why are the Government continuing to cover up on this issue, particularly on the question of mechanical unfitness?
Defence Readiness
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard
While I welcome the Type 26 global combat ship, as I am sure my hon. Friend does—that is an important naval deal with Norway—will the timeline of its delivery not give the first ships to Norway rather than to the United Kingdom? If I am wrong, that is great, but if that is the case, there must be a discussion in the MOD about extending the life of the existing—
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
indicated dissent.
Mark Pritchard
If I am wrong, great—I am used to being wrong on many occasions, but I am happy to be wrong on something we need to get right.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I know Members across the House will join me and the Prime Minister, who did so earlier, in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, a gifted soldier and horsewoman who died on Friday—a young leader, a young life taken too soon.
His Majesty opened his Gracious Speech with a warning:
“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.
As we debate our response in this Chamber, our armed forces are on missions across the world, facing down those threats, strengthening our alliances, defending our overseas bases and overseas territories, and preparing for missions to the High North, the strait of Hormuz and a post-ceasefire Ukraine. Our armed forces are working around the clock, protecting our homeland, our allies and our interests, equipped with some of the most advanced capabilities in the world.
The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz is hurting all our constituents right across this country. They see it in their newsfeeds, feel it at the petrol pumps and pay for it through rising bills. This Government are determined to do all we can to end that pain as soon as we can. We have stepped up to lead a multinational response. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have built and co-chair a new 40-nation coalition, united in our mission to secure the strait of Hormuz as soon as a lasting ceasefire is in place. The UK’s armed forces are leading the way, deploying advanced autonomous minehunting equipment and new uncrewed boats and drones, and working alongside the heavy metal of HMS Dragon deploying to the middle east with its cutting-edge Sea Viper counter-drone system. That is because innovation, hard power and the ability to sustain it are the currency of our more dangerous and unpredictable age. Hard power is the essential building block of effective deterrence, and our deterrence is our insurance policy against the growing threats we face as a nation. That is why this Government are investing in hard power—investing over £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. Defence innovation is working twice: once for national security and once for British industry. That is the Labour way.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister makes a strong case for hard power, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the investment in British defence. However, he also knows that generals on both sides of the Atlantic have made the case that investment in development is necessary to prevent conflict. In fact, they say that prevention is better than military intervention. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no further cuts to the international development budget in the forthcoming period?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member knows as well as I do that we have a commitment to get back to 0.7% of GDP on international aid when we can, but I remember his party in government cutting defence spending as well. I appreciate what he is trying to say, but let us unite now in understanding that the threats we face today require investment in defence and an increasing defence budget, and that is what this Government are delivering.
Investing more in our armed forces and those who wield the hard power is this Government’s approach; investing more in our defence industry that develops and sustains it is this Labour Government’s approach; and investing more in our alliances which multiply that hard power is this Labour Government’s approach.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for how investing in our armed forces and defence, after 14 years of Tory neglect, is imperative to get Britain growing and for our defence preparedness, but does he agree that these capabilities must always be exercised in the right way? Thirty UK arms licences to Israel were suspended in September 2024, but in the light of the Iran war that he mentioned and the fact that 72,000 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza, could Ministers revisit this? I know that this worsening situation means many constituents want to end all arms sales with the Netanyahu regime.
Luke Pollard
This Government have called for a ceasefire. We have called for increased aid to get to the people who need it. We have introduced arms export controls against those weapon systems that could be used in Gaza. We of course keep all export licences under review, but I think the whole House, whichever party we are in, wants to see a lasting peace and a two-state solution, so that the people of Gaza and Palestine can live side by side with a secure Israel. That is the effort that this Government are making in that respect.
The Conservative equipment plan that we inherited in July 2024 was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces and ending the Tory hollowing out and underfunding that we inherited. Our strategic defence review and our defence investment plan will put that right. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was listening to the Defence Secretary’s speech last night, he would have heard him say that it is getting close.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
When is the plan going to happen? I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of veterans in the UK. They take a keen interest in what goes on in our armed forces. We look across Portsmouth harbour to ships that are sat stationary, not going anywhere, and see a defence industry that is being undermined at every step. When will the Government actually put their words into action?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member, like me, represents an area with a lot of military personnel and a lot of veterans. That is why I know that she will welcome the fact that veterans spending is at a record high under this Labour Government. We are working to deliver the defence investment plan, but that has not stopped us from investing in new capabilities, which I will come to in a moment.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I follow the Minister’s words, as always, with much interest. Has he had a conversation with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who last Thursday spoke of dither and delay, and does he relate that to the extraordinary delay in the defence investment plan?
Luke Pollard
I always welcome recruits to our armed forces and defence debates, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is absolutely welcome in our defence debate today. I say politely to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that I focus a lot of attention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who left an unfunded and hollowed-out armed forces, but he too was a Minister in that Government that hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. While I welcome his intervention and expertise, he cannot escape his record of underfunding our armed forces. We are now working to deliver that funding to our armed forces.
We are on a path to warfighting readiness by 2030. We must be mission ready by 2030 against a peer adversary. That means investing in our armed forces. That mission is backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, backed by our ambitious programme of defence reform—the most ambitious in 50 years—and by the defence industrial strategy, a funded strategy. That is unlike the document worked on by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, which was unfunded and left on a shelf to gather dust.
We are fuelling defence as an engine for growth, creating good jobs up and down the country. Because we are still getting on with the job of defending our country, this Government have signed more than 1,200 defence contracts since the election, nearly nine in 10 of which have gone to UK-based firms.
Dr Luke Evans
I posed this question to the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he was last at the Dispatch Box: where is the DIP stuck? He seemed to point the finger at the Treasury, but can I get an update on where the DIP is actually stuck?
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of Lukes—even Lukes with new beards, as the hon. Gentleman now is—but I am not going to give a running commentary on the DIP. We are working flat out to deliver it and it will be published when it is ready.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.
Jim Shannon
I welcome everything that the Government are putting forward with the spend in Northern Ireland. The Minister has committed himself to that and there have been lots of visits to Northern Ireland to make it better, but the UK spend per head on the mainland is £400 and the UK spend per head in Northern Ireland is £80, which means there is a big difference in what has to be done. What steps will be taken to improve procurement and defence contracts for businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can have equality?
Luke Pollard
We have a brilliant defence industry in Northern Ireland. That is why this Labour Government backed it with a £50 million defence growth deal that I announced only a few weeks ago in Belfast. We will continue to support businesses large and small in Northern Ireland.
In the past week alone, this Labour Government have deployed advanced autonomous minehunting equipment, backed by £115 million of new investment for minehunting drones and counter-drone systems for the strait of Hormuz, and signed a £1 billion contract to equip the British Army with new remote controlled artillery. We have equipped our Typhoon jets with the advanced precision kill weapon system, which will make shooting down Iranian drones cheaper and easier for our RAF, and we have announced funding for 13 new defence unicorns. We are a Government that are backing UK jobs as we rebuild our armed forces, and we are also delivering for our people.
Rebecca Smith
I have a simple question for the Minister. He keeps stating that 1,000 or so contracts have been signed, nearly all with companies based in the UK, but what percentage of those companies are small or medium-sized enterprises compared with the primes?
Luke Pollard
I will get the hon. Lady the full details, but we are backing an increase in defence spending for SMEs, with a target of increasing it by 50% in the next two years. It is our mission to do so and that is why we have stood up the new Defence Office for Small Business Growth. I will get the percentages that she asks for, based on the latest figures.
We are backing our people. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years, we have extended free childcare and we have introduced the first ever independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life. We have ended the Tory privatisation of defence housing, and we have made a £9 billion investment to tackle the scourge of the dreadful military homes that we inherited by refitting or rebuilding nine in 10 military homes. We have turned around the Tory retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited: outflow is now down 8% and inflow is up 13%. That is what a Labour Government are delivering.
As the geopolitics shift, it is important that we, across this House, renew our support for Ukraine. It is important that we all stand together. That is why the Defence Secretary now chairs the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and why the United Kingdom now chairs, with our French allies, the coalition of the willing. Just as it is important to call out those parties that seek to take down Ukrainian flags, it is more important that we challenge them on what they would do to support Ukraine. I ask Reform Members, what will their party do to support Ukraine? Taking down the flags is a backward step, but I am interested in hearing what are the positive steps.
I say to Conservative Members, I am interested in restoring the cross-party unity on Ukraine that we used to have, which seems to be fraying because of the party politics they are playing, so will they say when was the last time the Leader of the Opposition backed the UK’s leadership on the coalition of the willing? I cannot recall one occasion, but I am interested to know when that was. We need to ensure that the message goes out clearly from this House that we back Ukraine and we will continue to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Luke Pollard
No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest.
We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver.
I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough.
This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed.
In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities.
There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The defence industrial strategy published in September made it clear that we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. As we move to warfighting readiness, it is essential to ensure that our defence programmes are delivered on time. The House will be aware that we inherited forces that were hollowed out and underfunded—47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed when we took office. The measures that I am introducing today will increase our readiness by incentivising on-time delivery or projects that support our frontline forces and defence operations.
Our defence industry is crucial to ensure the resilience of our supply chains, the strength to resist threats or disruptive events, and the ability to scale-up and surge capacity as needed. We are committing to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and with a promise to invest more comes a responsibility to invest better. For too long, defence procurement has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity. Yet today we know that whoever gets new technology to the frontline first wins. Business as usual is not an option.
The defence industrial strategy set out the requirement for a dynamic and innovation-focused industrial base that assures UK sovereignty, operational advantage and freedom of action. It went on to say that, to achieve this, we must ensure that the commercial tools we deploy incentivise investment and efficiency. This included a review of the Single Source Contract Regulations, which govern some of the nation’s largest and most strategically important defence procurements and account for around half of defence spending on equipment.
I am today announcing the first tranche of legislation that we will make as part of that review. The focus of these changes is to increase the incentives on our single-source suppliers to meet the pressing need to innovate, get more equipment to the frontline faster and maximise the military capability from every pound we spend. I am therefore today laying a statutory instrument to increase the amount of profit available for delivering priority outcomes, such as faster delivery or greater productivity, from 2 percentage points to 10 percentage points. Whether to include such an incentive fee in a particular contract, and its size and structure, will be at the Government’s discretion, within robust statutory constraints. In general, the Government will be expecting exceptional performance in return for the higher rate of incentive profit.
I am also announcing that we will be decreasing the starting profit on contracts that are low-risk, either because they are in lower-risk sectors or because the Government agree to meet all of the supplier’s reasonable costs. This will allow us to powerfully incentivise suppliers to become more productive or to deliver other Government priorities, in order to restore profits to current levels. It will also motivate suppliers to take on more risk- bearing contracts, which is a defence industrial strategy commitment.
I am also introducing reforms that will support our efforts to increase direct spend with UK small and medium-sized enterprises. While the regulations are critical to securing value for money on large, complicated contracts, they can deter smaller, more innovative companies from becoming defence suppliers. Small and novel products, which have gone from factory to frontline in a matter of weeks, have often delivered the greatest successes. It is vital that we continue to maximise results from our small and medium-sized enterprises. We will therefore increase the threshold for a contract coming under the regulations from £5 million to £25 million. This will remove nearly all small and medium-sized enterprises from the regime in the future lifting a recognised regulatory burden and backing small businesses.
We will also be encouraging innovation by introducing an “innovation uplift” to ensure that firms that invest in innovative technologies are properly rewarded for the risk that entails. It will be payable where suppliers invest their own money in developing products without a guaranteed contract or up-front Government funding.
These changes will be brought in through a further statutory instrument prior to the summer recess.
The reforms being established by the NAD—national armaments director—group reflect a deliberate shift in how the Government use the regulations to drive supplier behaviour.
In single-source dominated businesses, suppliers have historically been able to generate strong returns without the performance pressure that competition creates.
These changes are designed to emulate this pressure by making earning strong profits dependent on delivering the outcomes and value the Government need. They draw on feedback from industry and the Single Source Regulations Office and support the NAD group’s wider mission to accelerate procurement and ensure that critical capabilities are delivered to UK war-fighters faster.
[HCWS1564]