PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK Air and Missile Defences - 27 November 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK air and missile defences.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight a critical weakness in our national defences. I am sure it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I say this, but I sincerely believe that outside this place, and even among many of our colleagues, it is not appreciated that the diversity of the threat we now face from air attack, and the lack of our defences against it, is at its most serious in decades.

This debate is about defences against conventional air and missile threats, not nuclear threats—for that we maintain our continuous at-sea strategic nuclear deterrent. The world is more unstable today than at any point since the cold war, but sadly, despite a changing threat environment, I fear our defences have not been adapted quickly enough to deter or protect against it. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee’s report published in September, which analysed the lessons we can learn from Ukraine, laid out in stark terms the significant weaknesses in European defences. Key among them is the fact that our air and missile defences are, frankly, inadequate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only brought conventional warfare back to mainland Europe, but has shown in stark terms the importance of credible and robust air and missile defences.

Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since February 2022. About 80% of them have been intercepted, thanks to different air defence systems protecting military and civilian infrastructure, but that still means that thousands of missiles have impacted, often to devastating effect. Earlier this month, over the course of just one week, Russia used more than 800 guided aerial bombs, about 460 attack drones and more than 20 missiles of various types against Ukraine.

During the cold war NATO’s air defences were a largely static system arrayed in belts around a unidirectional and well-defined threat of manned aircraft from the Soviet Union, but today’s environment is less predictable. The range of air and missile threats is larger and the threat can come from any direction. Indeed, according to reports from earlier this year, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity deemed necessary to protect allies in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.

Unlike Ukraine, the UK has some obvious geographical protection from attacks by ground-based short-range missiles and drones, but two significant and concerning reports over recent days show once again that there is no cause for complacency. First, Russia is now prepared to use intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine. This is the first successful use of that type of missile with conventional warheads in combat. They are harder to intercept and represent a significant escalation. The second concerning report in recent days relates to the presence of unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles around three RAF bases—Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell—between 20 and 22 November and overnight on 25 November. I do not expect the Minister to go into too much detail about that recent incident or about what counter-measures are in place at our bases, but both reports show that short-range and long-range threats to the UK are very real, very diverse, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.

If we look at events in the middle east, we can also see the diversity of short to long-range aerial threats. Israel has faced rocket, drone and ballistic missile attacks from Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In October, Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel following its previous attack involving 300 missiles and drones in April, but, unlike the UK, Israel has a sophisticated and multi-layered air and missile defence system to counter wide-ranging aerial threats. The Iron Dome intercepts short-range rockets of the type fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. David’s Sling can intercept medium to long-range rockets, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 can intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Recently, we saw the deployment of US THAAD—terminal high altitude area defence—batteries to bolster defences against ballistic missile threats.

The UK’s current air defence capabilities against such threats are primarily made up of Sea Viper on Type 45 destroyers, utilising Aster missiles, Sky Sabre ground-based air defence, and quick reaction alert Typhoon fighter jets. Typhoons on quick reaction alert at Coningsby and Lossiemouth can intercept potential hostile airborne threats, including aircraft and UAVs. The Sky Sabre ground-based air defence system can intercept multiple cruise missiles, aircraft and UAVs up to 25 km away. However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland. Clearly, many more such systems would be needed to provide sufficient cover to a larger number of critical military and civilian national infrastructure sites across the UK.

I know the business case for more Sky Sabre launchers has been approved, but orders have not yet been made. Bizarrely, no business case has been made for ordering more missiles for Sky Sabre, despite such orders taking longer to fulfil. Crucially, Sky Sabre cannot defend against ballistic or hypersonic missile threats—it was not designed to do so. The only defence the UK currently has against ballistic missiles is Sea Viper, which utilises Aster 30 missiles on our six Type 45 destroyers. Sea Viper can currently track potential threats at ranges of up to 250 miles, and eliminate them within about 70 miles.

I know that Sea Viper is being upgraded over the next decade, with initial operation capability in 2028. That is very welcome, but given that we have only a few Type 45s in service at any one time, the coverage that they can provide in defence of homeland targets against ballistic missile threats is limited. To defend London against ballistic missile threats, a Type 45 destroyer would have to be permanently moored in the Thames estuary, which would mean that it could not do anything else. In particular, it would be unavailable for its primary role of protecting one of our aircraft carriers from air and missile threats. That alone makes the case that some form of new or upgraded ground-based air defence system that provides protection against threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles, is needed.

To consider only the military critical national infrastructure that would be vulnerable to air attack and would need adequate protection, we have the three main Royal Navy operating bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde; seven RAF bases, including Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby; and the major Army garrisons. We have radar sites, ammunition depots, and overseas sites, including the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, unlike sites in the UK. Major defence industrial sites would also presumably be at risk. Then there is a plethora of significant civilian infrastructure that could be targeted, including nuclear power stations, large transport hubs, industrial sites and Government buildings. We know tragically from the war in Ukraine that Russia has no compunction about hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, shopping centres or concentrations of housing, purely to terrorise the civilian population and degrade national morale.

The previous Government’s integrated and defence reviews slowly started to acknowledge the threat from air attack. The 2023 Defence Command Paper described the threat as being

“at its most acute for over thirty years”.

Clearly, the resources have not yet been put into upscaling equipment and filling the gaps in capability that we need to counter that.

Other European countries have been taking the issue seriously and placing orders. In the past decade, France and Italy have jointly developed the medium-range SAMP/T air defence system, which can intercept ballistic missiles, drones, fighter jets and other targets. In September, France ordered eight new SAMP/T NG systems, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. The first ones will enter service in 2026. Italy also ordered 10 of these new systems, which will utilise upgraded Aster 30 missiles.

Many European countries already utilise the American Patriot air defence system. To bolster that, existing operators Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are procuring 1,000 additional Patriot missiles between them. Poland has signed contracts worth £4 billion with UK industry to deliver the NAREW next-generation air defence system. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France and Hungary are jointly buying around 1,500 Mistral short-range air defence—SHORAD—missiles. Latvia and Estonia are jointly procuring IRIS-T for medium-range interception, and Finland has ordered the David’s Sling system.

To fill capability gaps and ensure interoperability, we should be working with our European NATO partners on joint procurement. The Government have said that the UK is engaging with the European Sky Shield initiative, which seeks to establish a ground-based integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capability. There are clearly different views across Europe about which systems it should comprise to ensure not only interoperability but to develop and maintain Europe’s defence industrial base.

I am aware that the UK signed a letter of intent to launch the integrated air and missile DIAMOND initiative in October, alongside six allies: France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. That is clearly welcome, as it shows the seriousness with which the threat is recognised, but there is no clear timetable of key milestones associated with the DIAMOND initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update.

It is not just our ability to take down hostile airborne threats that we must consider; there is also our ability to detect them in the first place. It is no secret that we have only a limited number of fixed and mobile land-based radars on UK soil, which would probably be among the first targets vulnerable to air attack. The previous Government’s early retirement of E-3 Sentry left a capability gap in airborne early warning and control, which has only been compounded by delays in the E-7 Wedgetail programme.

Airborne early warning and control will be crucial in monitoring the western and south-western coasts of the UK, where ground-based radar is limited, to detect potential submarine-launched threats. We also need to take seriously the potential for radar evasion along the east coast, particularly by UAVs or projectiles passing through wind farms. The Government are actively working on deconflicting windfarms and existing air defence surveillance systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could speak briefly about that.

Ministers will be acutely aware of everything I have said but, as I said at the start of the debate, I do not think many of our colleagues, including across Government outside the Ministry of Defence, appreciate the scale or seriousness of the issue. The defence analyst Francis Tusa has compared the current situation with that found by General Frederick Pile in 1937 when he was appointed commander of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division. General Pile highlighted the severe lack of anti-aircraft batteries to defend civilian and military locations. His analysis led to an increase in personnel in anti-aircraft roles and the mass production of anti-aircraft artillery.

Our armed forces are among the best and most capable in the world but, unfortunately, the defence they can provide today against significant airborne threats to the homeland, such as missile attack, is very limited. We have highly capable equipment but not enough of it to protect the significant amount of critical infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country, and to defend troops deployed on operations overseas. Principally, that is because we spent most of the previous few decades focused on expeditionary overseas missions rather than active homeland defence. We have been too slow to adapt to the changing threat picture.

The lack of active homeland defence is fundamentally a strategic failure. I hope the ongoing strategic defence review will deem it such and outline how it can be urgently addressed. The first responsibility of our Government is to protect our people and defend our freedom. I fear that further delay in outlining the action we are going to take and, crucially, the budget to deliver it, brings only greater risk of catastrophic failure in fulfilling that fundamental responsibility.

Addressing that capability gap needs to be an urgent political, funding and industrial priority for Government. I hope the Minister feels that this debate helps her demonstrate the political support in Parliament for tackling it.

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It seems only a few minutes ago that you and I were last in Westminster Hall—you brought the 4.30 pm debate to an end yesterday afternoon, and we moved on, but here we are again, within minutes it seems. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on bringing forward the debate. I spoke to him last week when I became aware that he had this upcoming debate, and he is right to bring it to Westminster Hall for consideration. We must recognise the importance of UK air and missile defences and of us in Parliament collectively making a clear pledge.

The Ukraine conflict, in tandem with the sustained attacks on Israel, has illustrated—in a way that none of us wants to see, but that has unfortunately become a reality—the need for strong and robust air defence. On Israel, I will just say that it is good news that a 60-day ceasefire with Hezbollah has hopefully been agreed. We hope that the peace agreement will stand firm and can last 60 days, and possibly longer.

As hon. Members may be aware, the leading air defence company Thales in the UK and perhaps the world is based in the constituency neighbouring mine, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), although he tells me that the majority of the workers are my constituents. I am thankful to this good local employer for not simply providing skilful, gainful employment at a very decent wage, but offering incredibly helpful apprenticeships. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and I met Thales back in August, we pushed for apprenticeships, and we were pleased that the company was approaching the issue constructively. Those who gain an apprenticeship have their student fees paid, because Thales wants to retain those apprentices for the long term. One worker, who happens to be my constituent, has won the Northern Ireland apprentice of the year award, which is an indication of how much Thales does for apprentices. The use of local suppliers also means that more people than just those on site owe their employment to Thales’s innovation and excellence. The company’s design and production of air defence capabilities in Northern Ireland directly employs more than 800 people, and contributes £81 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her support for our requests for a long-term commitment. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in his place, and I know he has made numerous visits to Northern Ireland; indeed, he will probably comment on that when he makes his speech. We appreciate his past and ongoing commitment.

My gratitude extends to Thales for the security that its products offer our entire nation as we ensure that we can withstand warfare, should that be necessary. Looking back to the start of the Ukraine crisis, Thales was able to supply shoulder-held weapons that slowed down the advance of Russian armies across the whole front. That was Thales in Belfast—part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—doing its job for liberty, freedom and democracy.

A few months ago, I was pleased to learn that Thales had secured a £176 million MOD contract to produce lightweight missiles for the British Army. The order will equip the Army’s current and future short-range air defence capabilities, such as Stormer combat vehicles, and be fired by the Royal Navy’s Martlet maritime anti-surface missile systems, which are deployed from the Wildcat helicopters the hon. Member for North Durham referred to in his introduction. That is coming from us—Thales, in Belfast, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The MOD said that these lightweight multi-role missiles, weighing only 13 kg each, provide a solution against threats such as drones, helicopters, aircraft, and small, fast maritime targets. They have been used in Ukraine to aid our allies in their ongoing struggle, and they have truly made a difference. It is right and proper that we ensure we have a decent stock and the facilities and capacity to quickly access more, should the need arise.

My hon. Friend refers to the stock that we require. Hopefully it never needs to be used, but we definitely require it. Does he agree that it would help if the Government were to outline in clear detail how quickly defence spending will get to 2.5%?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister, who is assiduous in her work, will no doubt take note of that, or her officials will and will pass forward up-to-date information on where we are. I will comment on that later on, because it is really important that we look forward.

It is my hope—I know it is a shared hope in this room—that we can shortly find a way forward to peace for Israel, Ukraine and Africa—peace in so many theatres of war. Two weeks ago in the Baptist church I attend, the pastor said in his prayers that there are 47 wars in the world; that is how many there are. The ones that feature highly are Ukraine and Israel, of course, but across the world there are wars and rumours of wars. Those 47 wars give an indication of why peace is so important.

While we hope, aim and strive for peace, we must also be prepared for war. We must ensure that our armed forces are equipped and trained on land and sea and in the air, as well as in the new cyber-space, and missiles are part of that preparedness. The UK has to prepare for Russian aggression. It was in the paper this morning—the hon. Member for North Durham referred to this—that Russian drones were looking at the east of England, and I understand that the MOD was responding to them. I know that that is a hot story—if that is the way to put it—having been in the paper for the first time this morning, but maybe the Minister can give us some indication of how we are preparing ourselves for any such incursion by Russian forces, wherever it may be in the east of England—or indeed coming through the Republic of Ireland, into Northern Ireland and ultimately towards the rest of the United Kingdom. I would love there to be a special NATO relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but we must be aware that it is a back door to Britain, so we need to be prepared and ready. What is most important is that we are doing what we can.

I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to that. I know that the 2.5% is something we all want the Minister and the Government to achieve, and nobody differs in that view. What discussions have taken place with our fellow NATO countries and compatriots in battle about their preparedness to spend 2.5% for a similar reason?

I am conscious that within NATO we have our commitment to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, who are on the frontline with Russia. They have stood firm, but how can we ensure that their commitment is likewise at 2.5%? How can those that are not on the frontline, who may think they are safe because they are a way behind those countries, also commit to that 2.5%? That is something I would very much like to see. We have a change of Administration in the United States. President-elect Trump will take over on 21 January, I think, with President Biden still there until then. Have there been any discussions with the incoming President on the 2.5% commitment? If there have not been, could the Minister indicate when they might take place?

I conclude with this comment: I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend on military. This is right and proper. The production of high-level defence capacity by Thales and other UK providers must continue, to ensure that we can help our allies in need and that anyone who positions themselves as our enemy knows that our calmness and kindness are certainly not weakness. I am proud to be part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I am proud to be the hon. Member for Strangford and to ensure that we, collectively in this House, offer our support. I support the creation of these necessary arms, and I thank those who ensure that we have the capacity to continue having the world’s very best armed forces.

It is pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for obtaining the chance to debate this vital matter, and I commend him on his comprehensive diagnosis of the threats we face.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have entered a period of global instability not seen since the cold war. First, there is Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, where the threat continues to escalate and the damage continues to spread. We must answer Russia with a European, transatlantic and UK-based response that adapts to the evolving threat of warfare—be that through technology, on land, in the sea, in the air or in space. I am proud that my constituency of Stevenage plays an integral part in the UK’s response to Putin, as the place where Storm Shadow missiles are refitted for use by Ukraine.

Secondly, there is the ongoing instability in the middle east—with the risk of escalation to an all-out regional conflict that will implicate allies around the world. We must also assess our preparation for the vastly different challenges that ongoing chaos in the region will cause.

Regardless of the conflict, and the differing threats posed, it is clear that NATO, Europe and the UK are not where we need to be to confidently say we can protect our interests at home and abroad. On air defence alone, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity needed to protect Europe from a larger attack.

This matter is of deep importance to me and my constituents in Stevenage. As a former local armed forces champion, I am proud to represent a constituency where MBDA is based. The company produces Sea Ceptor and Sea Viper, which bolster our naval-based air and missile defence capabilities and are integral to the UK’s missile defence strategy—both in protecting our ground-based assets at home, and for our blue water naval capabilities wherever they may be deployed across the world.

Primes in Stevenage, such as Airbus, also support the UK’s thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector. One of those firms supplies MBDA with the thermal batteries that allow its missiles to sit dormant under pressure before going off quickly when activated. We must not downplay the role that our industry partners play in our air defence. Without the ingenuity of industry, such as that in Stevenage, we would not be able to maintain—or scale up—our missile response. It is the proud international role that my town plays in the defence sector that inspired me to take up a role as part of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and for the past week I have been at the NATO summit in Montreal discussing these exact issues with international partners. The consensus across NATO is clear: growing threats lead to growing strength, faster evolution and a more unified response than ever.

It is clear that war in Europe—war on our continent—has fundamentally shifted defence priorities and key areas for our focus. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff’s recent comment that a key area for future investment should be integrated air and missile defence, so that we better address growing global challenges and threats?

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, and I absolutely agree. We must have interoperability across all our services—not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space, which is not just the next frontier but brings it all together. We must not forget that.

Currently, the UK, alongside 22 other NATO allies, is meeting the NATO contribution requirement of 2% of GDP. I am pleased that this Labour Government have a commitment to increase that to 2.5% following the strategic defence review. In undertaking that review, the Department will be looking at the many ways in which we can develop strength where we are weak and efficiency where we are slow—and develop strength we must. It is integral to that that the UK bolsters its air and missile defence capability, especially as we saw only last week Putin’s first use of intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles in Ukraine. We must ensure that our constituents and the infrastructure on which we rely are protected from missile attack, and the threat of such attacks will continue rising for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the only way we can upscale our capability effectively is by working with both our strategic partners in NATO and our geographically-closest partners in Europe. I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and across Europe. As a third partner currently, we run the risk of not just the UK Government but our industry being locked out of discussions with our counterparts across Europe. We must work to supercharge our UK-based defence industry and give it the correct tools to work hand in hand with our European partners to keep us all safe. If that does not happen, we will not be effectively maximising either our own capability for our defence or our wider response to the war in Ukraine and to increasing uncertainty internationally.

I make this case to the Minister: keep spending, bolster our armed forces and do everything in our power to retain sovereign capability over every area of the defence sector, from manufacturing to procurement. We must speed up production and explore every avenue to develop the new technologies and systems that we need to face down modern threats and tackle global challenges. At the very heart of this all, we must prioritise the UK’s missile defence capabilities so that companies, such as MBDA and Airbus in my constituency, can contribute in an ever bigger and better way than they already are.

I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and wider Europe—one that includes an industrial pact for UK-EU collaboration on weaponry to guarantee our safety and stability while we navigate our evolving relationship with our close allies in the US.

To conclude, the rules-based order across the world is under the greatest threat since the end of the second world war. The UK has been at the very heart of creating that rules-based order, and we must do all we can to protect it. Boosting our own defences is now critical.

I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Dowd. Two airbases in my constituency of West Suffolk, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, were recently targeted by drones; residents were concerned to hear aircraft being scrambled in the middle of the night to intercept them at the weekend. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she could give us a clear account of what happened and what the response is likely to be if that continues.

I particularly want to raise a related security concern. Concerning Russia, the director general of MI5 recently said:

“We now face…state-backed sabotage”

and

“we should expect to see continued acts of aggression here at home. The GRU in particular is on a sustained mission to generate mayhem on British and European streets: we’ve seen arson, sabotage and more.”

That is obviously a serious threat to our country. I do not expect the Minister or other hon. Members present to know the details of the proposed Sunnica solar and battery farm, but it is very close to both Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and many of the service personnel who work at the bases live even nearer to the proposed site. At that site, the proposal includes battery energy storage systems, which are especially vulnerable to acts of sabotage. BESS fires on similar sites have been caused by lithium battery failure leading to thermal runaway. That can cause explosions and the resulting fires cannot be extinguished using conventional methods.

Four years ago, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to put out, and similar stories apply elsewhere around the world where those facilities have been constructed. The fires emit toxic fumes, which means that people in the vicinity must remain indoors throughout. The risk to the bases, given the location of the Sunnica solar farm, is quite obvious. I do not expect a full answer from the Minister, but in her concluding remarks can she commit to having a meeting with me and some of her officials so we can talk privately about the issue? I would be very grateful.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Bolton West, which is the home of MBDA’s Logistics North production site. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate; I particularly welcome his comments on both the lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the need to ensure that our armed forces can protect us from a diverse range of threats.

All of us will have constituents who are concerned about last week’s developments between Russia and Ukraine, including Putin’s use of an advanced hypersonic missile. This is a personal issue for me. My own father was stationed in Germany throughout the 1970s as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union loomed. The shadow cast by that period of constant existential fear is, unfortunately, a long one. The terrifying reality is that now war is not just something we read about in newspapers; it is on our doorstep. However we are not fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and streets any more. The long distance missile capabilities of hostile states mean, regrettably, that war can now reach us in our own homes.

All that is to say that sovereign capability for missile defences here in the UK has seldom been so important. As others have already noted, we are vulnerable to advanced missiles such as the one fired by Russia last week and the one fired by Iran on Israel earlier in the year. As our armed forces and defence infrastructure were left to crumble during the last 14 years, a serious capability gap has emerged, particularly around defence against air threats and our ability to engage targets at extended range. Only in September, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee warned that the Government must

“pay greater attention to homeland defence”,

particularly to

“integrated air and missile defence…in close collaboration with our European NATO allies”.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. It is increasingly clear that enhanced co-operation with NATO and other allies will be essential in achieving air and missile defence aims in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen in the recent Estonia pact, these continued alliances will not only enhance our ability to meet procurement challenges but ensure that we are able to defend against these long-range missile threats?

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will come on to that issue in the context of the recent Germany-UK defence agreement, which was signed in Trinity House only last month.

Over the weekend, there was also an intervention from former Defence Minister and former Chair of the Defence Committee Tobias Ellwood, who said that we are “woefully unprotected” and described London as “almost a sitting duck”. This issue can garner support from all sides of the House; I know that other Members will recognise the scale of the challenges ahead, which necessitate ever closer international relationships and collective defence within NATO and the European Union. With that in mind, I should say that I had the immense pleasure of talking to German counterparts as part of a delegation to Berlin in September. As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, I enthusiastically welcomed last month’s UK-Germany Trinity House agreement on defence.

The Government’s shared objective with Germany to sustain effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by building credible, resilient defence forces and defence industries is vital if we are to work towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Europe and north Atlantic. Sovereign capability, as an enduring necessity, is something that I expect the Government’s forthcoming strategic defence review will attest to. To ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, industry must remain at the very heart of our missile defence system.

MBDA employs 1,200 people in my constituency and almost 6,000 across the UK. I am sure that colleagues will agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that MBDA represents the very best in ingenuity, working as a trusted partner throughout Europe and providing the air defence capability that we and our allies need to stand up to Russia’s unwarranted aggression. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this year, when he committed to

“renewing important partnerships with industry and continuing to push technological boundaries”.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has done so already.

Scotland is a tremendous asset in defence. Companies right across the country provide enormous pieces of equipment, such as the aircraft carriers built in Scotland. Scotland also has many small and medium-sized enterprises—we have Raytheon, which provides parts for Tomahawk, and Thales on the banks of the Clyde. However, does the Minister know that there is something of a hostile environment from the Scottish Government towards companies that need to ramp up and access finance to deliver the large orders coming from the Ministry of Defence? Senior Scottish Government figures have boasted about the fact that, under their watch, money would not be given to large companies for warfighting capabilities; it would be for civilian use only. That is alarming. We will need to ally with defence companies as well as NATO.

The hon. Member makes an important point about the importance of the defence sector across all four nations of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State also spoke at the Farnborough International Airshow about the importance of driving prosperity and creating skilled jobs across the country. But defence cannot be done on the cheap—we will have to put our hands in our pockets. It is an investment, not a cost, and I must urge the Government to reach the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target at the earliest opportunity so that the rogue states causing ongoing geopolitical instability know that their continued unlawful aggression will not and cannot win.

To conclude, the threats we face are very real, as are the resourcing, production capacity and resilience needs. I look forward to further measures from the new Government to show their resolve to stand up to Putin, invest in our defence capability and increase domestic manufacturing capacity.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst); I know how important this subject is for not only his constituents, but mine and many others across the north-east. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) have made remarks on the importance of manufacturing and industry, and that is where I will focus my comments.

Prior to arriving in this place, and since my election, I have done some work on manufacturing and industry with the Royal United Services Institute. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the conclusion of some work it did a couple of years ago: a prolonged war will be won ultimately by the country with the strongest industrial base. That is a comment with which we can all agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned the September 2024 House of Lords report on the importance of paying greater attention to homeland defence. That is really the crux of the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. The reorientation of defence from expeditionary to homeland defence means that we must rely on our own domestic industry to secure our defence. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also talked of the number of missiles, drones and so on that have been expended in the war in Ukraine. It is important to think of all of those missiles and drones as machines composed of semiconductors, plastics, metals, ceramics, advanced manufacturing and advanced machining, all of which we would be required to produce from our own economy in a conflict.

That House of Lords report also drew attention to the need to generate and maintain mass in a conflict. That is the ability of our economy to ensure that we can field second and third-echelon fighting forces, protect our critical national infrastructure and safeguard lines of communication to frontline troops. I know that the Government are considering integrated air missile defences in the forthcoming strategic defence review, and I am pleased that this debate and my hon. Friend’s opening remarks will raise the profile of that. However, I hope that review will also look at how we strengthen our homeland security. Particularly given the threat from Putin, we need to consider how we will grow our industrial base.

Fortunately, we are starting in a reasonably strong position: our defence industry is a global leader. That is why I believe the Government have included defence as one of the eight growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy, Invest 2035. But we need to invest further in capabilities that will deter and defeat future threats, and that will rely, beyond our defence industry, on our wider foundation industries.

I will talk a bit about the foundation industries and their role. I welcome the Government’s protection of the Coherent semiconductor plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). But we can think of other examples such as the CF Fertilisers plant in Billingham in my constituency, which produced ammonia for explosives for over 100 years but closed last year due to an uncompetitive business environment in the UK. In the steel industry, we talk a lot about big steel centres such as Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, but a number of years ago we lost our only electrical steel capability almost without a murmur.

There is a wider issue here in Europe. Plastics demand in Europe grew by over 6% last year, but production in Europe declined by 3%. Technical ceramics are essential for all our missile defence systems, but the ceramics industry is also struggling under high and uncompetitive energy prices. The Defence Committee report earlier this year, “Ready for War?”, identified some serious deficiencies in our defence procurement practices, with the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and suppliers

“not anywhere close to where it needs to be”.

The report identified a pressing need to strengthen domestic production across the board.

If supported by a positive investment environment and a pipeline of projects, we know that the UK economy possesses a range of domestic steel producers—the sector that I worked in—and suppliers in other areas that can produce these key components. We have a great opportunity, with the combination of the defence industrial strategy, the steel strategy, which will be published in spring, and the modern industrial strategy, to set the scene for private sector investment that will enable us to strengthen these capabilities.

Finally, I draw Members’ attention to the words of former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. He characterised this debate appropriately when he said,

“without industry, there is no defence, no deterrence and no security.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for bringing forward this critical debate.

In 1988, The Sunday Times published a formative exposition of the integrated air defence system that protected the UK at the time. I managed to find the article, called “Can the RAF defend us?”, with the aid of the Library. It gave a very detailed analysis of the system in place, some parts of which had not changed since 1938, and it spoke of how an investment of about £10 billion on combined programmes would address that. I enjoyed reminding myself, while reading the article, of the places that were commissioned back then that I finally served in during the early 2000s. The reason for bringing that up is that, then as now, we need a clear understanding of where we are and of the degradation in our services since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

Defence has three outputs: policy, capability and operations. We must convince ourselves of the need to do some of the things that my hon. Friend spoke about eloquently earlier. On policy, we must recognise that our security problem is inherently European. The European Sky Shield initiative is fundamental, so it is critical that we enhance and recover some of our relationships with our European partners, and that we remain NATO-first. We must recognise that we will not stand alone, and that the solution to our problems and funding must have a European bent. I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend discussed and enhance our European relationships —specifically regarding access to funding and partnerships.

I note the article’s clear recognition that our Army was inherently European based. It is largely pointless having tanks on Salisbury plain when the threat is elsewhere. I wonder whether now is the time to reconsider where some of our Army is based. Having a deployed Army that contributes to a security problem will also need an air defence above it. We need to give consideration to the service that, at present, is prime in delivering parts of our integrated air defence system. I also welcome the discussion about Type 45s. It is imperative that we understand that the Royal Navy has a part to play in our air defences, and that Type 45s not just protect the carrier but are fundamental to ensuring the long sea track.

With policy, it is essential that, whatever solutions we come to, we ensure that we are in the grey zone right now. Defence is about deterrence, and it is fundamental that we maintain a posture that deters our enemy. We must understand that this logic has already started: our enemies have already started to encroach on some of the fundamental parts of our deterrence, including damaging the rules-based international order. I urge the Minister to take back to the Department a discussion about a deterrence policy that works around our integrated air defence—something that is discussed incredibly well in the 1988 article.

On capability, I do not wish to politicise the debate, but just as we now reflect openly on the damage that the 1957 defence review did to our industries, we must have an honest discussion about the impact of the 2010 SDSR. Critically, we must recognise what happens when we take capability holidays, and how those create long and lasting impacts on our capabilities. That is why we are in the position that we are in now. Some of the capabilities that were mentioned in the opening speech are not there because we did not support the industries that were enabled to build them. A recovery of our industrial base is essential. Readiness is about availability, capability and sustainability. The greatest damage that has been done to our defence enterprise is in our ability to sustain a response. We must have an industry that is capable of building and sustaining the stocks necessary to counter mass.

On operations, we have circa 10,000 people deployed on 250 operations worldwide at the moment. The Defence Committee was told the other day that we have about 100,000 personnel fit to fight. For it to be sustainable—not using harmony guidelines, which are complex to work out—that is a force of 30,000 people who are committed today to operations. It is also not unreasonable to assume that an amount of our forces above that are in readiness, and they should also be at a ratio of 3:1 or greater, so something upwards of 30% of our fighting force is currently deployed sustainably.

I ask the Minister to foster an honest discussion within the Department about whether that is affordable and sustainable. We need our forces at home, or on European soil, training and getting ready for the coming fight. We cannot erode our defence enterprise by doing what may be considered profligate operations that do not contribute to our future security.

My hon. Friend is making a very thought-provoking speech. In an increasingly volatile world where new global threats are constantly emerging, we must ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. That is why I was pleased to see recent progress on the new air defence laser, equipping RAF pilots with high tech to defeat missile threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that steps are taken to put us at the cutting edge of innovation to enhance our air and missile defence capabilities?

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and apposite intervention. I agree that to be able to respond and counter mass, we need technology. To align that with the point I was making, it is essential that we have people trained and ready to use that technology, which is why the size and mass of our deployments is critical. If we do not allow our forces to train and recover adequately, they will not be able to exercise and be ready to use those technologies as they come online.

I urge the Minister to address the points that I have made in this honest discussion, particularly about deployment. I also ask her to look at the disparity in some of the policies we are using when our forces are deployed—in particular, those that have an impact on weapons carriage hours. There is a significant disparity in the policies that we use to sustain our stocks, and an alignment with NATO and, certainly, the US would bring significant cost savings and reductions in the size requirements of our stockpiles. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might be able to talk about that, based on his experience and understanding.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for securing this debate. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about the removal of costly and antiquated systems. I am hopeful about the SDR, and I am very grateful that the Government value the service of our armed forces.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. Leonardo is a key player in our defence industry and an employer in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that Leonardo, as the sole remaining bidder in the next stage of the procurement process for the new medium helicopter, represents an important step in moving towards supporting the UK’s manufacturing and innovation sectors?

He is not right hon!

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. My strong congratulations to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an extremely timely debate. He spoke very well—in fact, all colleagues have contributed very thoughtful speeches on this important subject. Because of what is happening in Ukraine and what we have seen in the Red sea and Israel, many now say we should adopt some form of Iron Dome. This debate is very timely and I am grateful for it.

I echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and the hon. Member for North Durham in asking the Minister to update us on the overnight story of drones flying over United States Visiting Forces bases in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the apparent deployment of the negation of improvised non-state joint aerial, or NINJA, and ORCUS systems—which is different from the AUKUS defence pact with our partners. It would be good to have an update on how that was used.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a key point. I launched the integrated procurement model in February, and he is right that one should not look at missile defence in silos—no pun—because there has to be a joined-up multi-domain approach, particularly for space. I strongly agree with him that that will be a decisive factor in the early stages of something we hope will never happen: existential war. We need to be interoperable with allies, and the systems we procure need to be integrated across all the domains of our defence posture.

We do still need to consider these issues at domain level. My last visit to an army base, a week before the election was called, was to Thorney Island on the south coast to the 7th Air Defence Group. It used to be regarded as quite obscure but, because it is a ground-based air defence unit, it found itself at the heart of the debate on future defence. When I visited, I was clear that we would be ordering significant new levels of GBAD, including lightweight multi-role missiles for short-range, but also Land Ceptor units. I hope the Minister can confirm that those orders are continuing under the new Government and will be scaled up. As colleagues have said, we need more scale than we currently have because of the changing threat.

In the air domain, we currently rely on the Typhoon as our backbone. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) made a good point that GCAP, which I support, is way off in the future, in the 2030s. What is going to happen to boost lethality in the near term? It would be good if the Minister could update us on E-Scan radar with Typhoon, which will significantly increase its capability. It has been intercepting drones and missiles in the middle east and remains the backbone of our air defence. We must ensure that it is operating at the most capable level it can achieve.

I am particularly concerned about the maritime threat. We are supporting Ukraine, not in the theatre, but through the supply of ordnance. In the naval situation, our own ships were threatened, along with our own British sailors. It is in the public domain that the Houthis have obtained ballistic missiles from Iran and possibly other actors. That is a very serious threat. They may not yet have the fullest capability, but there was a worrying report this week that they are sending troops to support Russia in exchange for targeting information. That is a very serious development.

Given the ballistic threat, and given that Sea Ceptor cannot currently intercept in the terminal phase, we need rapidly to accelerate the Evolution upgrade, as far as we are able. That would give us an anti-ballistic capability. We may have to consider an urgent operational requirement for the standard missile 3—a US missile on the USS Arleigh Burke—that can intercept ballistic threats. I believe that could go in our Mark 41 launchers when our Type 26 and Type 31 start entering the sea. We will have to think like that because the threat is evolving so fast.

I strongly feel that technology is where we can enhance our forces. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, spoke about laser. When I was presented with DragonFire, I thought, “Wow!” If we can get this capability into service as fast as possible, crucially—although is obviously experimental up to a point—there may be a way to intercept drones without denuding our missile stockpile. That is incredibly significant. The other directed-energy weapon we looked at was the radio frequency one, which I saw at Thorney Island. That is not an electronic warfare system; it is a kinetic strike from sound waves that can take out multiple drones at once, for something like 10p a shot. At the moment, it has a relatively limited range.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will be pursuing those directed-energy weapons. If we go at them hard and fast, and deliver them into the arms of our forces quicker than other nations, we will boost not only our lethality and capability, but our defence industry. It is not just the link with industry, but the link with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and our brilliant scientists that matters, as well as creating the integrated procurement system that I wanted. I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham talked about that system, which enables us to develop really quickly and remain at the cutting edge.

Obviously, as I think all colleagues have said, there is one key issue: procuring these weapons, systems and capabilities costs money. We need to commit to 2.5%, and the Conservative position was to achieve that by 2030. Now, we can go back to the 2010s, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did. He knows that I am a great fan of his; he showed me around the cockpit of an A400 and I was very grateful. He has huge expertise from his time in service, but I have to be clear that the Labour party would have cut defence spending by 25% in 2010 had they won the election. The financial position then was incredibly bleak. We now have to put the past behind us. It was a long-term decline—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, but the fact is that defence spending fell under both the Conservatives and Labour, as it had around the world since the end of the cold war, because we all thought peace was upon us. In defence, we all have to adjust to the threat picture as we see it.

This is the crucial point: when we announced our funding pathway to 2.5% in April, which the Prime Minister announced in Germany, it would have included reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size to pay for it. That is not a particularly ambitious target, but the No. 1 priority of that extra spending would have been replenishment and rearmament. By replenishment, we mean replacing the arms we have given to Ukraine, and by rearmament, we mean replacing our technological warfighting capabilities—for example, making the evolution system for Sea Viper an absolute priority.

If we have a multi-year funding path in the MOD, we can procure at scale and at pace. If we have one-off, one-year adjustments—even if it is £2.9 billion—they will not enable procurement at the scale and pace that we require, and that is a fact. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) actually made the very good point that, if we go back to the Select Committee appearance by the Secretary of State, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan of military capability said that we need “always on” production. That is what a multi-year settlement gives us. Ultimately, wars are fought on industrial capability.

I will make two more points. On our allies, an excellent point was made about DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences, an initiative that I launched—which is about having tests for missile defence, like those we have in the Outer Hebrides for cruise missiles with the Navy. We need to train to be interoperable as NATO in Europe in those capabilities. We also have to look at multilateral procurement so that we as a continent are buying together to leverage economies of scale.

My final point, which I think is absolutely crucial, is about the deterrent. The hon. Member for North Durham said at the beginning that this is about conventional air defence. We have to be absolutely clear that, when Putin starts talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile being used, he is not going to not use it because we have missile defence; the thing that will stop him using it is fear of second strike from our ballistic missiles. We hope that would never happen—it is the extreme response to the extreme threat—but, while people talk about neglecting homeland security, we have had a submarine continuously at sea since 1969 with the most extraordinary lethality aboard. The scale of what it can do is quite unimaginable, and it is still absolutely at the technological cutting edge.

My point is this: we must not take that for granted. It must still be the cornerstone of the SDR; it is our No. 1 defence and it is ultimately the reason why countries will not, I believe, be tempted to launch conventional missile attacks. After all, if they attacked London with conventional missiles, that is a declaration of war under article 5, and a country doing that would ultimately have to be prepared to risk a nuclear response—that is what would be at stake.

That is not to say for one moment that we should not be considering how we upgrade our air defence— I totally agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of that—but in the SDR, the nuclear deterrent should still be the No. 1 priority because it is the fundamental way in which we defend ourselves. Again, that means a multi-year funding settlement so that we can invest in infrastructure and the expensive capabilities that come with it.

We have heard some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the need to get to 2.5% as soon as possible. The Conservatives strongly agree with him, and we hope the Minister will still be pushing for that.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be.

Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there.

We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—

Will the Minister give way?

I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will just say this: last week the Government announced very significant cuts to defence capability without waiting for the SDR, so why do they have to wait for the SDR to realise that we need to go to 2.5% to replenish our munitions as a matter of urgency? They must know that, no matter how many SDRs they undertake.

Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%.

This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging.

Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use.

This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it.

The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies.

Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do.

That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces.

Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need.

We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression.

We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans.

One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—

Order. Sorry, Minister, but I want to give the Member in charge the opportunity to wind up. You have a minute left.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. All the screens are showing different times. I am perfectly happy to conclude my remarks.

Actually, I think it is appropriate that the time has been used by the Minister, because getting those reassurances is extremely important. That is what we all wanted to hear. I am particularly pleased that she recognised that the purpose of the debate was to demonstrate the support across the House, as well as the knowledge of the set of threats. I welcome her saying that a key part of the SDR will be to look at preparedness against missile threats.

I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that he need have no concerns about support for the nuclear deterrent. A recurring theme of my entire political life has been getting stuck into the arguments for the sustaining and renewal of the nuclear deterrent. It is part of my political brand. I am sure we can have that debate another time.

I thank all hon. Members who contributed. There were important contributions from Members who have an industrial interest in their constituency. From Thales to MBDA, we have some excellent technologies around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) made an excellent contribution about the wider industrial concerns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made another insightful contribution, based on his service in the armed forces—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).