PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
National Security Strategy - 24 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Today the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree to a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035—to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending, and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done, the United Kingdom will play our part.

NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russia’s invasion; a time when we in Europe are being asked to do more to secure our own defences; a time when security involves not just the traditional realms of air, sea and land, but technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society; and, as we have seen in recent days, a time of renewed military action in the middle east, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but as we have seen, even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile and the focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It is to the great pride of my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the second world war with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said that

“we must face the facts as they are.”—[Official Report, 22 January 1948; Vol. 446, c. 386.]

Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are.

The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad, matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims. Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our No. 1 priority, and our national security strategy sets out how we will do that.

The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the challenge to leadership in times of such change is to understand, to respond and to explain. The British people understand this. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, more turbulent and more unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead. The strategy we have published today does that, with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges that we face. It sets out a long-term vision for how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory, controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies—one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.

Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. That means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances, and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means taking a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China in order to protect our national security and promote our economic interests, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further statement on the China audit shortly.

Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities by rebuilding our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths, and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.

All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each commitment will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy, published yesterday, will help play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country, with a health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people, all of which contribute to a strong United Kingdom.

That is why it is so important that all parts of Government and businesses big and small understand that cyber-security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws—from borders to trade—fit with national security. This will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.

This document provides the blueprint of how this fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend that 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the over £1 billion we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas such as cyber capability; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our armed forces since the cold war; our plan for defence investment to unlock real benefits for working people; how we will prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision for not only deepening our alliances with the United States and the European Union, but growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million for the supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh; and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our artificial intelligence agenda.

We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the cold war, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken step after step to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies, and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened our country. Today’s strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times, but rooted in long-held values. It is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities, and I commend it to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement and of the strategy.

Protecting our country from internal and external threats to keep the British people and our interests safe is the No. 1 priority for any Government. As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the incredible efforts of our security and intelligence services to keep us safe. So much of their work will never be disclosed, but I know that the whole House will join me in thanking them for all they do, alongside our police, counter-terrorism operations, the armed forces and all those who work so hard to keep Britain safe.

His Majesty’s Opposition will always work constructively with the Government in the national interest, especially in the current global climate when threats are increasingly complex and multifaceted. Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, non-state terrorist actors and transnational criminals all pose a significant threat to us all. That is why we welcome actions that build on the measures we put in place in government, including our National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action and introduced the foreign influence registration scheme.

The statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars of security at home, strength abroad, and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, and I will take each in turn. On security at home, protecting critical national infrastructure must be a key component of any national security strategy. How will that work in practice? What resources will be provided? What further steps are being taken to protect people on British soil from transnational repression? With China placing bounties on the heads of people in our own country and both the NSS and the strategic defence review highlighting the threats posed by China, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that China will be placed on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will the Government drop their support for the China super-embassy spy hub?

On projecting our strength abroad, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today’s NATO summit, and the commitment to increase what he calls national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% on core defence. But he does not have a plan to get to 3%, let alone the 3.5%. It is all smoke and mirrors, so when will he deliver a plan to get to 3%, and why will he not heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament? That would be a vital stepping stone on the way to the higher defence spending he is seeking. Will the Government give clear information on exactly what spending will be included in the 1.5% target? Is there any new money, and does this, for example, include the costs of Sizewell, as we heard recently?

As well as increasing spending, we need to develop a tougher edge for a dangerous world. Given the security threats that we continue to face, will Labour’s £30 billion Chagos surrender treaty be scrapped? It undermines our national security, and contrary to the Prime Minister’s claim, our loss of sovereignty has been publicly backed by representatives of the regimes in China, Russia and Iran. The costs also hoover up money that we could spend on much-needed defence capabilities at this incredibly dangerous time.

On increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain what support will be given to private enterprise and what investment will support efforts in this area? I also note that the words in the Government’s strategy do not quite align with their broader action—for example, the decision to allow the Chinese firm Mingyang to provide wind turbines for large wind farm projects in the UK. Does he acknowledge the need to protect our energy infrastructure from such potential malign activity, and if so, what concrete steps have been taken to increase the very resilience of our own infrastructure?

Finally, on the important role of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and of parliamentary oversight, we understand that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has not been made available to the Committee for questioning. The Government have claimed that it would not be appropriate for him as a special adviser to answer questions from the Committee. However, in this case, it is more than clear that Mr Powell’s role as the National Security Adviser puts him in a unique position—a unique senior position—and it appears that, as the lead adviser for the Government’s national security strategy, it is only right that the Joint Committee be able to put questions to him. Given the important issue here, and Mr Powell’s senior role and central position, will the Government finally let him give evidence to the Committee to allow it to undertake its important work?

We will always work to support the defence and security of Britain, and engage constructively with Ministers and challenge them to do everything possible to keep us safe, so I welcome the chance for these questions to be answered today.

Let me express my gratitude to the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, the spirit in which she put her questions and her welcome for at least broad parts of the strategy we have published today. Let me turn to the questions she has asked and try to address them.

On the resources to protect people, we made our commitment to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. Unlike the Conservative party, we said exactly how we would pay for that, even though it meant a very difficult choice on this side of the House. On the FIRS scheme, the right hon. Lady will be aware that Iran and Russia have been placed on the enhanced tier. She asked about our approach to China. This is a serious question and we must have a serious approach to it. The Conservative party, during its time in government, veered between the naivety of the so-called “golden era” to, in effect, no engagement at all. We believe that both were the wrong approach. Instead, our approach will be marked by a desire to protect our national security and to promote our economic interests; total disengagement is not a good option for the UK, so we will be guided by both. The Foreign Secretary, as I said, will make a fuller statement on China shortly.

The right hon. Lady asks what might be included in the 1.5%. It will include such things as cyber-security, border security and telecoms infrastructure. To those who ask what those things have to do with defence, let me be clear: our opponents and our enemies know that they are part of national security, and we should recognise that, too.

Finally, we have resisted the Opposition’s pleas for us to choose between our allies. In resisting that, I believe we have a strategy that makes our country stronger and enhances Britain’s capabilities. That is at the heart of the strategy we put today. Indeed, we made a conscious choice to increase investment in the country’s future capabilities at the spending review. This will give us increased strength in the future. The spending we have committed to is funded, it is set out in the spending review and that is the approach we will take in the future, too.

I call the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I totally agree that defence and security have to begin at home, in the home and in the workplace. This is a very welcome comprehensive national security strategy, given its wide-ranging assessment of all the threats we face, in defence, security, critical national infrastructure and so on. An impressive number of workstreams have fed into it—AUKUS, the SDR, the resilience review and so on—but there was no mention of the National Security Council. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what he is doing to ensure that there is a coherence across the strategy that will herald a cultural change in how this country faces security?

I thank the Chair of the Joint Committee for his question. I should have said, in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, that I hope to reach a resolution with the Committee soon on the matter of appearances before it. I am always happy to appear before the Committee, if invited. The Chairman of the Joint Committee is quite right to say to the House that publishing strategies is one thing, but there must be follow through. The difference between this and some other documents produced is that it is a whole-system approach, looking at sovereign capability, international alliances and making our country a harder target for our enemies. All three of those must be brought together and followed through in a systematic way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the Government’s national security strategy, because we recognise that we are living in a world that is less stable and more insecure now than at any time since the end of the cold war. Putin’s forces continue to wage their war in Ukraine, the middle east is teetering on the precipice of a fully-fledged regional war, and the actions of the United States under an unreliable President Trump are putting an enormous strain on the post-war settlement from which we have benefited so much.

The nature of the threats we face continues to evolve, as has become immensely clear to millions of people across the country with the recent cyber-attacks on Marks and Spencer and the Co-op, and in other countries we have seen attempts by authoritarian states to meddle in free and fair elections. That is why we welcome so much of what is contained in the strategy. It is also why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, although we have urged Ministers to go further.

Given the new NATO target of 5% of GDP, will the Government now urgently convene cross-party talks to establish a consensus on how to get there? We need to show our adversaries we are serious about that commitment. The strategy also has a welcome focus on resilience, something especially important given not just the scale of the threat we face but its varied nature. Will the Minister look at steps taken by our allies such as Estonia to inform their populations about how to deal with those threats, should they arise? To reflect the threat posed to our democracy by hostile actors, will he make protecting our democracy a national security priority? I also note the importance that the review places on sovereign independent capabilities. Is that an admission from the Government that, under President Trump, the United States is no longer a reliable ally? Will the assessment be carried over into defence procurement, where we look to maintain an inextricably close bond with the United States?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Let me try to go through some of the issues she raised. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the recent cyber-attacks on Marks and Spencer, the Co-op and the legal aid system. They show what both state and non-state actors can do, and they show how important it is that we strengthen our cyber-capabilities and our cyber-defences as much as possible. In terms of being serious, the actions we have taken so far since the election show that we are serious. We have a plan in place to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP this Parliament. It took a very difficult decision to do that, but at the spending review we showed exactly how that would be paid for. On her reference to the United States, it remains a strong, reliable, deep and important ally for the United Kingdom. The relationship between us helps to protect the British people every day.

In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states:

“Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.”

May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves?

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. If people look at page 39 of the document, they will see many references to China, and I referred to the statement that the Foreign Secretary is going to make. On our advice to people, as I said, it is guided by the protection of our security interest and the promotion of our economic interest. She refers specifically to the devolved Governments and the nations and regions. We did arrange a recent security briefing for the First Ministers at the time of the recent meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, because we agree it is important to bring them into our thinking and help them play their role in protecting our national security interest, too.

The right hon. Gentleman’s long experience will tell him that sometimes in government the grander the language the less significant the actual announcement. But if on this occasion—I am perfectly prepared to accept that this is so—the Government are making a serious effort to redraw the boundaries of what is national security policy and what is not, does he agree that we need matching parliamentary scrutiny of that area of policy? As he knows, the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only Committee with the necessary clearances to look at classified material. Does he think that this is a good moment to look again at the memorandum of understanding between the Committee and the Government about what the Committee covers?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the document is distinguished by a broader view of national security, which is also reflected in the discussion at NATO today, where we are looking beyond our core defence expenditure on our armed forces to the other things we have discussed that contribute to our national security. I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee for its work in all its iterations over the years. I have a good dialogue with the Committee. I look forward to that continuing, and to the Committee playing its very important role.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on building up our armed forces in this more uncertain world, but is it not also vital for our national security that we focus on preventing conflict? Bringing sides together to negotiate and mediate can stop conflict spilling over and allow our armed forces to focus on the serious threats he has identified in the national security strategy. It is for that reason that former military chiefs, heads of the Security Service and Select Committee Chairs last week wrote a letter to the PM calling for investment in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Will the Minister commit to using all the tools in our kitbag, including peacebuilding and conflict prevention, to keep our citizens safe?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the deep expertise that exists in the diplomatic service, which advances our national interests in a whole range of ways every day, including in conflict resolution. I pay tribute to the work of those in our diplomatic posts and diplomatic service across the world.

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read a small quote from page 10:

“We will continue to abide by the important principle—shared by NATO and its key partners—that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions are inextricably linked”.

But that is not how the US views it. The Trump Administration see them as quite separate, and would prefer the United Kingdom to focus its efforts on the Euro-Atlantic. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that discrepancy?

They are inextricably linked. While the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit today, our carrier group is in the Indo-Pacific region. It is quite right that the strategy we have published today draws attention to our responsibilities, our ambition and our determination to act in both arenas.

I welcome this national security strategy. Defence begins at home, and my community plays a role in the UK’s security and resilience with the HQ of Standing Joint Command in Aldershot. We need to focus as much on national resilience as on conventional military threats, so will my right hon. Friend share the work he has been doing on the national resilience strategy? How does it fit with the national security strategy that is in front of us today?

My hon. Friend is right that resilience and target hardening must be part of our national security strategy. Resilience is about capability and investment; we are determined to do both, and will have more to say about resilience in the coming weeks.

Before the most recent election, the Intelligence and Security Committee produced a very comprehensive report on China, making it very clear that it considers China to be one of our greatest threats. I am therefore astonished that, in the whole of today’s strategy, there are three paragraphs that deal with China, and that it raises one or two issues and then proceeds to take a different decision. It talks about there being a problem with human rights—which is genocide—and the cyber-security attacks on the UK, as well as China’s espionage, interference in our democracy, sanctioning of people like myself and undermining of our economic security, and its being guilty of transnational repression. China also ships arms to Myanmar, keeping that brutal regime in charge, at the same time as building the largest navy. To what degree do three paragraphs satisfy the idea that China should surely be in the list of threats?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me make it clear that any sanctions on UK parliamentarians are wrong, and there is no place for them. The paragraphs he refers to set out some of our position on China. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary will, however, make a broader statement on the China audit immediately after this statement. I repeat again what I said in my opening remarks: our approach to China will be guided by protecting our security interests, which we will always do robustly, but also by promoting our economic interests; we do have an economic relationship with the second biggest economy in the world.

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement, which is another firm example of this Government’s top priority of keeping residents safe. As the nature of warfare is changing, may I once again gently raise the importance of health security, and lobby for Harlow to be the new home of the UK Health Security Agency?

I believe my hon. Friend is due happy birthday wishes, so let me take that opportunity, and thank him, too, for his tireless campaigning for locating the laboratories in Harlow. The facilities are an important capability for the United Kingdom. A decision has been awaited for some years; I am not ready to announce it today, but people will not have too long to wait before it is announced.

The national security strategy document outlines an expanded meaning of national security to include areas such as food security. If food security is national security—I certainly agree it is—we need to increase domestic production instead of cutting support for farmers and increasing our reliance on imports from the other side of the world. Will the Chancellor outline how the national security strategy will be used to change policy at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

The Government agree that food security is important. Our farmers, food producers and food retailers have been burdened with far too many increased costs and delays in recent years, but the recent sanitary and phytosanitary agreement we reached with the European Union will lift that burden. That will be good news for food producers in the UK, who will be able to grow and sell their magnificent produce with much greater ease than in recent years.

It is vital that the UK has robust defences against biological incidents, accidents and attacks. What steps are the Government taking to invest in our biosecurity, and how that will help to protect our country from the range of bio-threats that we face?

There is a £1 billion investment in biosecurity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for DEFRA has been able to announce only today new investment in critical resources at Weybridge as part of that.

I welcome today’s national security strategy, which bears a remarkable resemblance to every single one I have seen over the past 15 years. There have been only very slight adjustments over that period; I wonder whether there is any connection between the authors, or whether it is just that the officials have not changed, so the politics has not changed. However, one thing that really has changed over that period is technology, and the document I have seen this morning has very little connection to the democratisation of technology that we have seen in Ukraine’s warfare in Russia or between Israel and Iran—or, indeed, in warfare we might see waged against us by the switching off of electronic items, including solar panels and cars by the Chinese state.

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of technology, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. It is why we have put such stress on having an AI action plan to make this country as strong as possible in this field, and why we have made the investment in the supercomputer at Edinburgh and this time put the money behind it. Such technology is a critical part of our strength as a country and we have significant advantage and expertise in it. One aspect of the document is about ensuring that, where we have an advantage, we invest in it and we make sure that it deepens our capability in those crucial ways.

I have Dreghorn and Redford barracks in my constituency, so I can only welcome the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war. However, many people will be concerned about the cost. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here: if our NATO allies are increasing spending along with us, is there an opportunity for our defence sector to benefit from that, generating jobs and helping to grow our economy?

My hon. Friend is right. Decisions to increase defence expenditure are not just about direct spending on the armed forces, but about the supply chain, industrial capability, defence suppliers and, critically, the skills to meet our defence needs. That is why the Prime Minister has referred to a defence dividend. This is not just security policy; it is industrial and skills policy, too.

Cyber-security is core and central to our security at home, but a significant weakness is the security of the cabling in the North Atlantic and along the west coast of Ireland. For too long, the Irish Government have freeloaded and taken for granted the United Kingdom providing defence and security. Have the Government approached the Irish Government to see whether they will pay or play their part?

I recently had the privilege of visiting the cyber centre at Queen’s university in Belfast, which is doing fantastic research in this area. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance of subsea cables. These carry critical data between us and overseas countries every day and it is certainly part of our strategy to do everything that we can to protect our subsea cable infrastructure.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), I welcome the focus on science and technology in the national security strategy. A new innovation quarter is being developed in Talbot village and the local council aspires to be an AI growth zone, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell me how this strategy will support growth and security in my constituency and across the south-west of England?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of technology. I said in my opening remarks that the investments that we made in the spending review, which did not fall from the sky but came about because of choices made by the Government, contribute to the strength and resilience of the country. That is why the strategy talks of three pillars—homeland security, alliances abroad and deepening our sovereign capabilities—and all three are important.

Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events?

I would say that my faith in British society was strong. It is a strong society with deeply held democratic values. We never take that for granted, but it has been enduring and strong over the years. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance of defending our democracy. We will always defend the right to have free elections and of our elected representatives to go about their business. We will also do our best to promote free speech and debate in our democratic process.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the experience that we had several years ago—in the early stages of the Ukraine war—which showed the perils of over-reliance on overseas oil and gas. That is why investment in clean, home-grown energy is also an investment in our national security and why it contributes directly to the broader view of national security that is outlined in the strategy that we have published today.

As the MP for Edinburgh West, I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the defence industries in which so many of my constituents work in the city. As the Liberal Democrat Scotland spokesperson, however, I also welcome what the Minister himself describes as a “critical” investment in the supercomputer at Edinburgh university. Will there be discussions with the Scottish Government to ensure that not just the national security implications but the educational and economic growth opportunities are achieved for the whole country, so that the whole country benefits?

The hon. Lady said that she was speaking with two hats, and let me tell her that I know how that feels. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of dialogue with the Scottish Government. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred to the First Minister in her question. Yes, we do have a positive dialogue. Of course there are political differences, but the dialogue is probably in a better place than it has been for some time. As a former graduate of Edinburgh university, I very much welcome the investment in the supercomputer there.

I welcome this statement, particularly the attempt to renew and refresh our key alliances and develop new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. Clearly, the United States remains our most important defence and security ally, but we also have historic relationships with countries such as India, where we have recently agreed a very successful trade deal. In addition, the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group arrived in Singapore yesterday on a visit. In view of those relationships, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outline how the Government are strengthening our defence security relationships with key allies, such as India and Singapore, in the strategically important location of the Indo-Pacific?

My hon. Friend is right that the UK Carrier Strike Group is in Singapore and he is also right to draw attention to the very important India trade deal that was reached by the Government just a few weeks ago. In recent months, we have reached trade agreements with the US, with the European Union and with India. Many people thought that that could not be done over a course of years, but it was done over a course of weeks. Each one of those agreements will help to strengthen our economy and deepen our alliances with key allies.

I note what the Minister said about social resilience. There is little point in strategising to defend our security and power in the world if we surrender our freedoms and culture without a whimper at home. Therefore, what will the Government do, for example, to stop the misuse of sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the decisions of the likes of Bristol university and the Government with their proposed Islamophobia definition, to create a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the depth and strength of British society. This is a society that has sustained robust debate over the years, and I think that it can do so in the future. It is a critical part of our national strength and a part of what makes this country great. I pay tribute to British society for being so strong and for allowing such robust debate.

Does the Minister agree that our energy security is fundamental to our national security, and, therefore, does he share my concerns that Conservative Members now appear to disagree with the investment that we are making in energy security in this country? If they disagree with the investment that we are making in nuclear, small modular reactors and Great British Energy, they should stand up and say so.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we make the decision to invest in new nuclear power, that is a contribution to our energy security. When we make the investment in other home-grown clean energy, that is a contribution to our national security. It is essential that, in this day and age, we have a broad view of national security, which understands our vulnerabilities and the importance of protecting ourselves against them.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned new technology, such as AI and the expansion of our legal toolkit, but very little about the legal safeguards and domestic checks and balances that are needed. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure me about what checks and balances will be included to ensure that the civil liberties of UK citizens are protected at all costs?

Of course we will protect civil liberties. There is a live debate about both security and opportunity in AI, and both are part of our strategy. Let me be clear that we are on the threshold of something that has enormous possibilities, and it is an area in which the UK has significant and deep strengths. The strategy we published today states that we should deepen our capabilities in these areas to grow our sovereign capabilities and that that, in turn, will make us stronger as a country. That is what we intend to do.

Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby, just outside my constituency, is a major employer of my constituents. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the Government remain committed to the nuclear triple lock and comment on how today’s announcement will support our nuclear manufacturing industry in the east midlands?

I pay tribute to the work of Rolls-Royce and the contribution it makes to our national security. I assure my hon. Friend that our commitment to the nuclear deterrent as a cornerstone of our national security is right there as part of our national security strategy.

Labour has repeatedly stated that food security is national security—a point with which I and many of my constituents wholeheartedly agree—yet there remains a clear disconnect between that rhetoric and the substance of current policy. Beyond the announced biosecurity measures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster genuinely believe that the national security strategy goes far enough to address the resilience of domestic food supply chains, the risk posed by climate change to agriculture, and systemic vulnerabilities in our food system?

As I said a few moments ago, this Government have lifted the cost, delay and bureaucracy burdens on our food producers by reaching an SPS veterinary agreement with the European Union that the Conservatives would never have reached because of their ideological objection to doing so. The agreement is good for our farmers and food producers, and it is something that this Government have done.

In this strategy, I read a number of encouraging promises. I quote two of them: “controlling our borders” and “controls on immigration”. How will applying those two promises work out at the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which allows unfettered immigrant passage into the United Kingdom? If we are going to control our borders and control immigration, when are we going to start controlling that border?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there has been a common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom for many years, which the previous Government and this Government were determined to keep. That is why there is an open border between the two countries, as he says. I refer him to the immigration White Paper published just a few weeks ago, which set out reforms to the legal immigration system. Immigration makes an immense contribution to UK society, but we know that people want a proper set of rules around it, and that is what the immigration White Paper provides.

I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about the Chinese Communist party. The national security strategy recognises that UK security is tied to that of our allies. Do the Government acknowledge that lasting peace in Europe means terminating Putin’s European ambitions in Ukraine, and if so, how will the Government get that through to the US Administration?

Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, we have stood by Ukraine. The strategy sets out the degree of support that this country has given Ukraine over the past four years. We continue to stand by Ukraine, and we continue to support its right to decide its own future. That will remain a core part of our strategy. With regard to China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly setting out the China audit in greater detail.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked the question I had hoped to ask, and the Minister sort of answered it, so I will ask a quite separate question. If the ambition is to reach spending at 5% of GDP on defence and broader security by 2035, what is the true current figure? We know the figure for defence but not for wider security; will it include MI5, MI6, GCHQ, counter-terrorism or, indeed, all of the police forces across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

The hon. Member asks what the is situation now. As the statement released overnight stated, under the current definitions of what we spend on core defence expenditure and broader security expenditure, the figure would be 4.1% by 2027, and we hope to grow from there.