PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Defence Investment Plan - 30 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will make a statement on the defence investment plan.

Our armed forces represent the very best of us, from our sailors patrolling the High North and protecting the seabed, to our pilots, aircrew and air defence teams in the middle east defending the skies, our Paras in the south Atlantic and our Marines in the channel. As I speak, we have personnel supporting the humanitarian mission in Venezuela, submariners beneath the waves maintaining our unbroken chain of protection, and planners at Permanent Joint Headquarters making the most extraordinarily complex challenges appear routine. Our servicemen and women rightly inspire respect, gratitude and pride across the House and across the nation. We all recognise that they serve at an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable moment in history. The central purpose of the defence investment plan, which we publish today, is to ensure that they have the kit and the technology they need in order to do the difficult job we ask of them. I know at first hand just how important that is, and when I was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago I promised to get it right. Today, I make good on that promise.

Before I set out the details, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many hundreds of colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, in and out of uniform, who have worked so hard to prepare this plan. Over the last few weeks it has been a privilege to work with them, as it has been to work with my ministerial team. In particular, I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who I know has invested many months in getting the plan right.

I also want to place on the record my profound thanks to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for their support, and for the spirit of good will that has guided our negotiations over the past fortnight. They have, for two years, demonstrated steadfast commitment to our national security, and as a consequence our armed forces are better prepared and better supported today. It is important to add that Ukraine is still strong in the fight, and that over the past two years Britain has proved itself to be a reliable ally and a trusted partner.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who, as Secretary of State, dedicated his time and worked in order to deliver this plan. He set out to the House in clear terms why he could not support an earlier version of the plan; I will lay out what has changed, and why I can support it.

This plan now commits more investment in our armed forces: £298 billion over the next four years. That includes an additional £15 billion on top of last year’s spending review settlement, of which most is extra day-to-day spending for training and improving the availability of ships and aircraft to increase our warfighting readiness. That is £1.5 billion more than when I took up this job just a couple of weeks ago, and it means that defence spending will now increase in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30. That is a bigger increase across a Parliament than any present Member of this House has ever seen. It means that the £74 billion allocated to our armed forces next year is now £20 billion more than the allocation in the last year of the previous Government, and it means that by the end of the decade the proportion of GDP spent on defence will be greater than it has been at any time during the last 30 years.

We have made some difficult but necessary decisions to fund this, but our fiscal rules have been upheld and day-to-day spending on frontline services has been protected. All Departments were asked to contribute 1% of their capital budgets from this year, while those with larger resources—the Department for Transport with its roads budget, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—were asked to make further contributions. Full details are set out today in a written ministerial statement. To reinforce that additional investment, this Labour Government are announcing a new £50 billion defence export facility to support British defence firms in winning contracts across the globe.

More money matters—of course it does—but so do the choices that we make on how to spend it. I have therefore decided to reprioritise a further £1 billion in the plan, to ensure that it better reflects the way in which war is waged today. It will provide our service personnel with the capabilities that they need to deter and fight, now and in the years ahead. The war in Ukraine has seen battlefield technology advance faster than at any time in history, and few have done more to ensure that our armed forces have kept pace than my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I thank him for his service, and for the work that he did as a Minister. He will know that artificial intelligence, autonomy and uncrewed systems are no longer capabilities of the future, and through the DIP they will now receive the sustained investment that reflects their strategic importance.

Today, we commit the UK’s largest ever investment in drone warfare: £5 billion for strike, protector and surveillance drones across the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force; anti-submarine vessels, uncrewed ground vehicles and fighter jets; a new uncrewed systems taskforce to rapidly develop and field new autonomous capabilities; and funding for Europe’s biggest drone testing site, the Uncrewed Systems Centre in Swindon, which I opened on my very first day in the job. That project is thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone). We will also invest nearly £2 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, underpinned by the most advanced AI and software, cutting the time from decision to strike faster than ever before, along with £100 million for the defence AI taskforce and another £115 million to raise our defences against the threats from AI.

It would be reckless to ignore the lessons from Ukraine, but it is important to remember that we are not Ukraine. We are a member of NATO, and a nuclear power. In this year alone our armed forces have been deployed to the High North and the middle east, and they are now readying themselves for the prospect of regenerating Ukraine’s forces and reopening the strait of Hormuz. All the while, they protect our island home and retain the ability to respond to crises in dangerous and distant lands.

Britain needs a flexible, hybrid, integrated, “high-low” force that can deter and fight across every domain. That is why we are committing £8.6 billion to the global combat air programme, proudly in partnership with our allies, Japan and Italy. This next-generation stealth fighter jet is in addition to the £1.1 billion Typhoon upgrade, and will ensure that our RAF retains control of the skies. We will invest £26 billion to fund the most extensive naval base upgrades for nearly half a century, including at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport; £790 million to protect the UK homeland and our overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats; and £11 billion in munitions and weapons to increase UK stockpiles, including long-range strike capabilities, low-cost cruise missiles and one-way effectors. By 2030, we will build at least six new energetics factories.

Today, we commit £64 billion to fund Dreadnought and AUKUS submarines, a new warhead and other crucial nuclear work. Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security, and in providing the funding to renew it, we extend that promise long into the future. We will also purchase F-35As and join NATO’s nuclear mission. Our security is now contested in every domain, so we will invest over £3 billion in space capabilities, £2.5 billion in cyber, and £400 million to protect our undersea cables and pipelines.

In the end, it is people who win wars and preserve peace. By delivering three above-inflation pay rises, extending childcare provision and putting fully into law the armed forces covenant, this Labour Government have demonstrated our commitment to what matters most. Building on the work already done to fix 1,200 of the worst homes, today we commit £9 billion over a decade to raise the condition of military family housing to a standard that matches the service and sacrifice of those living in it. Through a new Defence Housing Service, we will implement the defence housing strategy in full, fulfilling our moral obligation to personnel and their families.

The DIP represents significant progress in implementing the vision set out in our strategic defence review. We will invest more and target better, but there is much more work to be done. It was not for nothing that the UK made a promise to our allies, just as they did to us: 3.5 by ’35. In a more dangerous world, our commitment to NATO is absolute. I gave my word to the Secretary-General and all our allies that our promise will be met, and a credible plan will be produced to ensure that it is. We will reach 3% in the next Parliament, with funding set out at the next spending review, in which defence will be the No. 1 priority. Britain has always met our NATO spending commitments, and under this Government we always will. Britain has always stood with our allies, and under this Government we always will. This plan accelerates the development of deep precision strike weapons and close support artillery with Germany, and it creates an amphibious combined fleet with the Netherlands. We will also invite Joint Expeditionary Force nations to join our Northern Navies initiative and build a hybrid force together.

I now have a responsibility to make the plan work, not least given what Cabinet colleagues have forgone from their budgets in order to support mine. My commitment to them, and indeed to the British public, is that with the requirement to spend more on defence comes a duty to spend more wisely on defence. This plan includes a pledge to make substantial savings by the end of this Parliament, as well as a commitment to drive down fraud and error across defence.

I am grateful to our partners in industry for their counsel and support during this process. I know that recent months have not been easy, but with the DIP now published, I am relying on the full spectrum of our industrial base to make it a success: primes and small and medium-sized enterprises; workers and trade unions; and innovators and investors. Together, we will ensure that the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the United Kingdom. We will develop sovereign and dual-use technologies, increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy.

Today, I am proud to confirm that with the publication of the DIP comes the promise of greater security for families and new opportunities for our young people. According to MOD analysis, this plan will support nearly 60,000 additional good, skilled jobs right across our Union. That will be achieved alongside a culture shift in procurement.

Ultimately, the success of this defence investment plan will be measured by whether it commands the support of the amazing men and women who serve in our armed forces. They remain our most important asset—respected by those who stand with us, and feared by those who stand against us. We know that they are equal to any task, and with this defence investment plan, we give them the means to match their courage. I commend this statement to the House.

Secretary of State, it is good form to let the Speaker’s Office know if one is going to speak for more than the allocated time. I will now have to give extra time to the other Front Benchers as well. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

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

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

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

because

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all want this defence investment plan to be a success, and I personally thank the MOD officials who have worked so hard for many months to get us to this point. I welcome the extra money the Treasury may have ceded in the last couple of weeks, which builds on the record increase in defence investment that we as a Labour Government have made since the election.

However, threats are still growing, demands on defence are still rising in this dangerous world and today’s step means that, as a nation, we will be spending 2.7% of GDP on defence in 2030, the date when NATO warns we could face a Russian attack. With European security at stake, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done in the months ahead, beyond the DIP, to develop a clear, credible funding plan that will hit 3% and meet our NATO commitment to 3.5% by 2035?

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his service in government. He did an excellent job as Defence Secretary, and I absolutely aim to build on the work he did. I know he will share the pride that this Government have in the commitment we have already made of £298 billion over the next four years, with £15 billion of new money in this plan and an increase in defence spending in real terms of 27% up to 2029-30.

However, my right hon. Friend is right: we do need to do more. We will need to spend more on defence, and that is why there was a clear commitment that that will be a No. 1 priority at the next spending review. We have an absolute obligation to our armed forces and to our allies. When I talk to my NATO allies, they look to the United Kingdom for leadership. We have provided that leadership over a number of years, including under the previous Government, and this Government will continue to provide that leadership.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, albeit 14 months late and one Defence Secretary later.

The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in the technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to deal with the threats we face. However, let us be clear: this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of Conservative neglect, Britain needed a Government willing to match the scale of the challenge. Instead, we have had months of delay, and we now have a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required. In particular, it is hugely concerning to see how little is allocated to air defence. It is hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the strategic defence review, and inadequate to protect our islands and, indeed, our allies.

The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030, yet the architects of the strategic defence review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, have both made it clear that the current funding is not enough. Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement on offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, yet the new Defence Secretary claims it is enough. Were both the experts and the former Defence Secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe?

The Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing, so it is concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing. If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched budget to another?

The last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty. Between delays to the DIP, a change of Defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming, they have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who looks certain to become Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds. Despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today, can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately need?

I gently say to the hon. Member that, when his party was in coalition government with the Conservative party, defence was cut by 22%. We are all judged by our record and the actions we take, and today’s defence investment plan represents a real-terms increase in defence spending—

The hon. Member can shake his head, but it is a statement of truth that this plan, which represents £298 billion of investment over the next four years, represents an increase in real terms of 27% by 2029-30.

The hon. Member spoke about housing. I hope he heard my words earlier about the absolute commitment to ensure our armed forces have a standard of accommodation fitting for the nature of the service they undertake. That is why we have made a commitment of £9 billion over 10 years. I remember living in armed forces accommodation that had not been properly maintained. We have a duty and a responsibility to do so, and that is why we are investing a very significant amount of money.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about defence bonds. Of course, we will look at all suggestions people have about how we can do things differently, but in the end all the money has to be accounted for and we have to be responsible and bring forward a properly costed defence investment plan. That is what we have done; we have brought forward very significant amounts of resource.

The hon. Gentleman said that I claimed it was enough. I think it is slightly unfair of him to characterise my earlier remarks in that regard. I am crystal clear about the fact that today represents a massive investment in our armed forces and in the technology they will be deploying and employing, but that is not to say that we do not need to do more. We do need to do more and that is precisely why I made the point that we need defence spending to be the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.

I thank the Secretary of State and his collective team for all the work that has gone into the defence investment plan. I also welcome the increase in spending. There are a multitude of lessons from Ukraine that we have all heard much about. One is on scale and capacity in both Russia and Ukraine’s industrial capability, where they are now building 1.1 million drones every two months. Will the Secretary of State outline to the House the percentage of the defence budget, particularly in the equipment plan, that is being spent on uncrewed systems and whether that is docked into the defence industrial strategy?

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his work in this area. I know he has a particular percentage in mind, and I am keen to discuss it more with him. I hope that he will acknowledge today, though, that the DIP brings forward the largest ever investment in drone warfare: £150 million more for homeland counter-drone defences; £50 million more over the next 12 months for the Army’s taskforce Rapstone; £150 million for a new uncrewed vehicle programme for the Army; and £150 million for the Royal Marine Commandos, with the same hybrid model of crewed and autonomous insertion craft and drones. I hope he will acknowledge that there has been a refocusing and a sharpening of the plan over the past couple of weeks to ensure that we learn the lessons from Ukraine. But I know, because he has been around the block a bit, that he will also understand that while we must learn the lessons from Ukraine, we are not Ukraine and we still have other responsibilities as a major power within NATO. That is why what I have to do is ensure we have a balanced set of capabilities. I am confident that that is the balance we have achieved today.

I call the Father of the House.

Many wonder whether aircraft carriers are going to go the way of the old battleships, uniquely vulnerable to drones that cost a tiny fraction of their cost. To protect aircraft carriers, we need destroyers and frigates. Moreover, in two world wars we relied completely on destroyers and frigates to protect our food supply, so will the Secretary of State say more about the replacement of our ageing frigate and destroyer fleet, particularly with regard to the Type 45 and Type 83 destroyers?

I am grateful to the Father of the House, not least because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who serve at sea and do extraordinary work in the service of the Royal Navy. As an island nation, the capabilities they provide are mission critical for us. That is why, between now and the end of 2030, we expect the Royal Navy to take delivery of five new warships and the final Astute class attack submarine; and in the same period we will bring our first large autonomous surface and sub-surface autonomous platforms into service. Those who work in the Royal Navy do exceptional work on behalf of our nation and we will make sure that they have the resources and capabilities they need to keep our country safe.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for the ministerial briefing beforehand and for allowing Defence Committee members advanced sight of the defence investment plan. I also welcome that we now have a fully funded plan, backed by the Treasury, that is scalable for key facets such as housing, training, workforce recovery, AI, integrated air and missile defence, and munition stockpiles.

However, there is no clear pathway to reach 3% of GDP spend. Despite assurances that the DIP would go further than previous defence equipment plans, it actually contains less detail: there is no full 10-year expenditure plan; there is no breakdown between procurement and support costs; and much of the investment appears to be backloaded beyond 2030. Will my right hon. Friend commit to fight for more funding for defence, so we reach the 3% of GDP spend by 2030? Will he commit to building more in Britain to stimulate sovereignty and economic growth? What operational risks have been accepted in the interim while there have been cuts to investment in certain areas? When will our Committee be furnished with the full details, so that effective parliamentary scrutiny can be undertaken?

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for the scrutiny that I know he will apply to this important piece of work. He reeled off a number of different capabilities, and I am very happy to discuss those with him in more detail.

The essence of my hon. Friend’s question was to seek an assurance that I will commit to fight for the funding that defence needs, and I will, of course, give him that commitment. It is my job now to ensure that we have the resources we need to field the kind of capabilities required to keep our country safe at a point of great challenge. That does involve working very closely with our NATO allies and providing them with the certainty of our long-term commitment towards defence funding, and it will require us to show a trajectory to our commitment to 3.5%.

He is also right to raise the point about backing Britain. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues have been absolutely clear that, while we require additional resource to provide the capabilities we need, we must do that in a way that ensures we are best able to grow our economy, and create and sustain good, well-paid defence jobs right around the United Kingdom. That is an absolute priority for me, and I give him an assurance that we will work closely with him on it.

At last, we have agreement on a defence expenditure statistic. When the Secretary of State says that what the settlement means is that the proportion of GDP spent on defence by the end of this decade will now be higher than at any time in the past 30 years, he is quite right. The trouble is that if we go back 30 years to 1995, what we were spending then under the new accounting rules was 3% of GDP, and that was six years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Given that we are now in a more dangerous situation today than at any time since at least the height of the cold war in the 1980s, should we not be looking at the sort of percentages we spent then? Under the new accounting rules, that was between 4.1% and 5.5%. Haven’t we still got a long way to go?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always listen very carefully to what he has to say, not least because he talks a lot of good sense on these matters. Over the many years of him being sat on the Government Benches and me sat on the Opposition Benches, I remember listening to the case he made for investment in defence, including investment in nuclear. I know, therefore, that he will welcome the £63 billion over the next four years to strengthen the UK’s nuclear deterrent. He has spoken with great consistency on these matters over many, many years.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is still work to do to point the trajectory to 3.5%. I think today is a very significant step forward in terms of providing additional resource and additional capability. The £298 billion is a very significant commitment by this Government. When we came into office two years ago, the percentage of GDP was at 2.3%. We have increased that. We are on a trajectory to increase it over the next few years, and we must ensure that, through the next spending review process, we have the resource that I think most right hon. and hon. Members agree we now need to chart that course to 3.5%. That is an absolute commitment that we will honour, and we will work closely with our NATO allies in order to do so.

Of course, this Government would not have such an uphill mountain to climb were it not for the decisions taken by our predecessors. I really think the Conservatives would have more credibility if they acknowledged that fact more readily and with more humility than they have shown today, and on every previous occasion the shadow Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box. None the less, as the Secretary of State himself has acknowledged, we need to go further and faster. What we have here is a good foundation to build on, but there is more to do. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State set out the Government’s rationale for not joining the defence security and resilience bank, and will he reconsider?

We will look carefully at the best possible mechanism to ensure that we have the resources to field the required capability. There are different views about how best to do that, and different allies advocate different ways of investing money in our defence industries. My right hon. Friend will understand that I have not had a huge amount of time, in the couple of weeks that I have been drawing the plan together, to map out the longer-term spending proposals on how we best generate that activity across defence and with our economy. I am not ruling anything out or in, but I will look closely at what our allies say and take advice. I am happy to discuss it further with my right hon. Friend.

It would appear that this defence investment plan is unaffordable, but the Public Accounts Committee will be examining that. Deep in the plan is an old accountant’s trick: a vast efficiency savings figure of £10.7 billion. Does the plan rely on that figure? If not, what is the incentive to make efficiency savings over the course of the plan?

The plan is affordable. That is one of the differences between this Government and the last. But I welcome the scrutiny that the hon. Member will no doubt apply to the plan. We have looked carefully, as hon. Members would expect, at how we are able to fund this. Nobody on the Government Benches wants to bring forward spending commitments if we cannot provide evidence of how are to pay for them, but I am happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member.

I welcome that this Government are prioritising the delivery of our nuclear deterrent, including investment in not only the current but the all-important future submarine programmes. The shadow Secretary of State said it was too little, too late. The price that the Liberal Democrats demanded for the coalition Government of 2010 was not renewing our nuclear deterrent, and the Conservatives were happy to pay that price so, yes, they are really bloody late! Part of the cost of that decision is being paid by our submariners, forced to remain at sea for over 200 days in an ageing fleet.

We have to be honest with the people of Great Britain: our food supply chains are being tested, our energy infrastructure is being mapped—

Order. Is there a question?

Our MOD is under a cyber-attack every day. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we told the public the truth, they would be more willing to go along with those difficult decisions?

My hon. Friend does a fantastic job representing her constituents, whose important work on behalf of the nation I pay tribute to. I am keen to come and visit her constituency, and I look forward to continuing these conversations with her. My hon. Friend is right to make those points. The nuclear deterrent is a vital capability that underpins our national security, and we are hugely grateful to all those who make that happen on behalf of the nation, including her constituents.

The Daring class and Sea Viper are due to be retired from the mid-2030s. As I understand it from the DIP, the plan is that the Common Combat Vessel, and its slave drone vessels, the Type 91 and Type 94, will come in to replace it as our principal means of hybrid maritime air defence. Given that this is simply little more than a concept at this stage, what confidence does the Secretary of State have that we will not still be reliant on the Daring class, and has he made contingency for extending her service, so that we are not left undefended?

I would be happy to have a more detailed conversation with the right hon. Gentleman offline about his points. He will know that a massive programme of transformation has recently been set out by the First Sea Lord. We are working through the detail of that to ensure and satisfy ourselves that we have the right capabilities. As I have said, I pay tribute to all those who serve in our armed forces, particularly those who serve at sea in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described. It is an important capability, and we will ensure that we have the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

I have had the opportunity to look over defence equipment plans for the last 13 years, and have repeatedly seen—a profiling from over a decade—huge optimism about savings and efficiencies, which is how plans get across the line of affordability. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of the plan, through the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Committee and, hopefully next week—if Ministers from both the Treasury and Ministry of Defence agree to attend—the Treasury Committee, at a meeting including Defence Committee colleagues?

The Chair of the Treasury Committee makes important points. She will have heard my earlier comments about the requirement, when spending more on defence, to also spend more wisely. I am acutely conscious of the reputation of defence procurement spending, going back generations. We need to do much better, and we are in a process of transition to ensure that we do. I am keen to work closely with my hon. Friend and her Committee to ensure that it has the opportunity to provide the scrutiny on behalf of this House, which would be constructive to the process. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry would be pleased to appear in front of the Committee next week.

The strategic defence review highlighted the importance of the active reserve, but the defence investment plan shows that there is no increase in reserve numbers this Parliament. Remarkably, the reserve is not mentioned in the land section. Even the commitment on cadets, made less than a year ago in August, has been shelved. Can the Secretary of State at least confirm to the reservists watching this debate that their reserve service days this year will be fully protected?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, not least because it provides the opportunity to pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves. I am in awe of their ability to balance their commitment to our nation with their professional occupations and their family life. It is a commitment that is hugely valued by this Government, as I know it was by the previous one. I am advised that there is a reference to reserves on page 62 of the people section. Essentially, we will maintain the vision set out in the SDR. We will do everything we can to ensure that those people who want to step forward and serve in the reserves have an opportunity to do so.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I worry that scrapping the Type 83s that were due to replace our Type 45 destroyers, and were to be the backbone of our fleet, in favour of a hybrid, uncrewed, autonomous Navy is a gamble. Unmanned service vessels of that size are untested, especially in the High North. I recognise the immense potential for the new hybrid Navy fleet to persistently monitor the Russian threat, but can the Secretary of State assure me that unmanned and disaggregated replacements for our Type 45 destroyers will be as effective in providing not just strike capabilities, but the deterring presence needed?

We need to learn the lessons from Ukraine and elsewhere for the capability that we field. There was not a budget line attached to the specific capability that my hon. Friend references, so as part of the transition to a hybrid Navy, the First Sea Lord has set out an alternative vision of how we will field that kind of capability. Hopefully my hon. Friend will see, from the investment and commitment that we have made through the defence investment plan, that we are absolutely committed to ensuring, as an island nation, that we retain the Royal Navy capabilities that we need, now and in the future. They are vital to the defence of our nation, and we will always ensure that we have the right kit, in the right place, at the right time.

The defence investment plan includes an additional £100 million transformation of the Royal Marines commando forces, with a special focus on our allies in Scandinavia and the High North. As the Royal Marines Commando Logistic Regiment is based at RM Chivenor in my constituency, will the Secretary of State tell us what form that transformation will take?

I thank the hon. Member for his service, and I know that he has constituency interests in these matters. He referred to the £150 million that has been announced for the Royal Marine commandos for the hybrid model of crewed and autonomous insertion craft and drones—a bit of a mouthful. That is an important capability. I would like to reiterate what an extraordinary job the Royal Marines did in the English channel a couple of weekends ago in interdicting a Russian shadow fleet vessel. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. They do extraordinary work, and this Government have a huge responsibility to ensure that they have the right capabilities. I or one of my Ministers would be happy to discuss the technical detail further, though.

The investment plan lays out that this country will spend £63 billion on our nuclear deterrent over the next few years, but that is not just to keep the UK safe; we offer that as an umbrella protection across our European NATO allies. That is a massive point. It is extremely expensive; it is more than some entire Departments will get. It is huge, and we should celebrate it. I ask the Secretary of State to assure me that when he travels to Turkey with the Prime Minister for the NATO Assembly soon, and we come under pressure for not having laid out how we will hit 3% soon enough, the point will be made gently to our friends and allies that we are spending a huge amount of money keeping them safe.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who makes an important point. It is right to emphasise that we are the third-largest spender of resource on defence in NATO. He is right to point out the £63 billion that has been committed over the next four years. That is a very large figure, and a very significant commitment. As he will know very well, not least because his constituents benefit from that investment, it also means good, skilled jobs for people right around the country, including in his constituency.

Is it not the reality that the plan the Defence Secretary has put forward barely scrapes into 2.7%? It is not 3%. It leaves us £9.3 billion short, every single year of the process. If he is not going to achieve 3% by 2030, how in heaven’s name will he ever achieve the NATO minimum by 2035? It is not going to happen in ’35. He will not get 3.5% out of this Budget, will he? Will he give us the dates?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The defence investment plan represents a very significant commitment from this Government on defence spending—nearly £300 billion over the next four years. There is £15 billion of new money in this plan. He has heard the point I made about the real-terms spending increase of 27%. I have been very clear about the need to spend more on defence, and the fact that the next spending review will provide the resource required to chart the trajectory from 3% to 3.5%. I agree with him that that is precisely what our allies want to see, and I am confident that we will make good on that commitment in the context of the next spending review.

Today is a step forward and a down payment on the future of places like my towns of Aldershot and Farnborough. However, much as we wrangle over percentages of GDP, on the ground, we still lack the industrial capacity to spend this money and build more. Defence companies in my patch and across the supply chain cannot access the finance that they need in order to hire more people and expand production. That is why I have campaigned for more than a year for the UK to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Does the Secretary of State recognise this challenge? What will we do to increase our industrial capacity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It was an absolute pleasure to be in her constituency at the weekend for Armed Forces Day. Aldershot is the home of the British Army, and she has done a fantastic job representing her constituents and her constituency. She is right to raise the point on defence finance. I can tell her and the House that the defence finance and investment strategy will be published in the autumn.

This defence investment plan is 300 days late and £13 billion short. It ensures that we fall further behind our allies and face greater exposure to those who would seek to do us harm, and it leaves us falling short of our NATO commitments. That £13 billion is just one year of costs for the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. As the Secretary of State seeks to fund his plans from the Scottish Government’s budget, among many other departmental budgets, what savings has he sought to make from the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, which is the ultimate case of fur coat and nae knickers?

First, let me acknowledge the very important contribution that Scotland makes to our national security. The hon. Gentleman should know that billions of pounds of UK investment is going into Faslane and other capabilities that will provide growth and jobs for his constituents and people right across Scotland. I would just gently say to him that I wonder what the defence investment plan would be for an independent Scotland, which is what he wants.

The Secretary of State is right to say that the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the UK; it will increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy. I am proud to represent KNDS in Stockport, which manufactures military bridges and Boxer armoured vehicles. I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry for visiting me in October for a factory tour. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the benefits of this investment are felt right across the UK, including in Stockport and Greater Manchester? In addition, Stockport is just a short drive from Barnsley; will he join me on a visit to KNDS?

Just a yes, Secretary of State.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the representations he has made on behalf of KNDS. I understand its important work well. He is right to emphasise the importance of ensuring that this significant investment of £15 billion, sitting in the continuum of investment that we have seen, needs to provide economic growth and jobs right across the country—and it will. It will provide nearly 60,000 new jobs. We should be hugely proud of that, not least because a significant proportion of those jobs will be spread right around the country. I would be very pleased to visit his Stockport constituency.

More money for defence is a good thing, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s defence investment plan. He has just said that he is confident that we will make good on the commitment to 3.5% in the next spending review. I do not know why he is so confident about that. The current Prime Minister will not be Prime Minister; the current Chancellor will not be Chancellor; and—dare I say it—he may not be Secretary of State. He would give us, industry, the markets and the whole country a great deal more confidence if he answered the question from the shadow Secretary of State and told us whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) had signed this off.

Well, I can be confident about that, because I have confidence in the long-standing record and history of Labour Governments investing in defence. That gives me confidence.

I welcome this record investment in defence, and I appreciate that it may lead to us making cuts elsewhere in public expenditure. One casualty may be the expansion of the A38 in Derby, which has been on and off under successive Governments for the past 40 years. Some local people would welcome the scheme’s not going ahead, particularly on environmental grounds, but others would see a cancellation as a brake on economic growth, and we need economic growth to fund our defence. Will the Secretary of State work with me to convince the Treasury and the Department for Transport that we need more investment in Derby, so that our economy can thrive, and we can contribute to defence through public expenditure in the future?

Tough choices have had to be made. As I mentioned earlier, Treasury colleagues will set out the detail of the spending choices today in a written ministerial statement. My hon. Friend will understand that, given the nature of the world in which we are operating, the Government have an absolute responsibility to make those tough choices and reprioritise resource and activity in order to best safeguard the security of our nation. That is what we have had to do in this defence investment plan; it has involved some tough choices, but that is the right way to proceed.

Can I return to the efficiency savings that are forecast to be made? There are to be savings of £10.7 billion—£7 billion to come from resource spending and £3.7 to come from capital. Apart from some very vague headings, there is no indication in this document of where that money is going to be saved. Can the Secretary of State issue a written statement as soon as possible to set out exactly how those savings will be made? Otherwise, I have to rather agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier): we have all seen these accounting tricks before under previous Governments of both colours, and the savings are very rarely made. The Secretary of State will have to factor that into the negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whoever that may be—in the forthcoming spending round, and I take what he has said about the next spending round to be a very significant point.

I always welcome the contributions of the hon. Gentleman, not least because they are always thoughtful and constructive. I understand why he has raised the point in the way that he has. Resetting the programme to deliver this transformation has forced some challenging but necessary decisions involving the cutting of consultants and the cutting of the civil service headcount by 15%, as well as an increased use of technology to drive innovation. There have been some tough choices, and I thought it was right to be honest about those. I am very happy to discuss them with him further.

Modern warfare has evolved from traditional mass troops to online cyber-attacks and drone-enabled conflict. We have seen that with the attacks on M&S and Jaguar Land Rover, and last September I saw it at first hand when I visited a drone factory in Ukraine. How is our Government using the defence investment plan to develop our own sovereign digital and technological capabilities, learning from Ukraine’s war?

My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns about the threat we face every single day from cyber. In my previous role, I spent a lot of time ensuring that we were co-ordinated across Government—across the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and other Government Departments. This defence investment plan provides the resource to make sure that we have the right capabilities to meet the emerging threat that we are dealing with on a daily basis. Cyber is a key part of that threat. What I have done is refocus and sharpen some of the capabilities in order to be able to deploy them sooner than would otherwise have been the case. There is always a balance between the shorter and the longer term, but I am confident that this plan gives us the right capabilities when we need them.

This is a tale of two DIPs. The first DIP is covered by the period in the current spending review, up to about 2030, and the second DIP is the bit beyond that, from 2030 to 2035. The first has detailed spending commitments, and the latter has quite vague spending commitments. The former has small investments and the latter has big investments. I will give two examples: air has £28 billion versus £70 billion, and land has £19 billion versus £36 billion. On behalf of the Government, whoever might be in it by that point, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Treasury has guaranteed that those figures will be in the next spending review—that is, that the Defence section of the next spending review has already been written?

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not for me to make guarantees on behalf of other Government Departments, including the Treasury. I am sure that he will understand that. I do not think that any Minister outside the Treasury would be in a position to make that guarantee.

I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about these matters, so the guarantee that I can give him is that in the time I have had available, I have looked very carefully at the mix of capabilities contained within the plan and made a number of changes in order to deliver capabilities that I thought were required sooner rather than later. Has that involved making some difficult choices? Yes, it has. Has it involved cutting some capabilities? Yes, it has. But what I have to do is do right by defence and be satisfied that we have the resource available and the right capabilities in place to allow us to operate alongside our allies in a very dangerous world.

That is not an easy process, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I hope he will also acknowledge that today’s investment plan represents an important step forward, but as I have said consistently, there is still a requirement to spend more on defence.

I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to read the DIP this morning in the reading room. There are some important questions that need to be answered. It is clear that the last Government left the armed forces in a poor state, and this Government have been doing all they can to try to repair that, but for me, the key question is this: given the threats we face today globally and in Europe and the state of the world economy, does this plan meet those threats and provide us with the security and defence capability that this country needs at this time?

My view is that it clearly does not, and I think we have to make a much greater contribution. We need to get to 3% by the end of this Parliament, and we need to set out a plan to achieve that. Otherwise, it also leaves a great deal of uncertainty in the defence industrial base about the ability to ramp up and upskill to meet those requirements.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee and for his previous service in the Department. I therefore take seriously the points he made. He is right to highlight the nature of the threats we face as a country. That is why, in addition to the work we are doing in Defence, it is incredibly important that activity is joined up across Government to ensure that wider resilience and wider societal response. That work is under way with the Cabinet Office.

My hon. Friend made a point about uncertainty for industry. The truth of the matter is that the publication of this plan today will ensure greater certainty for our industry partners, who we now want to work with closely. We rely on them to be able to manufacture the capabilities we require to keep our country safe. This is a big shot in the arm for UK industries, and I look forward to working closely with the defence industries in the months—and hopefully years—to come to ensure that we are buying British and taking their capabilities and deploying them to meet the nature of the threat that we face.

In the next Parliament.

Reindustrialisation and backing British are the hallmarks of this defence investment plan. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with the GMB and Unite unions that we need to build not only ships in Britain but new floating docks for Faslane? Does he agree that Programme Euston should be built by the skilled workforce at the Methil yard in my constituency?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy of that important programme, which I have been briefed on and have already discussed with the general secretary of the GMB. My hon. Friend will understand that I need to look carefully at the detail of it, so I am not in a position to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box. A decision will be forthcoming, but I am keen to discuss the programme further with him.

With this new money, the defence budget is due to rise by about £17 billion a year over the next four years. In that same period, the welfare budget is going to rise by about £60 billion. That is almost the whole defence budget just in the increase in welfare spending.

General Barrons, who co-authored the Government’s strategic defence review, said in response to today’s announcement that

“we’re not keeping up with our allies”

or “with our enemies”. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government have failed to fund the strategic defence review and left us dangerously exposed, particularly at sea? The Secretary of State talks about spending wisely. How much of the money that the Government have announced they will be spending will go to SMEs and not to the big primes that have delivered us programmes like Ajax?

I genuinely welcome the question from the hon. Member, not least because often no Members from his party are in attendance for defence debates. I think he has previously made the point that he represents more members of the armed forces in his constituency than anyone else. I therefore make the point to him gently that it would not be unreasonable for us to have a slightly more constructive dialogue about these things. I hope that he will consider that for the future.

Portsmouth, as the home of the Royal Navy, welcomes the defence investment plan, with investment in the hybrid Navy, at least six new warships and the biggest upgrade to our naval base for 45 years. It will strengthen national security in a new era of warfare and support skilled jobs, but ships and technology are not enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to set out how the Government will ensure that the necessary skills and training are in place to build and sustain this high-tech force? Will he confirm that he will continue to work at pace to improve armed forces housing and keep our personnel at the heart of this plan?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of our people and making sure that they are properly supported. I know that she, as a local Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, takes these matters seriously. Of course, we would be delighted to meet her.

In response to the DIP, the noble Lord Hutton, a former Labour Defence Secretary, said that

“the centres of resistance across Whitehall to extra defence spending have been allowed to prosper and they haven’t been overcome.”

He went on to say that, as a consequence, our armed forces will not be war-ready by the end of this Parliament. Does the Defence Secretary disagree with the noble Lord? How do the £10.7 billion in cuts to the MOD budget enhance our armed forces’ readiness?

I pay tribute to Lord Hutton for the work he did when he was Defence Secretary. We listen very carefully to all those who take a view about the policies that we have brought forward. It is not unreasonable, however, to reiterate the commitment that we have made today: £298 billion, including £15 billion of new money, is contained in this defence investment plan, with an increase in real terms of 27% by 2029-30. That demonstrates a real commitment. Do we need to do more? Yes, I have been consistently clear that we do. We will listen to Lord Hutton and others in shaping that debate, but I am confident that the next spending review will provide the resources we need to meet the targets that we have committed ourselves to achieving.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. As he said, this is a welcome shot in the arm for our defence and security sector. He talked about the defence export funding that would be available. That is extremely important because so many nations around the world really rate our kit and our expertise in these sectors. I am slightly concerned about what he said on home defence. Will he say a few more words about where he thinks we are on future funding and the importance of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important work in chairing the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I agree with the thrust of his point about defence supporting growth. I know that he will be proud that we have a Labour Government generating good jobs and bringing forward a defence investment plan that is good for our economic security, as well as our national security. He will have heard my earlier remarks about taking a little bit of time to look at the various proposals from our allies and from others about how we might seek to fund further defence investment. I will take a bit of time to do that, but as ever, I am happy to discuss the matter further with him.

The Royal Navy is spending millions of pounds on private accommodation and hotels each year, while entire buildings and accommodation blocks behind the wire of its estate sit rotting and uninhabitable. However, I cannot say exactly how many millions, because I have submitted questions on that to the MOD and it refuses to answer. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can help me with that. On the £9 billion that will be spent on defence housing over 10 years, what is the spend profile and how much of that will be spent in the first two years? If it is back-ended to year 10, it does absolutely nothing to stem the flow of wasted cash and to provide our service personnel and their families with decent, habitable homes.

I gently say to the hon. Lady that there was a massive lack of investment in defence housing under the previous Government. She will have heard my earlier remarks about the commitment to investing £9 billion over 10 years. That is a real-terms increase in each year.

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome today’s announcement and the multibillion-pound investment in His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Given the scale of the opportunity, will the Secretary of State outline how the Government will work with communities across the Tamar in South East Cornwall to ensure that they play a full part in delivering the programme through the skills, apprenticeships and jobs it will create by connecting local businesses with defence supply chains, and through resilient transport connectivity? That will strengthen the regional economy and deliver for our national defence capabilities.

I agree with the points my hon. Friend makes. It will require a team effort to make sure that Devonport gets the support that it needs and we want to provide. I know that I and ministerial colleagues will be happy to discuss that with her further.

Since we have been in the Chamber, it has been reported online that senior military personnel are deeply unhappy with the DIP and, indeed, that the Chief of the Defence Staff asked the Secretary of State to remove a line that suggested that he personally backed the plan. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he had to remove that line from his statement?

That is not correct; all the chiefs support the DIP.

I welcome this investment in our defence. Will my right hon. Friend say just how difficult the hollowing out of our defence spending under the previous Government has made it to build the capacity to spend that money?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I never come here with the intention of politicising these matters. It is always my approach to engage on a cross-party basis and in the national interest, and that is precisely why, in my opening remarks, I did not once mention the record of the previous Government. I spoke only about the investment being made by this Government. I think that that is the right approach. I hope that, on these important matters relating to the security of our nation, we can try to have a constructive debate. That is absolutely the way that I wish to proceed, but where Opposition Members seek to critique the Government’s record—and it is entirely their right to do so—it is not unreasonable to remind them of their record.

RAF Wyton is in my constituency and I have a huge amount of service housing, both in the RAF Wyton and the former RAF Brampton patches, so service housing is extremely important to me. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he is cutting £300 million from the service family accommodation budget in this Parliament and moving it into the next Parliament?

I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman takes these matters really seriously, and I was grateful that he came into the Department for a briefing this morning. He will have heard what I said previously about investment in defence housing and he will understand the priority that we attach to that. He and I both know the value and importance of making sure that those people who serve have the accommodation that they need, not least when they are operationally deployed, and we have a moral responsibility to make sure that their families are looked after. We are investing £9 billion over 10 years with a real-terms increase in each year.

I very much welcome this defence investment plan and the confidence it shows in the workers on the Ajax programme at General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil. I thank Ministers for their engagement with me, with General Dynamics and with the workforce. The DIP provides an opportunity for investment in further job opportunities in communities such as Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare that have often felt left behind since deindustrialisation. What will the DIP mean in new employment opportunities and support for export opportunities in these communities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he makes an important point about ensuring that the money we are investing touches communities right around the country, including his own. I know that we are due to spend £1.1 billion in the next four years on the Ajax project, which will have a real, meaningful impact on his constituency and his constituents. I am really proud that the investment that we have brought forward today will create 60,000 jobs right around the country. That is good for our national security, good for our economy and good for jobs up and down the nation.

Decisions taken in Whitehall mean that the Welsh Government’s capital budget is already set to fall by 9% in real terms by 2029. Today, we learned that the UK Treasury will further cut that capital budget by many millions to fund the defence investment plan. Of course the plan is important, but surely it must not come at the expense of essential Welsh infrastructure, such as new NHS surgical hubs to help cut the waiting lists that are, of course, the legacy of Labour in Wales. Before the Secretary of State comes back to me with investments in Wales, let me tell him that the latest figures show that defence contract spending is £1,130 per head in south-west England, compared with £340 in Wales. Can he confirm exactly how much capital money Wales will lose, and does he agree that the Welsh Government need stronger borrowing powers to protect Wales from abrupt UK spending cuts?

That is precisely why we have the defence growth deal in Wales, and I give the right hon. Lady a commitment that we will work with the new Government in Wales to deliver on it.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to buy British and create British jobs. When he produces his further strategy on procurement in the autumn, will he try to get a joined-up approach to procurement across Government, as that is important to our industrial strategy? The MOD is investing £1 billion-plus in Sheffield Forgemasters to create the capacity to build nuclear reactors for our submarines, yet at the same time, Rolls-Royce is purchasing the same sorts of nuclear reactors in South Korea to go into civil nuclear plant. Do we not need to get that sorted out, right across Government, to make sure that we are doing British industry proud and buying British products to create British jobs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all those who work at Sheffield Forgemasters for the important work that they do; I hope to visit in the very near future. He makes an important point about the need to buy British, and that is what we will seek to do. On the other points that he has made, let me have a look at them for him.

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the central role that Porton Down has played in our nation’s security and history through the UK Health Security Agency and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. I welcome the announcement of an additional £580 million to build a new biological lab to protect against biological threats, but will he undertake to examine how that aligns with his Government’s decision to move the UKHSA out of the vicinity of Porton and the announcement last year on biosecurity centres, to ensure that the money that has been invested will be spent wisely and aligned with other commitments?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his advocacy of Porton Down; I remember that the last time I visited, I bumped into him at Salisbury station and we discussed it then. He will know that the UK Government have a long-standing commitment to invest in DSTL, and hundreds of millions of pounds of commitment to infrastructure will benefit Porton Down. I will take away the specific points that he made and come back to him.

Ground-to-air missile defence is listed as one of the major long-term investments, but not until 2030 to 2035. Given how important missile defences are in modern warfare and NATO’s warning to be prepared by the end of this decade, is this not one example in which, to be war ready, funding should be brought forward, not least for military sites, sites of critical national infrastructure, and towns and cities?

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are buying low-cost effectors. On his second point, he is right; I will come back to him with more detail, but my understanding is that we are doing that.

What matters is not just how much we spend on defence, but what we spend it on and whether the Government’s choices offer good value for money. I am therefore deeply concerned that more than half the capital budget is for the nuclear programme. More will be spent on a handful of submarines and unusable warheads than on every single other bit of kit and technology for all the armed forces. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the glaring inconsistency between his rhetoric about a flexible, agile, future-focused armed forces and the reality of pouring billions of good money after bad into the black hole of cold war technology, instead of investing in true security?

Well, I agree with the hon. Lady on one thing, which is that what we spend the money on does matter. She is right about that. We part company at that point, not least because I am not entirely clear what her party’s policy is with regard to NATO membership. Not so long ago, the party was advocating departing. The only people who would welcome that are Putin and his cronies in Russia.

I welcome the increased investment in defence, which should not only ensure our security but drive economic growth. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reassure me, first, that the Ministry of Defence is capable of innovatively procuring innovation, with the support of our nation’s start-ups and scale-ups, rather than focusing on the bureaucratic long-term processes with which my Committee is so familiar?

Secondly, the north-east sends the largest proportion of young people into the armed forces of any region in this country, yet it has the lowest proportion of defence spending. That is unacceptable. The defence investment plan has no place-based programmes apart from the defence growth zones, and the north-east is missing out on those. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the north-east’s commitment is rewarded with investment?

My hon. Friend makes important points. We are investing £400 million a year in UK Defence Innovation, and I hope and am sure that she will welcome that. She made an important point about how we direct spend towards the north-east, not least given its long track record of sending people to serve in our armed forces. That is an entirely reasonable challenge, and is one that the Department is considering. I look forward to discussing it with her further.

Order. I will only be able to run the statement until 4.15 pm, so Members will have to ask much shorter questions.

Mid Buckinghamshire is proudly home to RAF High Wycombe and RAF Halton. Given everything in the defence investment plan on aircraft, drone innovation and the space field, coupled with the Secretary of State’s absolutely correct commitment to our defence personnel, training is critical. RAF Halton has been on a rollercoaster of closure as a training base. Where does the defence investment plan sit with the long-term future of RAF Halton?

Let me make a point of consensus. The hon. Member is right to say that training is critical because it underpins our readiness, and that is precisely why I reprofiled some of the spend to ensure that we can maximise our readiness, given the nature of the threats that we face. I will look carefully at the other points he raised, as I have done previously, and come back to him.

I welcome the defence investment plan and the additional investment announced today. Too many defence SMEs locally tell me how difficult it is to navigate the defence procurement system and to win contracts. Will the Secretary of State set out how they will be able to benefit from this investment and how we will then be able to benefit from their skills and expertise?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth. That provides part of the answer to his question, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has listened carefully to the points he has made and will want to engage with him further on them.

Some 80% of US and UK historical war borrowing has been repaid not through debt repayments but through economic growth. Draghi has urged the EU to borrow for defence R&D to increase economic growth and repay debt. Does the Prime Minister’s statement this morning ruling out extra borrowing for defence risk not only our national defence but our economy, too?

It is important to understand, as I know the hon. Member does, the symbiotic relationship between national security and economic growth. This Government have been incredibly keen to ensure that we can make progress on both those areas. There is an obvious clear connection between the two, but our strong sense is that it would be deeply irresponsible to bring forward measures for which we could not evidence how we would pay for them. All the items that we have brought forward in the defence investment plan are underpinned by resource, and we can point to where that money will come from. We think that that is the responsible way to proceed. That is why there is clarity on the next spending review being the appropriate fiscal moment to make a contribution that will get us to the trajectory of 3% and then 3.5%. The easier option would be to make commitments for which we could not evidence how we will pay for them. That would provide perhaps some short-term sugar rush, but it would not be the right way to proceed. That is why I have come to the House to say that, yes, we will honour the commitments that we have made to NATO allies about the trajectory to 3.5%, but that the appropriate way to do so is in the context of the next spending review and not in this defence investment plan.

As the UK trade envoy to Italy, I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the GCAP funding in his statement. As MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I add my voice to those who want to see this as an opportunity to genuinely spread investment and opportunity that will build strength and resilience in our people right across the UK—they are our greatest sovereign asset. The north-east currently receives £70 of MOD funding per person—less than a tenth of the figure for other parts of the UK. That is a wasted opportunity and one that we must grasp to ensure that we genuinely build resilience. I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend how we can work together to pull that investment up to our region as a test bed for it reaching the whole of the UK.

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does with Italy, which is a key ally, and I am grateful for her welcome for the announcement of the commitment to GCAP, which was signed recently by the Prime Minister. Her second point is absolutely right—she should challenge us and hold us to account on that. She will have heard the response I gave to her relatively near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), just a few moments ago. I look forward to working with them both on that particular matter.

I thank the right hon. Member for what he is doing in what I am sure is a challenging and uncertain time. With regard to meeting NATO spending commitments, he has referred to future spending reviews on many occasions. Is this defence investment plan not a bit like the Government: cast adrift and waiting for someone else in the future to make the hard decisions?

I do not think it is like that at all.

I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?

I know that my hon. Friend has consistently raised those points, and I am grateful to him for doing so. In the interests of time and not causing Madam Deputy Speaker further ire, let me say that given the points he has raised and his interest in the matter, we will bring him into the Department and give him a briefing on the work we are doing.

I have asked before about the future of the amphibious fleet and the replacements for HMS Bulwark and Albion, and Ministers reassured me that the multi-role strike ships were forthcoming and that the Government would recapitalise the Royal Navy’s amphibious fleet, with these new vessels ready to replace existing RFAs by 2033. The DIP implies that they are no longer being pursued. Is that the case? If so, does this change in plan mean delayed delivery and a capability gap for our amphibious forces?

I gently say to the hon. Lady that under the previous Government, Albion and Bulwark were tied up, never to go to sea again. She will have heard the point I made earlier about the deal with the Netherlands, and I hope she will welcome that.

The Prime Minister and many others have said that this country needs to be ready for an attack on NATO by Russia by 2030, so every step this country takes is critical, and I welcome today’s plan. We must mobilise everything we can, including our industry, so will the Secretary of State or a Minister in the Defence team meet me to see how the defence industry in Stevenage—including MBDA, Airbus and our SMEs—can benefit from the new defence export facility?

Yes, we would be very happy to do that.

Page 68 of the DIP makes clear that Proteus, being developed at Leonardo in Yeovil, will be key to future warfare, but lots of other SMEs doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that their hiring and investment decisions have been trapped in limbo by delays to this plan. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give Yeovil’s other defence SMEs that the MOD actually has the money to back the research and development of advanced defence kit by Yeovil’s defence sector?

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has very long-standing defence interests, and of course we will want to work closely with him in that regard. I think he will acknowledge that there was £1 billion of investment in new medium helicopters and other capabilities, but given his interest as the local MP, I would be very happy to discuss it with him further.

My constituents will welcome this defence investment plan, which is more than £298 billion over the next four years. Of course, BAE Systems in my constituency is part of that programme of expansion and the new jobs and opportunities it will bring for young people. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the defence dividend will increase our sovereign capacity and provide jobs and opportunities for all our people in this country?

I can confirm that. Let me also take the opportunity to say how much we value the working relationship with BAE. It is a great company employing thousands of workers around the country, and we will want to work very closely with it on the back of this plan.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—a man with honour, integrity and principle —for ensuring an extra £15 billion for the defence budget, and to the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is a man of a supreme gallantry. I respect the fact that they resigned on a point of principle, but we are still £13 billion short, of course. What reassurance can the Defence Secretary give to my constituents at RAF Cosford who are looking to see their housing refurbished and replaced over the next few years that that programme is still safe, and to those working on the Boxer and Challenger 3 vehicle programmes? I understand moving to autonomous vehicles, but are those programmes safe at Telford?

I always listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made a number of entirely reasonable points based on constituency interest. Rather than running through all of them now, I am very happy to get back to him with a more detailed response.

Dorset has a proud armed forces tradition and can play a critical role in delivering our defence ambitions. We have a strong ecosystem of cutting-edge drone technology companies at the Dorset Innovation Park and a pipeline of skills and talent coming out of Bournemouth University and Bournemouth and Poole College. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the DIP will back the businesses and institutions in my region to drive forward innovation and deliver the skills that our defence industries need?

I understand that the Dorset Innovation Park is excellent. I can confirm that as a consequence of the investment that this Government are making through the defence investment plan, there will be a whole range of opportunities for the kind of businesses that my hon. Friend represents in her constituency and for businesses right around the country. As I say, I am hugely proud that we will be generating 60,000 jobs and creating economic growth in every corner of the country, including in Dorset.

It is quite clear the Secretary of State knows that we need to be spending a lot more on defence than he has been able to announce in the defence investment plan. In writing the DIP, what assumption did he make about the status and future of the Chagos islands? Does he agree that the more than £30 billion that his Government intend to pay to the Government of Mauritius would be better spent on our defence?

Diego Garcia is important for our national defence, but the assumptions I have had to make are to ensure that we have the right capabilities at the right time, given the nature of the world we operate in. I do not think anybody disputes that the world is a very difficult, complex and dangerous place. It is the job of defence and of the UK Government to ensure that we have the right resource and capabilities. That is why Iusb have been working hard to secure more resource and have sharpened our list of capabilities. That is also why I have been working with Treasury colleagues to ensure that defence will be the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.

The £50 billion defence export fund to support British defence businesses is welcome and will create jobs in my constituency and across Lancashire. Will my right hon. Friend expand on that? Can the fund be used to place orders of Typhoons now, ahead of selling to our allies, so that the production line can continue with Tempest? Will he agree to meet with me and all Lancashire colleagues to discuss this matter further?

My ministerial colleague will be very happy to meet with my hon. Friend.

Following on from my constituency neighbour, I am obviously very disappointed to see that a Typhoon order for the RAF is not in this document. That would be worth around £8 billion, which is the single biggest way that the Government could invest in British jobs through this plan and through the aerospace industry. There is a line about £5.4 billion for Typhoons on page 44, but on page 45 it says that only £1.1 billion of that is new funding. What is the other £4.3 billion attached to the Typhoon platform in this document actually for?

The hon. Gentleman will see from the document that we are investing £300 million in the collaborative combat aircraft order. If he has further concerns and would like to discuss them with me or a ministerial colleague, we would be very happy to do that.

The Secretary of State spoke about different political priorities and tough decisions being made, but today we have seen departmental budget cuts to fund an extra £15 billion for war preparedness. We talk a lot in this Chamber about defending our values, but what values are we actually defending when 14% of children in the UK are living in food insecurity? We are a nation with crumbling infrastructure, and we have more than 3 million people needing food banks to survive.

Our defence spending will mean billions of pounds of investment in Scotland, which will create good jobs for people, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am very proud of that. The Government have had to make tough decisions. We have been honest about them, because we must ensure that we have the resource to invest in the capabilities required to keep the country safe. Those are the choices that we have taken, and we have taken them in our country’s best interests. I am afraid that not everyone will always agree with them—that is the nature of these things—but I have to do right by defence, our armed forces and the nation. I am content that this defence investment plan, a copy of which we will place in the Library of the House, does that.

This £300 billion increase in defence expenditure will be paid for by every single Department. The Secretary of State is right to say that there is a world of insecurity and conflict out there, but where is the foreign policy strategy? Where is the policy to reduce tensions? Where is the policy to try to bring about ceasefires in the terrible wars that are going on? Where is the policy to deal with the real insecurities in the world—climate change, global inequality and poverty?

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and I are unlikely to agree on the best approach when it comes to expenditure and defence, but I hope he will recognise that we have published the defence diplomacy strategy, and that we work closely across Government to align our resources and make sure we are contributing responsibly, along with our international allies. We take our obligations very seriously, not least as a leading member of NATO, but fundamentally this Government have an absolute requirement to make sure we safeguard our national security. That is a priority for this Government, as I hope it would be a priority for any Government, and we have to ensure we have appropriate levels of resource to do that. That requires prioritisation and difficult decisions, and that is what we have done.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I particularly look forward to learning more about the uncrewed systems taskforce. When it comes to the Welsh defence industry, though, can he confirm that today’s defence investment plan will work in tandem with commitments that are already in train—such as the Wales defence growth deal—to nurture and develop the Welsh defence industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I can give him that assurance.

Too little, too late—that will be the legacy of this Labour Government. Earlier today, the Prime Minister admitted that capital projects including roads and energy infrastructure will no longer go ahead as planned to pay for this package. In the interests of transparency, can the Secretary of State tell the House which projects in the west midlands will now be delayed or cancelled, and does he not agree that it would be far better to get a grip of Labour’s ballooning, out-of-control welfare bill than to cut the infrastructure our regions need?

I am trying to help the right hon. Lady out here. This defence investment plan brings forward £15 billion of new investment; it sits alongside a commitment to spend £298 billion, and represents a 27% real-terms increase. I gently invite the right hon. Lady to review the record of the Government of which she was a part. This Government are putting in place the resource we need to secure our national security, which I hope is a shared endeavour across this House, even if not everybody is necessarily signed up to the plan.

As the UK trade envoy to Japan, I strongly welcome the £8.6 billion for the GCAP and Tempest project. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a clear vote of confidence that will enable project partners in our country, Japan and Italy to make strong headway with that project at last?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, not least because it provides me with an opportunity to say how much we value the relationship and constructive partnership we have with our friends in Japan—I have engaged with my opposite number on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks. GCAP is about building a sixth-generation fighter jet for the UK. This will take some time, and the programme is in its early stages, but it is already generating 4,500 jobs, with many more jobs coming online in due course. That is a good investment on behalf of the UK, and we very much welcome our partnership and relationship with both Japan and Italy.

This money risks landing after the danger, because it backloads most of the spending until after 2030. What if Russia rearms before 2030, or what if Xi Jinping does as the Chinese Communist party says it will and invades Taiwan in the next two years? Will this plan give us what we need to protect us, given that we would have to step up and defend the whole of Europe as the US moves its focus to the Indo-Pacific?

The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about the nature of the threat—it absolutely needs to focus all our minds, as well as those of our European and NATO partners. That is why we have brought forward this defence investment plan, making sure the capabilities that are in place will deliver the effect we need as early as possible. I agree with her concerns about the nature of the threat we face from Russia and—she and I have debated this on numerous occasions—other states as well. What we have to do is marshal the resources and capabilities to ensure we are best prepared, working alongside our allies. That is what this defence investment plan will do, but I accept the basic point that we will want and need to do more.

I call Douglas McAllister to ask a short, final question.

I am presuming that everything we do now, including spending on defence, will help clear the pathway to a re-industrialised nation. I understand that rewiring Britain involves ensuring parity between academic and technical career routes. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the defence investment plan is to succeed, we need to skill up our nation, and that includes having two defence technical excellence colleges in Scotland, including one at West College Scotland in West Dunbartonshire?

I completely agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. It is important to underline that we are looking for some financial support from the SNP for those colleges, but he is right to make the point in the way that he does. I am proud that the investment that we have brought forward today will affect communities right across the country and generate 6,000 jobs around the UK.