PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Defence Investment Plan - 15 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect of the delay in the defence investment plan on our armed forces’ ability to defend the United Kingdom.

Before I turn to the matter before us, the whole House will want to join me in recognising the remarkable work of our armed forces this weekend. In the channel, UK forces bordered a sanctioned vessel from Russia’s shadow fleet to disrupt the flow of funds to Putin’s illegal war in the Ukraine. The Defence Secretary will be making a statement on that shortly.

These are extraordinary times for defence. The threats are real and they are increasing. It is no secret that I worked in lockstep with the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey). He is a friend and mentor. I was his deputy and I am still standing at the Dispatch Box because he asked me to stay and because we need continuity in this complex and difficult operational environment.

The DIP will be published before the NATO summit. Do we need to spend more on defence? Yes. Do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor agree with that? Yes. Are we spending more? Yes. This year the defence budget is £11 billion more than it was in the final year under the Conservatives. Are we learning the lessons from Ukraine? Yes. Are we retiring old kit to invest in new capabilities? Yes. Are we backing our people? Yes, with the biggest pay rise in 20 years and a £9 billion plan to fix the defence housing crisis that we inherited. It is working: intake is up 11.6%, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up.

To answer the Leader of the Opposition’s question directly: if asked to fight tonight, could our forces defend the UK? Yes, and they already do every single day. Are we planning to increase their capabilities to deter and defend the UK and our allies? Yes, we are. Would I like to go further? Of course.

The new Defence Secretary has stepped up to serve, as he has done before, sleeves rolled up and determined to meet the moment to get defence the best deal. Let me say plainly that I know the Prime Minister is committed to do so as well. He said in Munich:

“To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster.”

And at the weekend, he said

“3% in the next Parliament…defence will be the number one priority at every spending review, including the next spending review.”

The disagreement in recent weeks was never about whether we should fund our forces; it was about how fast we increase the spending for defence and on what capabilities. That is a serious argument to have—I make no apology for pushing hard within the Government to win it, because that is the job. But the job is also a team sport, and that is why the Ministry of Defence, with the new Defence Secretary, is working with the Treasury, other Government Departments and No. 10 to get this right.

It speaks volumes that a junior Minister has been sent to answer this question today. If the new Defence Secretary is too scared to face tough questions at the Dispatch Box, waiting for an easier statement later, then I do not have much confidence in him facing down the threats from Russia.

It has been two years since Labour paused the Conservatives’ plan to fund our armed forces, and a year since Labour’s strategic defence review. [Interruption.] We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan—

Order. Those who have recently got on to the Front Bench should not bring their Back-Bench habits with them, please.

We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan are making our troops and our country less safe. Last week, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces quit the Government, because they knew that those warnings were true and they were no longer willing to defend the indefensible. They have done the honourable thing by resigning. It could not have been easy for the former Defence Secretary—a Labour man through and through—when he said that

“I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.”

That is absolutely shocking. What on earth are the Government playing at?

The statement that the Minister has just given shows that the Government are still in denial. He did not say that there would be extra money for the defence investment plan, as his former mentor—so he says—asked for. The Prime Minister needs to tell the Chancellor to find the money. The answer is to cut the welfare budget, and I am willing to lend the Government 116 votes to do just that—I know Labour Back Benchers will not do it—with the proviso that the defence investment plan meets three simple tests.

First, the Government must at a minimum find the £28 billion that the Chief of the Defence Staff has said is needed. Will they? Secondly, the funding must be provided before 2030. Will it? There is no kicking into the long grass here. If the answer to both of those questions is no, the Minister should have resigned along with his colleagues. Thirdly, the funding must ensure that we are ready to fight the wars of the future, not the past.

I am sure the Minister will now stand up and try to blame the situation on Conservative Governments, forgetting that these are new threats, not past threats. This Government need to stop wasting time and do what is necessary to keep the British people safe today.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and for the tone in which she asked it. We often have a lot of shouting from Members on her Front Bench, but I appreciate the professionalism and calm with which she asked those questions—[Interruption.]

Order. I think there are two Members who want to spoil it, but I am sure that they will not.

Let me be very clear. The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King, and he will be in the House this afternoon to make a statement on the operations over the weekend.[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 71.] (Correction)

I recognise that the right hon. Lady got her revenge in early by saying that I will seek to blame the situation on the Conservatives. Let me be very clear. She will know that we inherited forces that had been hollowed out and underfunded by the Conservatives. We inherited defence housing in which families were being asked to sleep in bedrooms with black mould, leaky roofs and broken boilers. Of the major defence programmes we inherited at the general election, 47 of 49 were overbudget and unfunded.

However, we have been very clear that we are increasing defence spending. I appreciate that the right hon. Lady had her pre-scripted questions, but, if she had listened to what I said at the start, she would know that we are increasing defence spending. We have an extra £11 billion—[Interruption.]

Order. I think Members have just proved my point. When you request an urgent question and it has been asked, you must allow the Minister to answer without comment and without two of you—on either side of the Leader of the Opposition—chipping in. I do not need it, and you do not want it. I am not being funny; this issue affects all our constituencies and our constituents.

We are increasing defence spending. The budget this year is £11 billion more than the budget in the last year of the Conservative Government. We are ending the hollowing-out, but of course I want more money in the defence budget. We continue to make that case as the profile of defence spending increases. I would welcome a debate that says, “What capabilities will we spend that increasing defence funding on?”

The right hon. Lady is right; we need to fight the wars of tomorrow. That is why we are investing in more autonomy, more drones, a hybrid Navy and the increased stockpiles that we need to deter Russian aggression. There is more work to do, and the new Defence Secretary is working with his sleeves rolled up to deliver the best deal that we can. We will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit.

For the past 18 months, I have been talking to the former Defence Secretary and Ministers across Government as part of my campaign for the UK to co-found the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) noted in his resignation letter, we need to find different ways to finance our defence industry, and that should include standing with our allies and working internationally. Will the Government listen to calls from across the House to join this world bank for defence as a matter of urgency? We cannot afford for the British defence industry to be locked out of this bank. The charter will be signed at the NATO summit, and the clock is ticking.

I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on lobbying for the DSRB—as an MP for a military town, she champions not just the Army but local businesses in her patch. We are looking at what multinational mechanisms would best deliver for defence and, importantly, for the defence supply chain, enabling us to finance the growth we expect in that supply chain. That work is continuing, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue having conversations with the Treasury, which leads on that aspect.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

With the defence investment plan now nine months overdue, I hear almost daily from small and medium-sized defence enterprises that face a funding precipice. Many are warning that without certainty from Government, they will be unable to invest, hire, or—in some cases—continue operating. Will the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the financial impact on the UK defence industry of the continued delay to the defence investment plan?

The Government’s national security adviser has said that our armed forces need a minimum of £18 billion extra—and likely a lot more. Given that his former colleagues resigned on principle over the Government’s failure to fund defence properly, will the Minister resign if he fails to secure at least that minimum allocation? In the spirit of constructive opposition, may I suggest a way for him to avoid that fate entirely? Will he consider backing Lib Dem defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years and give our armed forces the immediate injection of funding they need for certainty?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He will know that since the general election, we have signed 1,400 major defence contracts, which have supported thousands of SMEs. He will also know that we have stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, a single doorway to increase the Ministry of Defence’s direct spend with SMEs by 50% by 2028. We will continue to work on that, and as someone who was a defence-focused MP before I was a shadow Defence Minister, let alone a Defence Minister, I am proud of my advocacy for Devonport, for Plymouth and for our armed forces. I will continue to make that case from within Government, to give our forces the funding they need and the increase in defence spending that we need. The Government have already set out an ambition to deliver that.

My hon. Friend may know that Aeralis, a British aerospace company seeking to develop a replacement for the Red Arrows, has gone into administration, and the company is in part blaming the delays to the defence investment plan for that terrible outcome. I thank my hon. Friend for the time he has taken with me, looking for opportunities to invest defence spend in my constituency, but can he do more to ensure that the defence investment plan creates good-quality jobs across the country?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question —we have discussed Aeralis in the past. We are committed to the Red Arrows, and there will be a competition to replace them, as well as the Hawk T1 and T2 training system, which provides the pilots of the future. That will be a competitive process, and it will be up to companies to provide a design, an option, and a training system to support it. That competition will launch in due course.

I call the Father of the House.

When the nation is at risk and the Leader of the Opposition asks a question, it is frankly cowardly for the Secretary of State not to turn up. His duty is to be here in our House of Commons.

Order. I say to the Father of the House that the King has summoned the Secretary of State, and he is with the King at the moment. The language he has used about the Secretary of State being cowardly is not called for, and I expect better from the Father of the House.

I am sure the King would have understood, but we will leave it at that.

The Minister constantly blames the previous Conservative Government, but the fact is that times have changed. Let us look at history. We were in the same situation in the 1930s—in 1935, we were only spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when we increased it to 9%, the whole nation came together. The Leader of the Opposition has offered the Minister a deal: we will combine with the Government to slash the huge welfare budget. We will help them to deliver what the previous Secretary of State wanted. Why did the previous Secretary of State resign?

First, let me be very clear with the right hon. Gentleman—who I have a lot of time for—that the new Defence Secretary is someone who served our country in uniform. He served in the Parachute Regiment and was awarded an MBE for his work in uniform. He is someone who I am very proud to serve alongside, and I am working alongside him now to ensure we can deliver a defence investment plan with the funding that is required to renew our forces.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that times have changed. That is precisely why the capabilities in the defence investment plan aim to retire old kit and bring on investment in new kit, particularly drones—one-way effectors, the hybrid navy and autonomy. We are learning the lessons from Ukraine; because we are there, standing alongside our friends, we can see how Russia fights and what works. Not only are we using that knowledge to support our friends in Ukraine, we are bringing it back to create capabilities for the UK armed forces. When the DIP is published, which it will be shortly, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I find it remarkable that the Conservatives have raised this urgent question, given that under their watch, real-terms defence spending fell by 22% and their own former Defence Secretary admitted that they had left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. We should also reject the framing of this debate. Pitting welfare against security is divisive and corrosive, and we should call it out for what it is. This Government are already spending £62.2 billion on defence this year, rising to £73.5 billion by 2028-29. Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the defence investment plan is published, it will maximise spending with British industries so that every pound spent also strengthens—

Order. I think the Minister has got it.

I remember sitting where the Leader of the Opposition is now when the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, described the hollowing out and underfunding by the Conservative Government. Let me also be clear, in answering my hon. Friend’s question directly that, I want more of a rising defence budget spent with British companies. An increasing defence budget spent with British companies is more jobs and more opportunities for our young people. Defence spending is reindustrialisation of our communities. It is an engine for growth and that is why we are investing in skills, in our small and medium-sized enterprises and in innovation. If we do all of that right, we will give our fighting forces the equipment they need to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression. I welcome the debate on how much we spend and how quickly. I will continue making the case for more defence spending. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are aware of that and are increasing it.

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

The House will be aware that we spend £333 billion a year on the Department for Work and Pensions. We spend less than a fifth of that on defence, at £62 billion. In his speech this morning, the Prime Minister talked about government being “a choice”. Is this the right choice?

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, and he will know that much of the DWP budget that he describes pays pensions and benefits to those who cannot work. Where people can work, we are giving them support to get back into the economy and back into work. That is an important part of a Labour Government’s mission to help everyone to work if they can. The case that he makes for increasing defence spending is part of this debate. As well as the total figure, I am equally interested in the capabilities we are spending it on. It is not just about a calendar day when a document gets published, but about what capabilities, what drones and what ability we need in our hybrid Navy; what do we need to invest in to create the deterrence to increase our warfighting readiness? That is a good debate to have.

This Government are not year zero. The 2.5% target has not been hit since 2010—the end of the last Labour Government—and there has been an extra £11 billion since the end of the last Conservative Government. I met my ex-husband in the Fleet Air Arm in 2003, just in time to witness some of the hollowing out of the armed forces, with the loss of capability and good people. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for providing the continuity needed for these detailed negotiations. Can he confirm that there will, by the NATO summit, be a fully funded plan on defence for the first time in a generation?

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is not only a good voice in support of the armed forces in her constituency, but one of the loudest voices in support of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It is a key part of our military apparatus, and we are continuing to invest in it. She is right that we will publish a fully funded defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. It is the first time in 20 years that we have had a line-by-line review of defence spending. It looks at the capabilities that we need and at investment not just in kit and equipment but in our people and our estates.

Yesterday, at the glorious Princess Alice hospice summer fete in my constituency, I met Glen, a Royal Navy veteran whose last deployment was aboard HMS Broadsword. He said to me, “What are they doing to the Royal Navy? I want you to represent me and tell them that they need to sort it out”, so I am telling them to sort it out. Why are our Government ducking the responsible decisions to fund the defence investment plan properly, and why are they disregarding the Liberal Democrat proposals to fund it through defence bonds—raising up to £20 billion over two years—so that Glen and other vets can be proud rather than despairing of the services that they used to serve so well?

HMS Broadsword was quite a ship. I remember going on her when I was growing up in Plymouth many moons ago—and that is a good example of what we are doing. We are having to retire old capabilities. The frigate force in particular—the Type 23s—were run on far too long, and should have been replaced long before the orders were placed by the last Government. That is creating difficulties in the frigates that we have. But let me tell Glen and the House what we are doing about it. We are investing in a new hybrid Navy with more autonomous, uncrewed capabilities. We are installing DragonFire, our directed energy weapon system, on Type 45 destroyers. We are addressing the retention and recruitment crisis that saw so much of our Navy personnel hollowed out, in particular addressing the shortage subjects such as marine engineering, and ensuring that we are giving our Royal Marines the latest kit and equipment. The new Kraken K3 Scouts for 47 Commando are a good example of the way in which we are equipping our Royal Marines with the equipment that they need.

As the Minister will know from his many welcome visits to my constituency, my community is proudly home to MOD Abbey Wood, the centre of Defence Equipment and Support, and many brilliant defence companies of a wide range of sizes. Will he please tell us how he expects the defence investment plan to support important businesses like those?

My hon. Friend is right: I have had many good times in Filton and Bradley Stoke, not only with the amazing people who work at the National Armaments Director Group at Abbey Wood—those who work tirelessly to give our people the kit and equipment that they need—but when seeing some of the superb work that Rolls-Royce is doing, for instance, in supporting not just the global combat air programme but the operational effectiveness of our air platforms today. Other businesses, large and small, in my hon. Friend’s patch will benefit from the 10 years of certainty that will come from the defence investment plan, and it will be published before the NATO summit.

I think we all very much welcomed the amazing work done by Lord Robertson, along with his team, including General Barrons and Fi Hill. How many of their 62 recommendations are the Government still committed to?

All of them.

The Minister will know that Redditch is home to many businesses that proudly support our armed forces. I think he may have touched on this in his previous answer, but can he confirm that when the Prime Minister goes to the NATO summit next month, the DIP will be published in full?

Yes, we will be publishing the DIP ahead of the NATO summit, as the Prime Minister has been saying for a number of weeks, and it will not just set out the kit and capabilities. Unlike the defence equipment plans that we inherited from the Conservative party—which were unfunded; there was, for instance, an £18 billion black hole in their equipment plan—the DIP will also deal with the estates, the housing situation, and our people, vital enablers of a whole defence project. A line-by-line review has highlighted the mistakes, such as the lack of support contracts that we saw under the Conservatives. As I have said, this will be a funded plan, and it will be published ahead of the NATO summit.

The defence funding is obviously very late and it will clearly be inadequate as well, but an even greater scandal is surely the fact that the spending itself is so poorly conducted. Our procurement system is slow, wasteful and outdated. The Minister praised them earlier, but does he not accept that the bureaucrats who gave us the Ajax programme cannot command the confidence of the armed forces? Will he acknowledge that the part of the MOD that he oversees is slow and wasteful, procures outdated equipment, and is the most dysfunctional part of the British state?

That sounds like a very good description of the procurement record of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member when he was a Conservative, but let me say this very simply to Reform: where is your defence spokesperson? Reform Members are often missing from defence events. Where are they? Let us make sure that we have the investment, because I want to see armed forces that stand up to Russia, not Reform politicians who accept bribes from Russia.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to reply to the UQ.

It is truly shocking that our armed services have been forced to live in disgraceful, appalling conditions for many years. The Minister is aware that the defence housing strategy was launched last year, and I thank him for giving me a briefing on that. Part of it uses funding from the strategic defence review. Can the Minister confirm that the funding is still secured? We are seeing concerns about the overall defence investment plan.

It was a scandal that so many of our armed forces personnel were being asked and required to live in accommodation with black mould, broken boilers and leaky roofs. It directly affected the fall in morale that we saw in every single service for nearly the duration of the Conservative Government, and it led to the retention and recruitment crisis. It is the reason why, when in opposition, we said that we would make improving defence housing a priority, and why in government we have announced a £9 billion programme to improve defence homes. Not only did we have a target of delivering improvements to the 1,000 worst defence homes by Christmas—a target that we achieved ahead of time—but we have completed the next 200 most appalling homes. By the next decade, nine in 10 defence homes will have been either rebuilt or refurbished, giving our people the homes that they should have had for many years, but which they are getting only because a Labour Government are providing the funding.

Does the Minister realise how utterly discredited the Government now look? We all understand that a majority of Members of this House want the Government to take the necessary steps to find the extra money that is necessary for defence, but it is the failure of the Prime Minister to manage his own party that is at the root of the problem. Will changing the leader make any difference?

I am here to talk about defence policy rather than the Labour party leadership, I am afraid, but let me be very clear: the Prime Minister has set out his desire to spend more on defence and to spend it faster. I welcome that because I want to see more defence spending. We have a profile that already increases defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in April 2027—something never achieved in 14 years of Conservative Government. I welcome the important debate about how we can go faster on defence spending; I also want to see a debate about what capabilities we are spending on and how much more of the money is directed at UK businesses. That is what I hope will happen in the next couple of weeks.

The Government have led with a NATO-first approach in the SDR and have worked to strengthen the alliance. At the 2025 Hague summit, the alliance committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Can the Minister say what conversations he has had with NATO partners on the DIP, so that we can all work towards that increased spending goal?

Working with NATO partners is a key plank of how we increase the deterrence and security of the United Kingdom. In the past few days, I have had conversations with our friends in Norway about how we can build a combined frigate force. I have had conversations with our French, German, Polish and Italian allies about how we can bring forward more defence investment by working together on a number of capabilities. We will continue to do that, but as my hon. Friend has set out, we are committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence as part of 5% being spent on national security by 2035, including 3% in the next Parliament. I will continue to make the case for increased defence spending, and for more capabilities for our armed forces.

I want to put on the record my respect for the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). Both served in the roles they relinquished last week with the sincerity and integrity that those roles demanded. Each should be commended for putting the needs of our country before their own this past week, citing the Government’s underwhelming commitment to defence investment—of course, the rest of us will just have to take their word for it.

I also have great respect for the incumbent Secretary of State for Defence. I know that he is with the King this week and is unable to explain what it is about the Government’s approach that inspires him but not his predecessor. In his absence, can the Minister explain when we will see the defence investment plan that he has now been left to front?

It is the same answer that I have given for quite some time: the defence investment plan will be published ahead of the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. I join the hon. Gentleman in his words of thanks to the previous Defence Secretary and the previous Minister for the Armed Forces. Serving alongside two people with a passion for defence has been a real privilege for me, and I share the passion and commitment of the new Defence Secretary. We have a job to get this right. We know that it is important and that it matters, which is why we are continuing to increase defence spending. A debate that asks how quickly we are increasing defence spending, and what more we can do, is a debate that I welcome, but let us also make sure that we are talking about what we are spending on. It is not just about kit and equipment; our people need to get a mention.

We are talking of spending, but modern warfare, like warfare since time immemorial, depends on the bravery of our fighting men and our fighting women. We also need a nimble and effective industrial base, for we used to have arrows, then there were bullets and shells, and now there are drones and tech. How can we be best prepared for the next war and support small and medium-sized enterprises in places such as Suffolk?

My hon. Friend is assiduous in raising the people involved in tech. I have visited Suffolk, which is an area where SMEs do really well; indeed, I have been to a Ukrainian drone manufacturing company that has set up in that part of the world. We need to learn the lessons from Ukraine, and that means more autonomy, more drones, a more joined-up way of thinking and a change in the way we fight, if only because the way that Russia has fought in Ukraine shows that some of the doctrine we have traditionally followed and inherited from the Conservatives—the difference between the close and the deep, how artillery and drones work together, and how we can hold ground and take it—have changed fundamentally. That is why we are setting out, in the defence investment plan, the implementation of the SDR: to start the process of getting us to a more lethal force.

I know the Minister accepts that I have criticised successive Governments for not spending anything like the 4.5% that Margaret Thatcher used to spend on defence at the height of the cold war throughout the 1980s, but does he accept that the service chiefs have made an objective assessment of the Government’s own strategic defence review, and have arrived at the conclusion that the sum of £28 billion is necessary to implement it over, I believe, a four-year period? If he accepts that, how can he possibly go along with an offer from the Treasury of less than half the total needed?

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. He and I are on different sides of the Chamber, but we made the case for increased defence spending during the last Parliament, and I am glad he is with me in arguing for increased defence spending in this Parliament as well. We will continue to make the case for that and to look at how we can deliver those increased capabilities.

At the beginning of the month, I attended the NATO Parliamentary Assembly spring session in Lithuania with representatives of NATO and other allies, including Ukraine. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the Labour party has a strong tradition, going back to Ernest Bevin, of maintaining a strong and effective defence for our nation both within NATO and independently. After 14 failed Tory years, and considering that other NATO countries are well ahead of us in the proportion of GDP they are spending on defence, what will the Minister do to ensure our armed forces receive the transformation they require to face modern-day threats, with an industrial sector to provide support, so that we do not betray Labour’s strong defence tradition?

I thank my hon. Friend for his work with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is important not just that we have a Labour Government with a NATO-first approach, but that parliamentarians from all parties make the case for UK leadership. We are currently working with a number of our NATO allies on both the coalition of the willing activity for Ukraine, and the UK-led mission to help reopen and de-mine the strait of Hormuz in the future. We are working with our NATO friends to make sure we are increasing deterrence and, where possible, moving from interoperability to interchangeability to ensure that our kit and equipment can be shared. That increases warfighting ability, increases lethality, smooths supply chains and poses a greater deterrent option against Russia, which we will continue doing. We will work with our NATO friends not only on joint procurement projects, but on how we operate, train and deploy more together.

Just when the High North and the Arctic is emerging as one of the world’s most important strategic hotspots, we have witnessed a major UK Government Department disintegrate before our eyes, with the Secretary of State—because of the parsimony of the Treasury—resigning, and taking a junior Minister, the Armed Forces Minister, with him. Why does the Minister think the Prime Minister can convince our NATO allies that he is capable of defending the strategically important Greenland-Iceland-UK gap when he cannot even convince his colleagues that he can?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is not normal that the SNP has a very strong pro-defence line, but it is, I guess, welcome. If this is a change of heart from the Scottish nationalists, I broadly welcome it.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the action over the weekend against Russia’s shadow fleet. He will also know of the work we do out of Scotland—for instance, at the Faslane submarine operating base and RAF Lossiemouth, with the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft and the quick reaction response aircraft—to ensure that we work in particular with our Norwegian allies and with our allies across the High North. The defence investment plan only increases the investment in that part of the world, because it is an area where we are seeing increased risk from Russia. We are seeing an increased number of Russian ships in our waters and we know that the threat to our undersea cables and our airspace is real and increasing. I hope that we can find a new cross-party consensus with the SNP, which I hope will start with the SNP Government funding a second defence technical excellence college in Scotland to give our young people the skills they need.

I am proud that Blackpool and the Fylde college in my constituency, which my hon. Friend has seen, has been selected as one of the five DTECs in England. That is part of a major national investment in skills. Given the significant opportunities that that brings to Blackpool, can the Minister confirm that the defence investment plan will support young people into the careers that are needed in the defence industry?

It was a privilege to be in Blackpool for the announcement of the five English DTECs. It is an opportunity, for the very first time for defence, to invest in the skills of our young people. My hon. Friend will have seen not only a Labour Government investing in further education, with the five DTECs in England, one in Wales and hopefully two in Scotland, but, in the last week, our announcement of funding for more further education colleges and universities to provide defence and defence-adjacent skills. To deliver on the increased defence spending we are making, we will need more investment in skills, especially for 16 to 19-year-olds, graduates and—an area that is talked about less—those retraining in mid-career. I know Blackpool has a real focus on that, especially working with BAE Systems on Typhoons at Samlesbury and Warton.

On 1 July, the Trade Minister is slapping a 50% tariff on steel from many of our allies, much of which goes into the aerospace and defence supply chain. That will affect the cost of the defence investment plan. Will the Minister urgently review those tariffs and their impact on our defence spending? I am sure he will agree that he wants to get the most bang for his money when funding defence.

The hon. Lady is right to argue that we need more investment in our steel industry. That is why the defence industrial strategy identified steel as one of the sectors we need to invest in more. It is also why, under this Government, we are seeing more investment in, for example, Sheffield Forgemasters, which has a specialist steelmaking capability that we use in certain parts of defence. I am very happy if she wants to write to me on the particular issue she raises.

There has been a lot of talk for a very long time about additional money being needed for defence. What would the Minister do with more money that he cannot do now?

Look, I want to see more defence spending, but the way we have drafted the defence investment plan is as a scalable proposition. With more defence spending, we would see more drones, more investment in our stockpile, a faster recovery of personnel numbers, more investment in autonomy and the hybrid Navy, and more investment in housing and the regeneration of our estate, in particular the regeneration of our ports and our naval refit facilities. That would make such a big difference to availability. The DIP is deliberately designed to be a scalable plan to reflect the spending we receive.

The Minister told us that the former Secretary of State had asked him to stay. Had he not been so asked, would he have resigned too? How much persuasion did it take? [Laughter.]

That is a good one. As someone who comes from a defence family, whose—[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition sighs. Let us talk about those people who come from a proud military family. I am proud that my old man was a submariner. I am proud of his service. I represent a military city. It has taken years upon years to get a Labour Government. I respect the decision that my former ministerial colleagues made. I decided to stay and I was encouraged to stay. There is a good reason for doing so. Given the activities over the weekend, I am proud to continue to work alongside some incredibly brave and professional people in our armed forces to keep our nation safe.

I acknowledge the service of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and others who worked in his office, and I am sorry to see them go. I thank the Minister for his response, but I have to say that this is one heck of a mess. I know how difficult it can be to work with the Treasury, and that there is much we have to do, but my constituents want to know that we will do whatever we must to keep them safe. When I go home on Thursday, how can I tell them that we will do that?

We are already increasing defence spending, renewing our forces, fixing defence housing, increasing the pay of our armed forces, and tackling the toxic culture that existed in our armed forces, to make working in defence good for every person. I want to see that go faster and further. With more defence spending, we can deliver more and greater deterrents and greater lethality. As someone who feels passionate about defence, I welcome a debate about increasing defence spending. I have a lot of time for the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and the arguments that they have made. I want to see more defence spending. The new Defence Secretary wants to get the best deal for our armed forces, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, equally, are planning to increase defence spending. A debate that says, “How fast, by when, and spending on what?” is one that I welcome.

I recognise that the Minister has a difficult job to do in answering today, but has he not noticed that even though Labour has three times more MPs, there are nearly twice as many Conservatives present in the Chamber? Is that not because the Minister’s colleagues are voting with their feet and saying that the former Defence Secretary was right, and could not defend the indefensible?

As the right hon. Gentleman would know if he was present at more Defence questions, I like defence scrutiny and debate. As far as I am concerned, everyone could go round again, because more questions on defence, especially on capabilities—not on timing or what happened last week, but on the capabilities we need to invest in—are a debate that I welcome.

The past is a story of the Conservatives hollowing out our defence, the present is a story of this Government spending more than the Conservatives did at any time in their 14 years, but my question is about the future. Our brave allies in Ukraine have revolutionised warfare—[Interruption.] The Opposition might want to listen to this, as it is serious. Our allies in Ukraine have shown the effectiveness of drone technology and are turning the tables on the Russians, so how can we learn from them in the defence investment plan?

I know that the Conservatives do not like hearing about their hollowing out of the armed forces, but that is what we inherited and are trying to put right. If the Conservatives had spent the level of defence spending that they now argue for when they were in power, only two years ago, perhaps we would not have such a big challenge today. [Interruption.] I do not like it when the Conservatives groan about our armed forces; I do not think it is respectful enough or what we need.

As to my hon. Friend’s question, when we look at Ukraine, we see the way in which drone technology is changing in an electronic warfare environment. We are supporting that by buying 120,000 drones this year for our friends in Ukraine, utilising cutting-edge British technology. Some brilliant British companies are working with brilliant Ukrainian companies. We are not only looking at small drones, the EW environment, radars and command and control systems; what I am learning from Ukraine is how we build all those things together.

The former Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, set out clearly how we can learn from Ukraine. The strategic defence review sets out how we are learning from Ukraine. The defence investment plan sets out how we will buy more drone technology and learn that way. I welcome more investment going into defence. The more that we learn from Ukraine, the greater deterrent capability we have to stop Putin looking over the NATO boundary and thinking he can have a go at a Baltic state, somewhere along the eastern flank, or even at the United Kingdom.

This year, global arms expenditure will be about $3 trillion. Every country that is raising expenditure is doing so through taxation, cuts or debt. In drawing up this defence spending strategy, what consideration did the Minister’s Department or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office give to a strategy of multilateral negotiations, détente and peace in the future, as a way for everybody to benefit from a peace dividend of less being spent on arms, rather than more?

Of all the people I expected to be arguing for more defence spending, the right hon. Gentleman was not among them. Let me say very clearly to him: NATO is the guarantor of much of our security. This Government are proud to have a NATO-first policy, working with our NATO allies across the Euro-Atlantic area to deter Russian aggression. We can see what happens when deterrence fails; we can look at our friends in Ukraine to see Russian aggression, with attacks on civilian infrastructure, including one overnight—an attack that we correctly condemn for the brutality and illegality of targeting civilian infrastructure.

We can see what happens when deterrence fails. That is why we are investing more in defence to increase our deterrence alongside our allies in order to prevent conflict in the future. This is a really important task—it is the first duty of the Government. I want to see more defence spending because I do not want to see the United Kingdom in a war like the one our friends in Ukraine are fighting now. That is why we must continue to support our friends in Ukraine for as long as it takes and why we must invest in the new kit and capabilities that our forces need to deter aggression. That is what this Labour Government will do.

At a Falklands war veterans conference last week in Poole, I was asked to reassure our serving personnel that the funding is there for the deterrence we need to keep this nation safe. This Labour Government have already given our armed forces a pay rise, invested in defence housing, increased defence spending and increased retention and recruitment in the Army. By contrast, because there has been a lot of groaning on the Conservative Benches today, between 2010 and 2024 under the last Conservative Government, the size of our Army shrank by 30%. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a fully funded plan to deliver this Government’s vision for defence, and can he reassure my constituents that we will always keep this nation safe?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I also thank all those who served in the Falklands in the 1982 conflict. Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of Liberation Day, which is celebrated in both the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands; it is important that we remember the sacrifice of the people who went to the south Atlantic and never came back. That is one of the reasons that I want to see more defence investment and for us to have the deterrent capability.

I come from a military family, with members of my family having served across the forces, so I know that when serving personnel go away, there is always a question mark over whether they will come home. That is precisely what drives me in my passion for more defence spending. We need to spend on the kit and equipment that keeps our people safe and provides deterrence and warfighting capability. That is exactly what this Labour Government are doing: investing in our people and in our forces. Of course I want to see more defence spending—that is an argument that we are making, and we will continue to do so with the defence investment plan published before the NATO summit.

I welcome the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), the former Defence Secretary, and his reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to all the recommendations in the strategic defence review. Given that reaffirmation, how many of those 62 recommendations currently have the necessary funding fully agreed and committed to by the Treasury?

We support all 62 recommendations of the SDR, and they are all in progress. The defence investment plan sets out how we will deliver our equipment, personnel and estates for the next 10 years. I want to see more defence investment—the argument that was made by my former colleagues is powerful. I do want to see more defence spending, and I welcome the argument and debate about that across the House.

I thank the Minister for his answers. I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his rightful place on the Front Bench; his experience in the armed forces will be useful to the Government. He also knows my constituency of Harlow very well, which is particularly useful, as I am sure Members will all agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) has stolen my thunder, as I was going to say that the most important part of our armed forces is our people—our soldiers, our naval personnel, our sailors and other staff. Can the Minister reassure me that he will continue to champion our armed forces and ensure that they have all that they need to do their jobs and to keep us all safe?

I can confirm that we will continue to invest in our people. I think the last time we had a defence review that did not cut the size of the British Army was in the late ’80s. In the strategic defence review published under this Labour Government, we announced that we will increase the size of the British Army to 76,000. We know that the Army’s strength fell considerably and that there was a retention and recruitment crisis in our armed forces under the Conservative Government. That is precisely what we are addressing with the biggest pay rise for our armed forces and by taking action on housing and childcare.

I welcome the new Minister for Veterans and People, but I also want to say that I am really proud of the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—another veteran serving in a key role. Both of them will do a good job for our nation.

In his excoriating resignation letter, the genuinely hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) made it clear that he was leaving not just because he considered the DIP to be underfunded but, more particularly, because it planned to spend the money on the wrong things, preparing to fight the last war and not the war to come. He was right, wasn’t he?

I have a lot of time for the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister, and I agree with much of the argument they have made about the importance of increasing defence spending. That is why today I have set out continually from the Dispatch Box that I want to see more defence spending, and I want to see it directed at British companies.

I want to see us prepare to deter the next conflict. To do that, we need to invest more in drones, and that is what the defence investment plan will set out. However, as I have said, the defence investment plan is a deliberately scalable document that can reflect an increasing defence budget. That is what we are projecting over the coming decade, delivering our commitment to 3.5% on core defence by 2035.

Spending more on the new capabilities, though, does mean retiring old capabilities. It means doing something that the armed forces have not done for a very long time: discarding some of that kit and equipment that has been around for many, many decades and investing in newer technologies. That is a difficult argument for Ministers to make—it is difficult for those people who are attached to old equipment in particular—but when we have armour that has been in service since before the Vietnam war and ships that are decades past their decommissioning date, we need to be honest about the need to retire old equipment and buy new equipment. The hybrid Navy is just one example of what we will be setting out in the defence investment plan.

I have been told from a reliable source that our Prime Minister, in stark contrast to all other previous modern-day Prime Ministers, has never visited our special forces’ headquarters in Hereford. Is that a reflection of how low down defence is on his priorities list?

I will say two things to the hon. Member. I know that she is relatively new to the House, but it is a really important rule that we do not comment on special forces. We neither confirm nor deny activities or visits to any special forces location. We do that deliberately, because any question that helps define who is where and what they are doing is of benefit to our adversaries. I appreciate that she was looking for a “gotcha” question, but let me take her back to the important thing: we do not comment on special forces.

What I have seen from our Prime Minister and the former Defence Secretary is their meeting the crews of our ballistic submarines when they return on zero day, after many months under the sea. I have seen them support the brilliant service of armed forces personnel. I am afraid that the hon. Member will not get me, or any other Minister, to comment on special forces. I suggest that she thinks carefully before asking questions like that again.

Last week, I was away at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I thought I had understood why the former Secretary of State for Defence had resigned, but here today according to the Minister it is really unknown.

Where the Minister is right is in talking about making sure that naval procurement does not go through the problems it had in the past—that was one of the consequences of being in power with the Liberal Democrats. On procuring ships, there are shipyards that are worried about whether they can maintain their workforces—without the DIP, they cannot know—and I am concerned to read that the Type 83 destroyer may be postponed. Will all the plans for capital ships currently in place remain—yes or no, or is that up for debate as well?

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. He will know from his time in the Ministry of Defence and on the NATO PA that getting procurement right and fixing the broken procurement system we inherited is important. We have already taken a number of steps to get there. I think he will recall that I gave an answer on the Type 83 last week, at the last urgent question on this topic. If he looks back at that, he will get his answer.

Let me say clearly to the right hon. Member that we inherited an equipment plan that was overcommitted and unsuitable for the challenges we now face. That is one of the reasons we are looking to invest more in autonomy and more in hybrid and uncrewed systems. For the Royal Navy especially—he mentioned the importance of air defence—we are looking at how uncrewed systems can sail alongside crewed systems, providing that air defence bubble. Learning lessons from our friends in Ukraine and from recent activities in the middle east and Cyprus will be an important part of that. He will be able to recognise that immediately when he reads the DIP, on its publication.

Martin from Wimborne contacted me at the weekend to share his suggestion on funding the defence investment plan. He thinks that the Lib Dem idea of issuing defence bonds is a really sensible one and has told me that, in his view, many people with money in cash ISAs might be tempted to invest if the investment were taken out of their inheritance tax liability. Will the Minister confirm whether discussions are happening about innovative ways to access the capital needed to ensure that the DIP can be fully funded?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and Martin for his interest in how we increase defence spending. She will know from our debates in this Chamber that it is not just the defence investment plan that we are working on currently. We are also looking at how, through a defence finance and investment strategy, working with our defence advisory group for City professionals, we can look at accessing new forms of capital, including patient, sovereign and a whole range of capital options.

I know that the hon. Lady and her party are keen on the war bonds option, and I am happy to look at the detailed analysis of that if her party has any, but we do not just need investment in core defence; it is also about investing in the supply chain. That is especially true of those small and medium-sized enterprises with huge growth potential, and we need to ensure that they can compete for contracts. That is one of the reasons we are looking at new ways of procuring through the Commercial X procurement model and learning lessons from the Taskforce Kindred for Ukraine procurement. We are bringing those into mainstream UK armed forces procurement to speed it up, which means that more SMEs will be able to benefit from it. More capital injection into defence—both from the Government, as we are planning, and from private sources—is a good course.

Last week, the former Defence Secretary said that the Prime Minister was unable and the Chancellor unwilling to fund the resources needed to tackle the threats facing our nation. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and if not, why not?

I have seen the previous Defence Secretary make the case for defence spending, and I have seen the Prime Minister and the Chancellor increase defence spending since Labour came to office. I know that there is a very strong case, to meet the moment, for further increasing defence spending. That is why the new Defence Secretary has been speaking to the Prime Minister and to colleagues across Government about how best we can deliver a DIP that will increase our warfighting capability and end the hollowing out and the absence of funding in the equipment plan. About 30% of the equipment plan we inherited from the Conservatives was unfunded. There is lots of work to do, but we will publish the DIP before the NATO summit.

The sluggish and unambitious delivery of the defence investment plan is not the only threat to our security. Given that we have Russian ships threatening our cables and such like, does the Minister agree that the fact that the United Kingdom is reliant on imports for 45% of its food supply is no longer an economic convenience but a national security liability? Does he also recognise that England is now the only country in the UK, and the only country in Europe, that does not directly support its farmers to produce food? Is that not a threat to our national security, too?

When I held the shadow Environment brief, the hon. Gentleman and I were in many debates where I made the case strongly that food security is national security. This is something that really matters. He also mentioned cables, and he will know that we are investing in the operations that Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus and HMS Stirling Castle can undertake to support our undersea infrastructure. We need to continue to support those items, and he will see more in the defence investment plan. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs covers food security here, but I agree with him that food security is national security.

The former Defence Secretary knew what was in the defence investment plan, thought it was inadequate and resigned as a result. I am sure the Minister would not be so shameless and disrespectful to the House as to spend an hour defending that plan if he himself had not seen it in full, so I have a very easy question for him: has he seen the defence investment plan in full, yes or no?

Yes, I have been involved in doing it. Let me be very clear and answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in full—[Interruption.] His Front-Bench colleagues want to shout at me, but let them listen for a moment. The defence investment plan is a good, scalable plan that provides the capabilities—

Have you seen it?

I have just replied: yes. The hon. Gentleman needs to listen to the answer. Yes, I have seen it, and I have been involved in writing it. The plan itself is a good plan; the debate is about the funding that goes into it. I am up for a debate about how we increase defence spending, because I want to see more capabilities, I want to see defence housing improve faster, and I want to see more support for our armed forces so that they can recover their strength. That is precisely what the defence investment plan will set out, and it is good to make the case for more funding to go into it.

If the past few months have taught us anything, it is that military might is no guarantee of security. Trump deployed the full force of his military—dropping bombs and killing thousands in Iran—and it has brought nothing but mounting debt and a far worse deal than the one Obama struck without firing a single missile. In addition, Trump and Netanyahu have wiped more than $2 trillion from the global economy and brought energy price hikes that are thought to have pushed 100,000 Brits out of work. Of course, that does not mean that we abrogate our responsibilities and do not support our armed forces in terms of personnel and the deterrence that we need, but does the Minister agree, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, that careful diplomacy and tackling the cost of living crisis, especially for the most vulnerable, do more to bring security than any bomb?

Try to keep it short, Minister.

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the new defence diplomacy strategy, which we published a few months ago to deliver on what he has just asked me.

Members of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by Commanding Officer Tom Quinn, were a key part of the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel yesterday morning. It is clear that our Royal Marines will always deliver for this country. They are world class, and I have had the privilege of seeing them in action at their home in Bickleigh barracks in my constituency. However, their ability to succeed can be sustained only if we invest in our defence and prepare for the wars of tomorrow. The former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—a former Royal Marine himself—said in his resignation letter:

“We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.”

Does the Minister agree?

As a fellow Plymouth MP, I was exceedingly proud of the Royal Marines from 42 Commando in Plymouth for participating in the action. If the hon. Lady were to look at 47 Commando, another Royal Marines unit based in Plymouth, she would see some of the new capabilities that we have bought to support them, including the Kraken K3 Scouts. The Royal Marines have a bright future ahead of them, and superb professionalism, as we saw on the weekend.

The Minister said that the defence investment plan will be published following a “line-by-line review”. It is obvious that the previous Secretary of State resigned because he could not review it downwards any further—because of the actions of the Treasury. The Minister also said that the plan is “scalable”. What assurances can he give that the spend is scalable upwards and not downwards, given that the Treasury has already said that it is unable and unwilling to fund it further?

We are already increasing defence spending, and we will continue to increase defence spending. The defence investment plan is designed to be scalable to match that increased defence spending. The question is what profile that increase should have. I will always argue for more defence spending, but we are increasing defence spending. That is something that I want to see more of.

The Business Secretary said on the weekend that a lot of time and effort had gone into the defence investment plan, but when pushed he said that he had not read it. The former Defence Secretary and former Minister for the Armed Forces have read it, and they resigned. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that he had read it in full. Why did he decide not to resign when his two colleagues in the Department did resign?

I answered that question in my earlier remarks.

I put on record my thanks to the former Secretary of State and the former Minister for the Armed Forces for their principled stand on defence spending. Over the weekend, a Minister referred on the Laura Kuenssberg show to extra defence funding. I understand that the new Secretary of State, the right hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)—I welcome him to his place and wish him well—is also committed to extra funding. I am a DUP MP who represents a region with a proud, historic military tradition and a thriving defence sector manufacturing base, so what immediate assurances can the Minister give to the thousands of skilled defence, aerospace and maritime workers across Northern Ireland, whose cutting-edge capabilities are vital to reinforcing our sovereign defence industrial base? We must never compromise the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I point the hon. Gentleman not just to the £1.6 billion contract that we have placed with Thales in Belfast for its lightweight multirole missile—supporting our friends in Ukraine—but to the increasing investment we are working with Thales on to support our middle eastern friends, as well as the £50 million Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is especially supporting SMEs in Northern Ireland to access more of the increasing defence spending. I want to see more defence spending in Northern Ireland, as I want to see more defence spending across the United Kingdom.

The Minister will know that we have been stalling on signing the full international contract for the global combat air programme since last year, and in April we signed the interim funding contract for Edgewing, which was £686 million. That runs out in just two weeks’ time. Yesterday the Prime Minister met Sanae Takaichi, the Japanese Prime Minister, Japan being one of the partners in GCAP. Can he confirm that he has signed the full international contract, and can he guarantee that funding will be in place before the money runs out at the end of June?

It is unusual for the hon. Member not to be on the money with his questions, but as the media reports on the weekend’s meeting make clear, we will be signing the full international contract by the end of the month. We are committed to GCAP.

The Minister was clear that the previous Defence Secretary asked him to remain in post; will he be equally clear about what exactly he disagrees with in the letter that the previous Defence Secretary sent the Prime Minister about the defence investment plan last Thursday?

There is lots on which I agree with the former Defence Secretary, and he and I have worked together for a very long time on this. I respect his decision and that of the former Armed Forces Minister. I am staying to get this done—to deliver a defence investment plan. I will continue working with our brand-new Defence Secretary to get a good deal for defence, and to support our armed forces.