PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Defence Investment Plan - 10 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We are going to come to the statement, but I have a concern. There are strong rumours that the Government are going to produce their defence investment plan on Friday. That would be an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face to Members of this House. I say to Downing Street that, under the ministerial code, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that major announcements are made here. This may be speculation, and I am sure it will be corrected, but I will be appalled if it is done on a Friday, given that Members have been waiting so long.

This affects all parties who have a great interest in the defence investment plan, including Members on the Government Benches. We all have jobs, and we all have people who serve in the armed forces. We must end the speculation and treat this House with the respect that elected Members deserve. Once again, it seems to me that we are becoming second-class citizens under this Government. I do not want that to be the case, and I hope that I am going to be proved wrong.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.

As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.

Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.

Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.

After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?

You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?

There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?

Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that

“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]

That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?

I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.

The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week.

The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?

I thank the hon. Member for his questions, and for the condolences on behalf of his party. It was polite of him to promote me in his question; I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he had to say.

It is important to set out that we have not waited for the defence investment plan to deliver the new capabilities, the new contracts and the new investment. The hon. Member mentioned small businesses, and earlier this year we stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to create a single doorway for small businesses to access defence. We have supported more small businesses, and we have increased the target for direct spend by the Ministry of Defence by 50%, which is an extra £2.5 billion of direct spend going into small businesses.

We will continue to support SMEs. The 1,400 major contracts I mentioned in my response to the initial question support not only companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales—the very large defence primes—but the entire supply chain, with many of those contracts going to small businesses. We want to see the innovation, job creation, energy and dynamism of small businesses have a bigger role in defence, and that is especially true in areas such as autonomy, in which many of the companies from which we are buying capabilities are small businesses with huge growth potential. When the defence investment plan is published, the hon. Member will see that we are backing those innovative companies and SMEs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difficult decision made to move 0.2% of GNI spent on international aid to defence spending was an important one. It showed that, in this new era of hard power, we need to increase spending on defence and to increase capabilities, which is precisely the decision taken in the past. We are very proud to be increasing defence funding. Compared with the Conservatives, who cut defence spending in their first Budget, we increased defence spending in the first Labour Budget.

It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House.

That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]

Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?

I think everybody will know—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee—that the Defence Committee has been calling for the DIP to be delivered for quite some time. The businesses in our patches, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need urgent clarity on where they go and where they invest. That is vital.

I say kindly to those on the Opposition Benches who have been yelling from sedentary positions that they should not be proud of what they delivered in 14 years. I gently say that what the Government inherited on defence was an absolute bin fire, and the Opposition should be ashamed of the mess they left us. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely right the DIP is presented accurately and for the situation in which we find ourselves today, not three years ago when the world was a different place?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.

We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.

We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.

It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have seen for myself the skill and experience of the workers at Samlesbury and Warton in supporting our Typhoon operations and building parts for the F-35 programme. One lesson we can take from the war in Ukraine—a key learning recommended in the strategic defence review—is that we look at the growth of autonomy in particular. We can see that already in how drones have massively changed the frontline, the fighting doctrine and the force structure required to deter and fight in the 21st century. That is true on land, in the maritime domain and in the air domain. A key part of the DIP will be to provide the latest technology for our forces, and to support our industrial base to not only build more of those capabilities in Britain, but ensure we can export them to our allies, too.

I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?

I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is suggesting we delay the DIP further, but I understand his argument. We will publish the DIP before the NATO summit. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and we will do that.

I welcome the £2.8 million Bournemouth University has received to develop cyber-defence, intelligence and autonomous system courses. They are due to start in September and will equip the next generation with the technical skills they need to contribute to the UK’s defence capabilities, and ensure that we lead on the development of new technologies. In that context, can the Minister confirm that an increase in defence spending will be spent not just on kit, but on skills, and that universities such as mine will continue to be part of our strategy to address the challenges the nation faces?

My hon. Friend is a real champion for defence businesses in and around Bournemouth. I am really pleased that we were able to announce yesterday the universities and colleges across the country that will receive the uplift in student places, with the supplementary places grant that will enhance the skills provision. We have already enhanced the provision of skills for further education, with the announcement of five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland if the Scottish Government will support a second one, and one in Wales. We need to go further with more higher education places in defence and defence-adjacent courses. The money announced yesterday, not just for Bournemouth but for universities and colleges nationwide, will help to support the next generation of talent to work in defence—good, well-paid, decent jobs.

I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.

I equally have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, which is why I will say politely that I disagree with her characterisation. I will also politely say to her, as someone who reads the media speculation on what is in the DIP and what discussions have taken place, to not always believe what is written down online.

The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham.

My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.

My hon. Friend is certainly right that recruitment matters, and that this Government inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the Conservatives. I am pleased to report to the House that inflow to our armed forces is now up 11.6% in the last year, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up three points in the last year alone. My hon. Friend make a good point about recruitment, and I would be pleased to arrange a meeting between him and the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after recruitment.

My hon. Friend is also right about disposals. We work closely with our friends in Ukraine to provide them with kit and equipment direct from British industry, supporting procurement with our allies as well. Also, when we retire UK kit, we look at whether there is a Ukrainian need for it, so I assure him that that is a process that is under way. I continue to speak to my Ukrainian counterpart about the additional support we can provide not just for the fight tonight, but for the deterrence that Ukraine will need in the future, when peace has hopefully arrived, to prevent Putin from ever invading again.

We have had some huge wins for defence firms in Yeovil, such as Leonardo and Honeywell, but lots of other small and medium-sized enterprises doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that they cannot properly plan without the DIP. What reassurance can the Minister give Yeovil’s defence SMEs that the limbo will end so that they can plan investment and provide quality jobs? Will he meet with them to discuss that further?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.

As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?

As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?

Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?

I sit in his chair now, so that explains what happened with the previous Minister and the voters. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was one of the few Defence Ministers re-elected as an MP at the last election, with many others not returned to the House. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of long-term security, which is why we are setting out the investment in our kit and capabilities, effectively replacing the equipment plans that were published previously, and looking at our personnel, skills and infrastructure. One of the areas that was hollowed out and consistently underfunded as capital was taken from those budgets was our defence estate. We know the scandal of the armed forces housing that many of our constituents were asked to live in, which is something we are addressing with a £9 billion programme. We have to look at lessons to improve our personnel and experience.

We are in regular dialogue with our friends in Ukraine, learning lessons on kit and capability, how Russia fights, how we deter Russian aggression against NATO allies, and how we invest in the capabilities that Ukraine needs. Programmes such as Brakestop, as a low-cost cruise missile informed by the work of our friends in Ukraine, deliver that. The lesson I take from Ukraine and Iran is that we will need more autonomy, drones and understanding about mass as well as exquisite high-end capabilities. Expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan when it is published.

The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate the way in which he asked the question. Scotland is an integral part of our national security apparatus. From the aviators who fly from RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, to the submariners who serve from Faslane, as well as the extraordinary number of defence companies, large and small, across Scotland—not just in the central belt—there are huge opportunities.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to pass on to the Scottish Government the importance of signing up for the second defence technical excellence college. I am still waiting for a reply to the letter that the Scottish Secretary and I wrote to the Scottish Government. We will fund one DTEC in Scotland, and if the Scottish Government can support the initiative with a second, we can have one in both the east and the west of Scotland, supporting the hugely important defence industry there. I hope that is a point on which we can find consistent cross-party support. If we are looking for more cross-party support, I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to back the brilliant submariners who support our independent nuclear deterrent, which sails from Faslane. The independent nuclear deterrent is the foundation of our national security, and something that we will continue to support in the defence investment plan.

Teesside airport is benefiting from a £173 million MOD contract for Draken. Looking at that contract and at the others the Minister has set out, I think it is fair to say that the Department is not waiting for the defence investment plan to get moving, although we do, of course, need to see it very soon. The elephant in the room is what we are seeing in Ukraine, where capabilities are advancing and becoming obsolete in a matter of weeks—it is happening extremely quickly. What assurance can the Minister give that the DIP, when it arrives, will be flexible enough to deal with the changing nature of warfare in the months and years to come?

I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.

On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?

I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.

First of all, I would like to say what a great honour it was to attend Windsor castle on Friday to see the presentation of the new colours to the Royal Marines. It was an absolutely superb event and carried out to extreme precision.

It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence is considering delaying or scrapping plans for the Type 83 destroyer, the long-term replacement for the Type 45, due in the 2030s. If that is the case, will the Minister confirm what alternative the Government will review to ensure the future of the Royal Marines’ anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.

May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.

People are suffering due to the cost of living crisis, and taxes are at an all-time high. The delayed investment decisions are paralysing planning for defence businesses, which are stuck in limbo. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to use innovative mechanisms such as defence bonds and the rearmament bank to support the defence sector without placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her continued interest in defence, even with her new role in the Liberal Democrats. We are continuing to place contracts with British industry—1,400 since the general election, announcing a number of those in just the past few weeks—which is seeing jobs growth and both capital investment in infrastructure and investment in people and the skills that are required. The hon. Lady refers to innovative finance. We will set out the spending in the defence investment plan. As the hon. Lady will know, we are increasing defence spending, and I welcome a debate about innovation and how we can get more value out of the pounds we spend. Under the Labour Government, fewer contracts will be sent abroad—something that was commonplace under the Conservatives. I want to see the activation of more private capital to look at how we can support not just the supply chain, but, potentially, defence capabilities. We have committed to doing that with the development of a defence finance and investment strategy, which we are working on currently.

At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?

For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.

As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.

These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?

Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?

I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.

The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?

No, but I understand entirely the Conservatives’ partisan attack line on this one—and it is good to see the hon. Gentleman joining in. Let me be very clear: we have increased defence spending. We did so from the very first Budget that the Chancellor delivered at this Dispatch Box, and we are continuing to do that. Defence spending is £11 billion more per year today than under the last year of the Conservative Government, and we are directing more of that money at British-based firms.

We are fixing military accommodation, which is in such a state. The first 1,200 of the worst military homes have now been refurbished, and we will continue that work until nine in 10 military homes are refurbished. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years—a 14.1% cumulative pay rise under this Labour Government compared with the pay freezes that many of them endured under the Conservative Government. We are rearming and backing Britain, and when the defence investment plan is published very shortly, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.

Following the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), I want to welcome the Gripen contract, which benefits my constituency. Others have mentioned the fast-paced development of uncrewed weapons, but I am concerned about the domestic attacks the UK might see on our cyber, energy and food security. Can the Minister assure the House that the DIP will address that risk and fund public awareness of the threats to our home security and the role we must all play in the defence of the realm?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for championing the defence firms that she has around her constituency. They are a really important in making the case that defence is an engine for growth.

The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face as a nation are more complex than they have been for a very long time. They are not just military threats. The United Kingdom is under constant cyber-attack from our adversaries; that is one of the reasons why we have invested so much in our cyber defences and will continue to do so.

The hon. Lady also hits on the really important point that defending our nation is not just a job for the Ministry of Defence: it is part of a cross-Government effort that must include securing our food—because food security is national security—and our energy supply. That is one of the reasons why we are investing so much in our clean power mission to generate more of our energy in the United Kingdom. By investing in renewables, we can have good clean green jobs for the UK while also reducing our reliance on energy from further afield. Iran’s reckless actions in the middle east have shown to everyone in the House why investing in our energy security is so important. It is about home-grown energy, not relying on imports from abroad.

The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about military housing, which is not just for our armed forces personnel but, importantly, for their families. As someone who represents a military area in Plymouth, I know that when our forces are deployed abroad, if their families back home are living with black mould in their kids’ bedrooms, leaky roofs or broken boilers, it affects their ability to do the job we have asked them to do—on the frontline or wherever it may be. That is why in opposition we committed to making defence housing a priority.

In government, we have announced the defence housing strategy to improve, rebuild or refurbish nine in 10 military homes—along with our substantial commitment of £9 billion—and we have already made substantial progress on the 1,200 worst family homes. We are looking at what we can do not only with service family accommodation, but single living accommodation, because those who live on bases should also be reassured that we value their service and want them to live in decent accommodation, whichever service they may be in and wherever they may be deployed.

My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. Every single nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the defence investment plan. Wales is already the recipient of one of the five defence growth deals that we announced, with new capabilities and new investment in skills. We look forward to speaking with the new Welsh Government in due course about how we operationalise that. The MOD’s main objection to the development of wind farms predominantly relates to the impact on air defence radars. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me some details in advance of us meeting.

As somebody who represents Devon as well as Somerset, may I share the Minister’s sentiments about the very tragic loss of lives in west Devon last week?

I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the Ankara summit is imminent, but is he not deeply concerned that the Government’s dither and delay in publishing the defence investment plan is seriously undermining our credibility with our friends in the world and sending a signal of immense weakness to our foes, and furthermore that at a time when we should be showing leadership the Government are showing lethargy?

I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.

Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.

Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?

indicated dissent.

Railways Bill (Ways and Means)

King’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.