PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Strategic Defence Review: Funding - 15 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to fund the recommendations of the strategic defence review.

We are in a new era of threat and demands on defence are rising. The strategic defence review sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. The Government have accepted all 62 of the review’s recommendations, and its implementation is being delivered through a whole of UK Government effort. The defence investment plan will deliver on the vision of the strategic defence review and put right a programme that we inherited from the Conservatives that was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we face. It is a 10-year plan and we must get it right.

We are not waiting on the DIP to deliver. We have established the defence cyber and electromagnetic command; launched the Military Intelligence Services and the defence counter-intelligence unit; announced that the UK will purchase 12 new F-35A jets; and launched UK Defence Innovation to streamline our innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget.

This Labour Government have done more. We have reasserted Britain’s place in the world with a rebooted Lancaster House treaty with France, signed the Lunna House treaty with Norway and published the defence diplomacy strategy. We have brought back defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, with 2025 being the highest year of defence exports in 40 years, including landmark deals with Norway and Türkiye. We have published the defence industrial strategy with nearly £800 million to make defence an engine for growth in every corner of the United Kingdom and we have unveiled the groundbreaking Atlantic Bastion programme to make Britain more secure from Russian undersea threats in the north Atlantic. We have also reversed the Tory privatisation that failed our armed forces, with our forces living in appalling accommodation—that is 40,000 forces families—with a £9 billion programme that can upgrade nine in 10 defence houses. This is a Labour Government delivering for Britain and delivering for defence.

Labour’s strategic defence review had three co-authors. I would like to ask the Minister a question about each of them in turn. Does he agree with Dr Fiona Hill that there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning?

Does he agree with General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the SDR, that there is

“an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”?

Or does he agree with Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and distinguished former NATO Secretary-General, that the Prime Minister has shown a “corrosive complacency” towards defence?

All of those strong words have been spoken in the past 48 hours. This is no coincidence: the authors obviously understand the principles of combined arms manoeuvre. The truth is that Labour’s rhetoric on defence simply does not match the financial reality. We know that in the last financial year the Ministry of Defence was forced to make £2.6 billion of crippling in-year cuts. It has now been reported that in this financial year it will be asked to find a further £3.5 billion on top. That would be catastrophic for our armed forces. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be no in-year savings exercise this year?

Finally, Labour’s SDR, published last June, promised us a comprehensive 10-year defence investment plan, which is still nowhere to be seen. One Labour peer told me prior to Easter that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot, except that Godot finally turned up. Can the Minister now tell the House in what month and what year Labour’s much-vaunted defence investment plan is actually going to be published, or is Labour’s Chancellor, who is adamantly refusing to sign it, still going to hold our armed forces to ransom? Is that not why our Prime Minister, who resolutely refuses to overrule her, is all mouth and no trousers on defence?

Deary me, I see the armchair general is out in full force today. Let me personally place on record again my thanks to Richard Barrons, George Robertson and Fiona Hill for the superb work they did in authoring the strategic defence review. They know more than many the mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left our defence in, with hollowed-out and underfunded defences—not my words, but those of a Tory Defence Secretary from this Dispatch Box, admitting the failures they made with our armed forces.

In our first year, Labour has boosted defence spending by over £5 billion. We are now spending more on defence this year than the previous Conservative Government spent in any year. We will hit 2.6% in 2027, 3% in the next Parliament, and 3.5% in 2035. That level of spending was not seen in any of the 14 years that the right hon. Member and his colleagues were in government. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion and did long-term damage to our military. They cut the number of our warships by 25% and mine-hunting ships by half. They delayed the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. In their 14 years, they never once hit the 2.5% of GDP spending that we left them with when we were last in power. They cut troop numbers to the lowest level since Napoleon, and drove down military morale with low pay and appalling military housing.

We are working flat out to deliver the DIP, and we will publish it when it is ready. We are doing something that was never done under the Tories: we are doing a line-by-line review of defence budgets, publishing not just an equipment plan but a plan covering housing, personnel and infrastructure all in one. This is a Labour Government who are delivering for defence.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

The public intervention by Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General is sobering. For a man of his stature to make such an assessment shows the gravity of the situation. Indeed, he was the person tasked by the Government to head up the strategic defence review. His comments align with what the Defence Committee has been highlighting for several months now: we as a nation are ill-prepared to face the threats in this more volatile world. That is why the Government’s rhetoric must align with reality. We must ensure that we get to 3% of GDP spend on defence in this Parliament. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road to the next Parliament.

When the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, he said that the defence investment plan was on his desk and would be delivered very soon. Any further delay to the DIP would cause further damage to our defence industrial base, not to mention send the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries. Will the Minister please confirm when the defence investment plan finally be published?

My hon. Friend does a superb job on the Defence Committee, and he is right to be asking questions of defence. It is precisely because I share many of his views that we commissioned the strategic defence review in the first place. We adopted all 62 recommendations, including the recommendation to move our nation’s military to warfighting readiness, ending the hollowing-out and underfunding that we inherited from the Conservative party. That is why there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year already. The shadow Minister’s Government cut defence when they had their first budget, and we increased defence funding—that is the difference between our two parties.

We are not waiting for the defence investment plan. I entirely understand the seriousness with which the Defence Committee Chair raises these issues. We are announcing defence contracts—not a day goes by without me signing off on a new one. Indeed, this morning I was in Andover announcing the £879 million contract for maintenance of our Apache and Chinook helicopters with Boeing. It is a 1,200-job contract that supports our efforts to make defence an engine for growth and give our fighting forces the very best equipment they can have.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country.

Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?

I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I was robust with the Conservatives about the record they left, but it is also worth noting that when the Liberal Democrats were last in power, they cut defence spending, despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014. I understand his seriousness and where he is coming from, but I hope he has some humility about his record.

The hon. Member is absolutely right, though, that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what we are doing. We will hit 2.5% of GDP on core defence spending in April 2027; 3% in the next Parliament; and 3.5%—the NATO standard—in 2035, but we are not waiting for the DIP to get contracts announced. Only a month ago, I announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo in Yeovil, which will support jobs there—I recognise that sitting behind the hon. Member is the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance)—and across the supply chain. We are improving on a deal that we inherited from the Conservatives. Under that deal, there was insufficient UK content in helicopter exports, there was no security guarantee that autonomy would be based in Yeovil, and Yeovil was not a centre for helicopter exports. This is Labour delivering—and making the Lib Dem hon. Member for Yeovil quite happy in the process.

I genuinely respect my friend the shadow Minister, but seriously, defence was hollowed out in his party’s time in government. Our safety is the primary responsibility of any Government, and more must be spent on our defence. However, that should not come at the expense of pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare. There are always other ways, such as scrapping digital identification, looking at some of our net zero policies, and rethinking some of the fiscal rules. Will the Minister confirm that all future funding options are being seriously considered?

My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have £5 billion extra in our budget this year, which we are using to address the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces that we inherited. We have used part of that to give our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years. That is helping to address the below-inflation “pay rises”, if we can call them that, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.

I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of defence spending. I encourage colleagues to still make that case, because we need to increase defence spending—we are increasing it. I would welcome a national conversation about the threats we face, and how we match those threats with increased capability. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the SDR that we have that debate.

On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?

There is a marked change in the approach that this Government are taking to the Ministry of Defence: we want to do more with the Defence Committee, bring it into decision making even more, and give it an understanding of situations, including by providing more secret briefings; they previously might not have been available in the number that we are now providing. I want to continue doing that, so I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I recognise the case for increased defence spending; I am glad he said what he did about it, especially as the Conservatives hollowed out and underfunded our forces for 14 years. I entirely understand that he is having a change of heart about his party’s record in government, and wants to increase that spending. We will continue to increase defence spending, as we have set out.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government’s increased investment in our armed forces and the defence investment plan will offer huge opportunities for the defence sector in Scotland, not least at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by Labour Ministers? That will build on the huge successes of the sector in Scotland, including the £10 billion deal with Norway, which secures 2,000 jobs on the Clyde for the long term.

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for the Methil yard. He and I meet often to discuss that, and it is good to see the investment that Navantia is putting into it. In Scotland, we are building the Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and the Type 31 frigates in Rosyth, where I was pleased to be only a few weeks ago for the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active. As a result of work that we have commissioned—the first fleet solid support ship is being built by Navantia, and I was present to see the steel cut in Appledore in North Devon at the end of last year—there is a bright future ahead for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am happy to continue my conversations with my hon. Friend about Methil.

I have every sympathy with patriotic Defence Ministers who are being sent out to try to put a brave face on the fact that they are being undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that someone as collegiate, experienced and patriotic as Lord Robertson would never have spoken out as he did if he did not recognise that his party’s Defence team was being undermined in this way? If the threat from Russia is so great that NATO has moved to 3.5% of GDP as its target, why do the Government think that waiting another nine years to achieve it is an appropriate way to deal with the killer in the Kremlin?

The right hon. Gentleman is right; we have agreed the NATO target of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on national security by 2035. We have agreed that—an important part of it. He will also know what the Defence Secretary revealed last week about covert Russian activities. It is precisely because we can see more threats from Russia and other adversaries, and not just against our undersea cables, that we are increasing defence spending and trying to renew our armed forces. We are dealing with the hollowing out. As a patriotic Back Bencher, he shares many of my views about the last Government’s effect on our armed forces, and their hollowing out under the Conservatives. I am very happy to continue my conversation with him about how we can make the case for further defence investment.

I thank my hon. Friend for his service to the country. The fact that he has served gives renewed credibility to what he has said. I certainly find it curious that many of the people who delighted in cutting our armed forces over the last 14 years now say, without a hint of humility, that they want to increase defence spending. I would have much more respect for the Conservatives’ argument if they apologised—first, for their cuts to our armed forces, and secondly, for their leader, who described our brave pilots in the middle east as “just hanging around”. I think our forces deserve better than the Conservatives, and they have it with this Labour Government.

In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?

As a Devon neighbour, I know the hon. Gentleman’s passion for our armed forces, and it is good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie—an institution of which I am also proud to be a graduate. He knows that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. I would much prefer to get it right than to publish a document that is not right, and that is what we will do.

I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country. It is interesting that he mentioned recruitment, because the shadow Minister, who sat on the Government Benches during the last Parliament, was scathing about his own Government’s record on recruitment, scathing about their performance, and scathing about their lack of action against the contractor they brought in. I am pleased to report that under a Labour Government, inflow is up and outflow is down. We have replaced the contractor, and not only are we delivering the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years—a second above-inflation pay rise—but we have ended the privatisation of military homes, and the military homes scandal that we inherited. Nine in 10 military homes are being refitted in the next decade. We are also putting effort into valuing our people by legislating for a new armed forces commissioner, so our forces and their families can raise concerns outside the chain of command with someone independent. This is a Government who are delivering for those who serve in uniform.

It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing? He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.

I really like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a very jovial chap—and he raises some good points. The defence investment plan is needed. It is being worked on by our Department. We will deliver it when it is ready, but we are not waiting for the defence investment plan to make announcements. I have spoken about the £879 million contract I announced this morning in Andover for our Apache and Chinook fleets. I also point to the announcement we made on Friday about a multimillion-pound deal with the veteran-led start-up Cambridge Aerospace to provide new missiles to intercept drones, not just for our forces but for our allies in the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should look to the future; we are doing exactly that. The defence investment plan will set out the kit and capabilities that we need and will buy for the next 10 years, but also the upgrades that we are making to the kit that we have, to give our fighting forces the edge. Importantly, it also talks about how we value our people; for far too long, that has not been spoken about enough in defence. That is something else that we are addressing.

I am on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We have heard terrible testimony about the state of military housing, but we have also heard that it is already improving. Does the Minister agree that the £9 billion investment that we are making in military housing to deal with the botched privatisation can only be a good thing, and will raise the morale of our troops?

I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on the armed forces housing issues that she raises; she is also a thorough champion for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Many of its ships are in her Truro and Falmouth constituency. She is right to talk about the £9 billion commitment that we have made to deliver an improvement in armed forces housing. I see that Opposition Front Benchers are chattering. They had an option to deal with that when in power. They could have dealt with the black mould—[Interruption.]

Order. Please! I am trying to hear, and the noise is not helpful.

They could have dealt with the black mould in our armed forces kids’ bedrooms. They could have dealt with the broken boilers and the leaky roofs. We have dealt with it as a Labour Government, and I am proud of that record. I am also proud that we have refitted the 1,000 worst homes, delivering those improvements so that our military families could be in a decent home by Christmas 2025. We are now starting work on the next tranche of the worst homes so that our people can live in a decent home if they serve. That is the minimum we should offer those brave men and women who serve our forces.

Following the comments by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), may I make a plea that we put this political blame game to one side? The fleet halved under the previous Labour Government. We all have our fingerprints on the current state of the UK military. It is unedifying for us, for this House and for the state that we are in as a nation.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, which I recently set up with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is longer in his place, as well as with Field Marshal Lord David Richards in the other place. Our aim is to highlight not only the scale of the threat that we face but the parlous current state of the British military. Does the Minister share that aim with us? Talking about both is necessary for the national conversation that was highlighted in the strategic defence review but has not happened. Will he join us in talking about the threat, and also give an honest depiction of the state of the UK military so that our public can be informed and can tell us what they would like us to do?

I follow the hon. Gentleman on Twitter, so I will be very keen to see the end of the political blame game of his tweets. I look forward to seeing what he tweets next. It might be the embodiment of that spirit that we have just heard here.

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the munitions and stockpiles that we inherited, which were far too low for the threat that we are facing. That is the reason why we have already made announcements about increasing the amount of munitions that we are buying for our armed forces. He is also right to talk about the threat. The Defence Secretary has spoken from this Dispatch Box about the increasing threat that Russia, in particular, poses to the United Kingdom and our allies, and we will continue to do that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his new all-party group to have that conversation, which is an important one about how we address the underfunding and hollowing out of our forces that we inherited. I will also be able to help him understand the progress that we are now making under this Labour Government to restock and to rearm: a lot of work done, but a lot of work still to do.

Will the Minister look at the sorry tale of Glenart Castle Mess in Longbridge, Birmingham? This is armed forces accommodation not from decades ago; it opened in 2017 at a cost to the taxpayer of £36 million. It was built with 95% flammable external cladding, and the fire defects within the accommodation have now been judged to be so severe that the facility will be closed for up to a year at further great cost to the taxpayer. This was hopelessly mismanaged by the previous Government. The armed forces personnel who work at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham do an essential job, and they deserve better.

I entirely agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I know he has been assiduous in asking detailed parliamentary questions about the refurbishment and refit of the Longbridge mess, and I am very happy to meet him to hear directly about his and his constituents’ concerns.

Well-placed sources are suggesting that the number of Type 26 hulls on the order book may be reduced or transferred to our Norwegian allies. I appreciate that Labour has a track record of reducing the number of frigate and destroyer hulls, but can the Minister nevertheless confirm that there are no such plans and that we will proceed with a minimum of eight Type 26 frigates, particularly given the increase in Russian submarine activity discussed by his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on Monday?

I can indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a Defence Minister in the last Government, the state of the forces that he passed over to this Government. When it comes to frigates—I could bore the House on this; it is one of my favourite subjects—he will also know that the incredible deal we have signed with Norway sustains Type 26 production on the Clyde for many years to come and involves not only the eight British Royal Navy Type 26s but five Norwegian ones. We are currently working with Norway on build slots. That will create a combined force—a truly interoperable, interchangeable force. Indeed, the only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs. That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway, and part of an agreement about how we can work more closely with our joint expeditionary force allies in northern Europe, which I hope can be expanded to other nations as we look to sell the Type 31 frigates to more of our partners.

The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he asked his questions. I notice that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was agreeing with every word that he said in relation to the cuts and the lack of increase in defence spending. I recommend to my hon. Friend and all colleagues in the House the report produced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when he was in charge of the Defence Committee, called “Shifting the Goalposts”. It sets out the amount of GDP spend on defence going back a number of Governments. It shows that the last Labour Government left defence spending at 2.5% of GDP in 2010, a figure sadly never matched in the following 14 years. We are getting back to 2.5% of GDP. April 2027 is when we will hit that, and we will set out how we will be spending that in the defence investment plan that will be published shortly.

Successive UK Governments have spent years cutting defence spending, reducing the size of our armed forces to record lows, dismantling our Navy, slashing Scottish regiments and hollowing out investment in essential equipment and training. There is a continued refusal to join SAFE— Security Action for Europe—even when Canada is joining. There are delays to the strategic defence review, no certainty as to when the defence investment plan will be released and no urgency from the Prime Minister to act on the recommendations that make it clear that there is a £28 billion black hole in the existing plan. What is the plan to deal with the Prime Minister’s “corrosive complacency”, and how are Scottish voters supposed to trust this Labour Government when, according to the SDR’s authors, they are failing so categorically to keep us safe and threatening the security of Scotland?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at our record, which includes a Type 26 deal that sustains shipbuilding on the Clyde and investment in a welding school in Scotland that we had to step in and fund because the SNP Government chose not to. It is good that the SNP Government have now finally realised that the defence of the realm is important, but I would ask him to pass on to the SNP Government that I am still waiting for a proper reply to our offer to match-fund a second defence technical excellence college in Scotland. We want to have two in Scotland. We have provided the funding for one, and I hope his Government will match-fund the second. I am still waiting for a reply on that, and while this goes on, we are moving further and further away from more young Scots being able to access the courses that they could be doing from September onwards if the Scottish Government would agree to this.

I am proud to be part of a Government who are building ships in Scotland, whereas our Scottish Government colleagues are building ferries in Poland, Turkey and now China. Quite incredible.

Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I always use security guards at my surgeries, and a young chap who attended my surgery last year in Oxgangs library had just left 3 Rifles. He said he had left because he had joined some years ago on the promise of travel and excitement but spent a lot of time in barracks because of the lack of funding in our armed services. The last time I visited 3 Rifles, they had just come back from Finland, and some were about to go back there to serve alongside our allies. Some were due to go to Iraq, but I understand that that trip might not have happened. They are all now better paid. Outside the barracks site, people can see their homes getting renovated, and I have to say that there is a bit of jealousy about the quality of the kitchens.

Recently, just before the recess, I was able to give a tour to a young apprentice from one of our defence primes who lives in Balerno in Edinburgh South West. She was very clear that this was not an apprenticeship or a job; it was a whole career that she had before her, because of the scale of what is happening in the sector. When the Minister goes around our defence establishments and our defence contractors, what is the mood? Do they trust us to deliver against this budget commitment?

I thank my hon. Friend and the armed forces personnel he spoke to and about in his question. We have a British Army that is currently globally deployed. I am incredibly proud, as I imagine the whole House is, of our forces that are deployed in Estonia as part of our forward land force and in Cyprus and across the middle east in support of our allies, and those that are training and have been in support of our High North allies on various exercises. I do not ask our forces to comment on party political matters because they are there to serve the Government of the day, but I do know that having them and their families living in homes without damp, mould, leaky roofs or broken boilers greatly improves their mood. That is precisely why this Government are delivering an upgrade to nine in 10 service family accommodation units in the next 10 years.

One of the challenges of tying defence expenditure to GDP is that the economy fluctuates. When Labour crashed the economy in 2008, defence spending in GDP terms went up. The reality is that as the economy fluctuates over the course of this Parliament and the next, there could be a challenge for actual defence spending. As the Minister looks at the defence investment plan, can he ensure that the level of expenditure continues to rise so that we actually get the investment in defence that we need?

It is a Liz Truss klaxon moment, isn’t it? The hon. Member’s memory is so brief that he has forgotten about what Liz Truss and the Conservatives did to our economy only a few years ago. I agree that we need to increase defence spending. Let me say to him clearly: not a single person in uniform today—not an admiral, general or anyone of any rank who has served in the UK armed forces—has had a decade ahead of increasing defence spending. It is such a sizeable change when it comes to our armed forces spending. [Interruption.] I notice more chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Members are grumpy that it is a Labour Government who are increasing defence spending when their Government cut it, but I will continue happily working cross-party in support of our armed forces.

When this Government took office, they inherited an armed forces on its knees and responded to that challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and a bold 10-year strategic defence review to ensure that we have an armed forces that once again is able to protect our nation. That is why it is so important that we get a defence investment plan as quickly as possible. I have heard today from my hon. Friend that he is keen to get that out as quickly as possible and also that it should be the right plan. May I simply take this opportunity to urge him to keep going so we can get that plan as soon we can?

I thank my hon. Friend for not only his question, but the work he does. He is a quiet and determined champion for Sandhurst and people who train in his constituency. There is a real opportunity with the increasing defence investment that we are making to renew the facilities not just in Sandhurst, but in military accommodation and bases across the United Kingdom and further afield. It is not just infrastructure that we are increasing. I am especially proud to be part of a Government, and a ministerial team with the Defence Secretary, that are increasing support for childcare for those who serve, because it is our people, not just our equipment, that we should focus on, and that is what the defence investment plan will do.

Does the Minister accept and agree with the mood of the majority of the British people, and I think the mood of this House, which is to accelerate defence spending to 3% of GDP in this Parliament, not the next Parliament? Can the Minister confirm that the year-long delayed defence investment plan will arrive before the summer holidays?

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would like to give some of the money that his former Reform leader in Wales got from Russia to the defence budget, we would have a wee bit more than we have today.

Thales employs over 800 people, including 66 apprentices, on its site in Templecombe in my constituency. There it develops world-leading sonar systems for the Royal Navy’s Astute and Dreadnought submarines, as well as delivering critical systems to enhance UK security and defence. Given the training capability gap identified in the strategic defence review, how will the Secretary of State increase funding for apprenticeships to ensure that we address skills shortages?

I thank the hon. Member for her question and for calling out and celebrating the work of Thales in her constituency. I have visited a number of Thales sites recently and have been impressed not just by the management, but in particular by the apprentices, who feel that there is a bright future ahead of them. She will know that we have announced that Yeovil will be one of five new defence technical excellence colleges, which is not too far from her constituency. That is a £10 million investment in each DTEC, designed to increase the number of places available for young people to take defence and defence-adjacent courses supporting not just defence primes, but, importantly, the wider ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprises. By increasing defence spending, we do not want only to bolster those large defence companies; there is a huge opportunity to grow smaller defence SMEs as well, and addressing the skills challenges they have is a key part of that.

I have served on operations under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and I can tell horror stories of how I was treated, which led to 15-plus years of complex PTSD. When I finally rebuilt my life, I wanted to ensure that nobody ever had to go through what I went through. As soon as I got here six years ago, I worked cross-party to say that anything under 3% on defence spending—this was in the last Parliament, when my Government were in charge—was unacceptable. There is not a serious professional in the defence industry who thinks the current level of spending is adequate to meet the world’s needs. Does the Minister think that it is a serious investment that we are making at the moment?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for being honest about the consequences of his time in service. It is so important that when any veteran who has served in our forces needs to access help, they know that it is available. It is platforming those experiences and being honest about them that enables more people to come forward, so I thank him for that.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to increase defence spending. I want to increase defence spending, we have already increased defence spending, and we will be spending 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. However, I entirely appreciate how he made his remarks, and the Minister for Veterans and I are happy to talk to him about his experiences to see if we can learn from them and help others in a similar situation.

National security depends on more than conventional defence spend, because our democracies can be brought down by methods other than weapons. There are concerns that the public are not yet sufficiently aware of the risk and reality of foreign information manipulation and interference. How does tackling this aspect of hybrid warfare feature in a cross-departmental way within the Government?

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to go beyond conventional defence. That is why we have conventional and nuclear deterrence as part of our armed forces posture. She will also have heard in my opening remarks about the investment we are making in cyber. This is not just a Ministry of Defence effort; increasingly, if we are to deliver the national security we need, we need a whole-of-Government approach. That means the MOD working with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and the devolved Governments to be able to tackle the deliberate misinformation that we see our adversaries trying to pump into our newsfeeds. Let me be very clear that we do not accept in any way Russian interference or any interference in our democracy or our way of life, but across Government we are having a national conversation that enables people to be better equipped to identify and challenge it, as well as putting more pressure on social media companies to remove it and not have it on their platforms in the first place.

My question follows on perfectly from that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Lord Robertson said that we are ill prepared for the threats of today, never mind tomorrow. While Britain may not be under daily attack from missiles and tanks—not yet, anyway—we are under daily assault by misinformation and disinformation from hostile actors who are targeting our institutions, democracy and social cohesion. The Minister has referred to the investments and operational changes that have been put into cyber and electromagnetic security. Given the foundational nature of the challenge to our democracy, is he convinced that the Chancellor is convinced of the urgent need to make huge investments in this area? This is a challenge we have never experienced before—a challenge that collapses the traditional idea of the frontline with the home front.

I thank the hon. Member for the way that he posed his question. There was much in it that I agree with him on. He is certainly right that we are not at war but nor are we at peace. We can look at a number of domains where we see UK forces and infrastructure being attacked, the cyber domain being the most obvious. The Defence Secretary revealed only last week the threats to our undersea infrastructure from covert Russian activity, and we must be able to call it out and say to Putin, “We see what you are doing. You will not have deniability.” In fact, the military call it “denying deniability”, which is a typical military phrase, but I think we all know what that means. There is more to be done here, including the national conversation about the threats that we face and how all of us can, in our own way, take actions—just updating the operating system on our phones makes us and the country safer. There is lots more that we can do, especially in this House, to further support that, and I am happy to have a conversation with him about how we do that.

On the key recommendation of a national conversation to build support and understanding among the population, it is all very well having debates here or in Whitehall, but what conversations are the Government having with the Departments for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport, the BBC and social media providers about the issues that are faced and about communication with the public to build support for funding and increase understanding of the challenges we face?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very fair question. My colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Coaker, is the Minister leading on the national conversation. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that Lord Coaker recently published the defence diplomacy strategy. Although it deals with more traditional diplomacy, it also deals with the necessity of speaking to our own people and to the wider population about how to respond to the threats we face. We are still in the early stages of forming the proposal for that formal national conversation, but, again, it must be a cross-Government effort that includes the Cabinet Office and Departments beyond the Ministry of Defence. The way we defend our nation in the 21st century is not just about the brilliant men and women in uniform; it is a whole-of-Government and whole-of-nation effort. That is why we are trying to kick-start that conversation. A debate about defence spending certainly contributes to that.

Have the Government considered issuing defence bonds, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, to ringfence capital for defence spending? If not, why not?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Lib Dem proposal. I would be interested to see the detail on who ultimately pays for it. He will know we have made a commitment that, following the publication of the defence investment plan, we will publish the defence finance and investment strategy, which will set out how we can support businesses large and small and bring further investment into the sector. It will deal with everything from preventing small defence businesses from being debanked—a real scandal and problem for small businesses as they seek to grow—to leveraging patient and venture capital with a potential interest in defence, in order to expand UK businesses and support the development of capabilities. That will renew our own capabilities and provide export opportunities. We are doing more work in that regard.

Often, most of the focus is on munition and defence systems, but what are the Government doing to boost defence numbers and ensure that our military personnel are properly paid for their vital role? For too long, our junior non-commissioned officer ranks have been poorly paid and had poor living and working conditions. A defence network with adequate numbers and good morale is a necessary complement to a well-equipped military.

I look forward to being in Northern Ireland next week for the announcement of the Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is the fifth of our five defence growth deals. I am not allowed to say the total amount of investment, but we have announced £200 million of a £250 million pot, so the maths will hopefully give some reassurance that a big announcement for the hon. Lady’s part of the world is coming shortly. She is absolutely right to talk about the numbers. We have not only addressed the problems in the recruitment system—especially the time of flight between someone applying and getting to a training establishment, which took far too long—but introduced novel forms of entry. The direct cyber entry, through which we recruit people for their cyber skills, not for their skill in running around a muddy field with a heavy backpack on, is a good example. It is one new way in which we are getting the skills and talent that we need into our armed forces.

This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced. I would recommend a little caution in blaming previous Governments for their defence inadequacies; I do not think that any of the parties that have been in government in recent years have clean hands when it comes to the scrutiny of those decisions.

I want to ask about defence financing. The Minister has announced a £5 billion uplift for this year. Why, then, is there an exercise to excise £3.5 billion through in-year savings? How much of that is carried forward from last year’s exercise to excise £2.6 billion through in-year savings?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.

Defence spending is rising rapidly in China, Russia, the UK, the US and all over Europe. In every country in the world, there is pressure on welfare budgets and there are increasing levels of human and social inequality. A global environmental disaster is on the horizon. At the same time, the agencies for peace—such as the UN and its agencies—and overseas aid budgets are being cut. Global inequality is getting worse, and the conditions for future wars are being created. What plans do the Government have to put some energy into a UN-led peace process to bring a cessation to the dreadful conflicts going on around the world? Where is the investment for peace in the future, or are we going to continue down the road of spending more on arms and less on people’s human needs?

I might spend more of my time in secure rooms at the Ministry of Defence without my mobile phone, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time in this Chamber hearing from Foreign Office Ministers about our work to call for a lasting peace, not just in Gaza but in the wider middle east. We continue to do that; we continue to invest in that. The world is a more dangerous place every single day. That is why we are increasing defence spending to deter aggression. The point of our armed forces is to deter aggression, and then—and only then—to defeat it if necessary. He is right to say that the consequences of conflict are frequently felt by the most vulnerable. That is precisely why we are continuing to call for peace, not just to end Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine—a free and independent sovereign nation—but to bring a lasting peace, with a two-state solution, for Gaza and Israel in the middle east.

Thanks to the tireless work by many in Leonardo in Yeovil, in the Government and beyond, the new medium helicopter contract was awarded and there is more investment in Yeovil, so thank you. However, without the defence investment plan, investment across the country is still being held up. I know that the Minister is working hard to get the plan right, and I thank him for that, but will he set out what lessons have been learned from the delays to the new medium helicopter and the DIP, to ensure that we fund defence procurement more effectively?

The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed not just the signing of the new medium helicopter contract, but the improvements that we secured to it. It was shocking, frankly, that the Conservative deal that we inherited had only 8% UK content in the exports—we have increased that. He will also know that we have awarded Yeovil a defence technical excellence college to support the skills needs not just of Leonardo, but of the wider ecosystem. He will also know, because I texted him yesterday, that the Boeing deal we have announced today—£149 million for Chinook and Apache helicopters—also includes investment in, and support for, jobs in his Yeovil constituency. We are continuing to invest in defence and in Yeovil.

Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, said that we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget, so will the Minister explain to my constituents why this Government can set out their welfare spending plans until 2031, but cannot publish their defence investment plan for 2026?

I do not think Britain gets stronger by pushing kids into poverty. That is the fundamental difference, as I see it, between the welfare policies of our two parties. I am absolutely clear that we should address the high levels of child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—that is exactly the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have said it a number of times, that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will be published when it is ready. I think he would, in hindsight, much prefer a plan that is ready to be published over one that is not. That is why we are working to deliver our defence investment plan, which will set out spending for the next 10 years, up to 2036 or so.

I entered this House months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and I was struck at the time that the debates on Ukraine were solemn, dutiful and not party political. The contrast with the debate over defence spending is stark. The Leader of the Opposition has decided to use it as a foil for her party, while the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was on the radio last night saying that the Labour party will not be helped electorally by an increase in defence spending. With Trump making threats about US commitment to NATO, does the Minister share my view that we need to link armed forces capabilities to the external threat, rather than indulge in this party political navel gazing?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to the nation. He is absolutely right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. It benefits not just the United Kingdom but every NATO member state, including the United States, and we are stronger when we stand together. That is why we are delivering against the NATO target and delivering new NATO regional plans, and it is why a debate that looks at how we can develop the latest capabilities, and bring forward more skills into the sector and more private sector investment into our defence companies, is good for us. We do this because it is in the national interest to support our national security. I stand at the Dispatch Box not for party politics but for our national security. In darker times, I hope that is what we would all be doing.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for most of this urgent question. I have been very clear, but he is trying to put words in my mouth; I appreciate him giving it a good go, but I am afraid he is not going to get away with that. We live in a new era of threat—I think he knows that too—and we are dealing with hollowed out and underfunded forces. He might not be able to put that in a soundbite, but privately I think he can concede, with hindsight, that the state of the forces the Conservative Government passed to this Labour Government was perhaps not as he would have liked. We have to invest in our forces, and in new stockpiles and technologies; we have to retire old kit and equipment that would not work in Ukraine and is unsuited to modern combat; and we have to do all that at the same time as addressing the defence housing crisis, the recruitment crisis and ever-falling morale. We have now stabilised morale in the armed forces. We have a plan to increase defence spending, with an extra £5 billion, moving to 2.5%, 3% and 3.5%, as I have set out. We also plan to invest in the latest technologies. I hope that with hindsight the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment, but I entirely understand why he has to have an attack-y soundbite for his socials in the meantime.

Nothing is more important to our national security than our nuclear deterrent, and we in Westmorland and Furness are not only massively proud to provide the home for the Trident submarine programme; we also recognise it is a grave responsibility, just as it is in the constituency of my neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), where it is built.

Our ability to build those submarines and defend our country depends on us being able to recruit and retain brilliant staff from around the country and beyond, and the role of the local authority in providing housing and services is crucial. Does the Minister agree that there has been a complete disconnect, given that the local government settlement leaves Westmorland and Furness council with a 31% cut, massively hampering the ability of Barrow, Kendal and Penrith to do the things that it needs to do to attract the people to keep our country safe? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and put that right?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for our independent nuclear deterrent. It was a shame that when the Liberal Democrats were in power, the decision to renew the deterrent was delayed—I know he had strong views on that at the time. As the MP for Devonport, where our Vanguard-class submarines are refitted, I am also really proud of the people I represent who make a material difference to the defence of our nation every day through their hard work in Devonport dockyard.

I met representatives of Team Barrow on Monday, when I was in Blackpool talking about the new defence technical excellence college that we have announced. That will support not only Blackpool and the Fylde, but Barrow, Blackburn, Lancashire and a number of colleges, including Wirral Met college. I recognise that defence is making the argument for skills and putting money where our policy is by investing in them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, his question about local government funding is for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I reassure him that the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to Team Barrow is strong, and I am happy to brief him further on that if it would be useful.

I have listened carefully. The Minister knows full well that committing to spend 3% or 3.5% tomorrow does not mean that the Government cannot commit to commissioning that expenditure now. He is aware that the delivery pipeline can often take five to 10 years in any case, and therefore the defence investment plan becomes vitally important. He has evaded answering the question of when, but surely he can put to us a deadline date by which the defence investment plan can be delivered. In doing so, can he commit to ensuring that RNAS Culdrose and the national drone hub in my constituency will see growth as a result?

The hon. Gentleman is a wily Member, trying to ask the same question from a different angle; I appreciate his effort. He will know that we are working flat-out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. As a fellow south-west MP, let me say how important it is that we support not just the capabilities we have, but new capabilities: the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth and the incredible aerial drone facilities across the peninsula, including in Cornwall. There is real opportunity to deliver that. The defence growth deal for Plymouth certainly includes wider knock-on effects for the entire peninsula, and the local innovation partnerships fund bid that was secured from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology for our part of the world provides support for the entire peninsula in the development of new autonomous and drone technologies, which I hope will be accelerated even further in the years ahead.

As I said earlier in the week, Northern Ireland’s geographical position means that it increasingly occupies a key geo-security location, particularly in the light of the threat to our transatlantic underground cables. In that context, will the strategic review deal with the situation that was revealed in a parliamentary answer: that there are only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland, and only 70 RAF personnel? Surely if we are to deal with threats that are increasingly evident, we need a proper distribution and balance of personnel across the United Kingdom. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, maybe he will bring news in that regard.

I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the numbers for the Army, which are considerably higher than those he suggested for the Navy and the Air Force. It is right that we distribute and allocate our forces personnel against the mission taskings they are given, but he is also right to talk about the key importance of protecting our undersea cables, including in his part of the world. It is precisely for that reason that we are seeing more investment in technologies that enable us to defend, monitor and protect those undersea cables. As he will know—we have met a number of times to talk about this—I want to see more investment in every part of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and I hope to bring him good news on that next week.

I am looking forward to the good news. I thank the Minister for his answers today and for his positive TV interview this morning, which encouraged us all, but will he also announce the next stage of the defence growth fund? No one doubts his commitment or interest, and he has made regular visits to the defence sector in Northern Ireland. It is so important that Northern Ireland can gain from the defence growth fund incentive and that it completes its own specific growth deal. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, can we expect the balance of the defence growth fund to be announced officially? I think we all know what figure is. It would do no harm to announce it today, Minister.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me. The opportunity for our defence industries in Northern Ireland is considerable, not just in supporting large defence businesses like Thales, which produces the lightweight multi-role missile in Belfast, but particularly in supporting the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are based in Northern Ireland. I was with Boeing this morning, announcing the new helicopter maintenance contract, and indeed Boeing has made a large investment in Northern Ireland.

There is a huge opportunity to make the case that a career in defence—whether in uniform or in a civilian role backing our forces—is not just a good job, but a good, well-paid, decent job that can provide an entire career of opportunities. The more that we can make a positive case for investment in the core defence industries and in the industries that sit alongside defence—such as digital technologies, which could have defence applications—the more that we will be able to keep us all safe and provide young people with good opportunities. I look forward to speaking to the hon. Gentleman and Northern Ireland colleagues further about that opportunity very soon.

Bills presented

Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) (Payment of Fines) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Freddie van Mierlo, supported by Layla Moran, Charlie Maynard, Calum Miller, Olly Glover, Dr Danny Chambers, Pippa Heylings, Mr Will Forster, Vikki Slade, Martin Wrigley, Manuela Perteghella and Rachel Gilmour, presented a Bill to omit from the Water Industry Act 1991 provision enabling water companies to make an application for a change to the date by which a penalty or portion of a penalty must be paid or to appeal to the High Court in respect of such a date; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 420).

Food Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Dyke, supported by Tim Farron, presented a Bill to make provision about a national food strategy; to make provision about certain duties relating to the implementation of that strategy; to make provision about procurement of British fruit and vegetable produce by certain public bodies; to make provision about resilience of UK-farmed food supply; to place a duty on certain public authorities to promote access to healthy and affordable food; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 421).