Defence Spending and Readiness

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I beg to move, That this House regrets the chaos in Government which means a temporary Prime Minister will be attending the NATO summit; further regrets that at such a dangerous time globally this country is not being properly governed; calls on the Government to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, or at a minimum to act to provide the £28 billion that the Ministry of Defence has asked for primarily by cutting welfare and to publish the Defence Investment Plan immediately to deliver this; agrees with the former Secretary of State for Defence that any Defence Investment Plan which included a rise in defence spending of 0.08% from next year to 2030, with no date for raising that spending to 3% and no path to an increase to 3.5%, would fall short of what is required, particularly as intelligence assessments note there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030; further calls on the Government to ensure that the Defence Investment Plan prepares the UK for future conflicts; and also calls on the Government not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill which is unfit for purpose as it fails to protect veterans who risked their lives to protect this country. It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. Before I commence my speech, I wish to respond to the point of order made by the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry yesterday—not least as neither myself nor the Leader of the Opposition were able to respond to his point of order because we were not given advance notice of it. That may not be mandatory, but surely it would have been in the spirit of proceedings, given that it related to the urgent question to the Secretary of State for Defence tabled by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday. As a reminder, last Monday’s urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition concerned the extremely serious situation regarding the previous week’s resignations of the two most senior Defence Ministers at the time. In her questions, my right hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State was not responding, given the severity of the circumstances. The DRI Minister said at the time: “The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King”. —[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.] That point was repeated a little later in good faith by you, Mr Speaker, in response to a question from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In the DRI Minister’s point of order yesterday, he admitted that that was not true.

Shameful!

Order. I will not have that. Do we understand each other? I am not being funny; you are a shadow Minister, Dr Mullan—I expect better.

The DRI Minister admitted in his point of order yesterday that what he said last Monday was not true. He said that the Secretary of State “arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ.” —[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 71.] That begs the question: why did the Secretary of State not respond? To quote chapter 21, paragraph 20 of “Erskine May”, His Majesty “cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.” Given this, not only should a Minister of the Crown surely desist from raising the monarch in the Chamber in such a context; it is particularly inappropriate to do so when the facts prayed in aid are not correct. Mr Speaker, this is cowboy stuff—very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House—and it is not the first time. The Armed Forces Minister, in her previous role as Veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the Dispatch Box after saying at oral questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was “not a details man” and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army, who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. Finally, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior sight of the strategic defence review because I had supposedly not allowed him prior sight of the defence Command Paper refresh when I was a Minister. Petty as this was, it was also—again—wholly untrue. This is not acceptable; Ministers must tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. I said that I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it. I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show—

Order. I am a little bit worried about using the language of “truth” and “facts”. In fairness, both the Minister in question and myself were told that the Secretary of State was down at Windsor last Monday. We did not know what time he was coming back; we were not told—none of us. I want us to be careful when talking about “truth” and “facts”, because I really do worry about how we attack each other in this House. In all the cases that the hon. Member has highlighted so far, the record has been corrected. This debate is about defence spending, and I am not quite sure how going back in history fits into that. Hopefully, we will get to the topic of the debate soon.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I informed your office about this issue earlier, because we feel it is very important.

Telling my office is one thing; unfortunately, my office has not had time to tell me.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have made the point and I hope Ministers are listening. It is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise—

Order. To finish off our discussion, what I was offended by on the day in question was the calling of a Member who served in the armed forces—a gallant officer of this House—a coward. I did not think that was appropriate and I am sure that all of us will regret such comments against each other.

Noted, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, it is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today, to their families and to our veterans. The last time I spoke in an Opposition day debate on defence was in March, on the subject of the long-delayed defence investment plan. Since then, we have still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we have had chaos: the resignation of the Secretary of State for Defence; the resignation of the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and yesterday, the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit, those resignations from the Ministry of Defence were fatal for his career, and they have a common thread—namely, Labour’s massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence, despite war in Europe and the middle east. As the previous Defence Secretary said, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that “falls well short” and would “make the country less safe”.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case. Does he share my concern that, during last week’s urgent question, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and the Secretary of State could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been set out? I am hearing rumours that the new Type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in plans six months ago. At a time when defence is so critical, does that concern my hon. Friend?

My right hon. Friend, who served in the Navy, was a Defence Minister and speaks with expertise, has made an extremely serious and important point. This is why we want to see the defence investment plan. We have been waiting for it for months, and we have been promised it repeatedly from the Dispatch Box. We need to see the details, whether they relate to the Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force. Of course, the previous Secretary of State knew that this was a problem. Let us just remind ourselves of what else he said. He said that he was being “forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations”. That is a staggering indictment. The Prime Minister was seriously considering a financial settlement for defence that would, in the words of the man responsible for defence in this Government until less than two weeks ago, make Britain “less safe”. But the former Defence Secretary he was not alone in that warning. Last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued a stark message of his own when he said: “We’ll have to dial back our activities; our exercise, operational activity, if the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase”. That is the stark reality. If the financial offer stays the same at a time of war and the most profound threats to our nation since the cold war, defence will have to be cut and our country made less safe. Last year the Government cut £2.6 billion from defence, and they are cutting £3.5 billion this year. How much more is to come, when our country needs the complete opposite?

Does my hon. Friend agree that Ankara is going to be extremely interesting this year, especially at a time when characters like Foreign Minister Sikorski are pointing out that Poland will be spending 4.8% of its GDP on defence while we spend £4.5 billion on cycle tracks? Mr Sikorski has pointed out that that is indicative of the priorities of this Government, and, as a committed Anglophile, fears that it is indicative of this country retreating into the shadows. It is difficult to avoid that conclusion, isn’t it?

My right hon. Friend—who also served in the Navy and as a Minister—speaks with great expertise. He is absolutely right to remind us that the problems with the defence investment plan relate to our international prestige and how our allies see us, and they are worried. Poland is a close ally of the United Kingdom. I am proud of the strength of our relationship, and I think that we should all listen to what our allies are saying about the need for more funding. However, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: why? Why would the Government have to cut defence?

rose—

I will come to that question when I have taken this intervention.

Of course, this is not a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending; it is a debate about how much we increase it by. The hon. Gentleman has talked about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What did our allies think when his Government were cutting defence? Can he tell us?

That is a nice try, but the question that the hon. Gentleman needs to answer is this: if things are so good, why did both the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces resign?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will give way to my right hon. Friend in a minute, especially as I am coming to an area of policy that she knows only too well. As I was saying, we ask ourselves: why would the Government have to cut defence? And the answer is: because they will not cut welfare. With that, I give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Can my right hon. Friend clarify the financial offer that the Prime Minister made for the defence investment plan? Can he confirm that it was only 0.08% of GDP, which was £10 billion in real cash terms, not the £13 billion on offer? That was what prompted the Defence Secretary to resign, because it was not enough to keep our nation safe.

My right hon. Friend is literally on the money. That is exactly right. It was a derisory increase to 2.68%, when the 2.6% figure already includes elements such as the intelligence budget, which have been used to inflate it. I was speaking about welfare—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will in a bit, but first I want to make an important personal point. I did not have the privilege of serving in the armed forces, but I did have the privilege of being Defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business; I employed people—and I will never forget the time when I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system that we inherited from Labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people’s aspiration, but I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping them in dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that welfare is only part of the story when it comes to where we might need to find the money? It would provide valuable revenue resource, but much of what we are talking about is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I will suggest where I might like to find the money, but I should like to know now which capital budgets the Opposition would look at in order to increase capital spending.

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which he asked it. He is being very open and is asking the question: where are we going to get the money? We have been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important, but it is not just about the quantum; getting people into work instead of on welfare would make us a more resilient country. He asks about capital. We have said—people may disagree, but it is a clear commitment—that we would take £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund that will currently be going to net zero, and ringfence it for defence. That is our priority, given the world we are facing.

The challenge we have at the minute is that not only do we have a shadow Opposition, but we have a shadow Government—a whole set of Ministers who will soon be in place. We have someone who is potentially about to become Prime Minister, but we know almost absolutely nothing about his priorities on defence, on the strategic challenges or on welfare. Does it concern my hon. Friend that we are going to get somebody new, when we know very little about his position on these incredibly important issues?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because what this all creates is massive uncertainty. Defence is a massive industry in this country. That uncertainty is damaging for our defence businesses and dual-use companies right across the nation, which employ thousands and thousands of people, so we need far more certainty, whoever is going to be Prime Minister. I was talking about welfare reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reformed the system of tax credits through the introduction of universal credit. Before the pandemic, we saved billions of pounds from welfare, all in the face—as my colleagues will remember—of unending and total opposition to any reduction in welfare dependency from the Labour party. But Labour Members cannot go on like that, setting their face against welfare reform. It must be obvious that, in the national interest, we have to reform welfare. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, knows that we need to cut welfare to fund defence. Lord Robertson, the former Defence Secretary, knows it too, saying that we cannot keep Britain safe with an “ever-expanding welfare Budget.” That is why the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister last week to offer our support, in the national interest, to cut welfare and fund defence. Last week, I repeated that offer to the Secretary of State during his statement on Monday. He did not answer, so I wrote to him last week with the same offer, and I hope he will accept. I hope he will now confirm that he wants to put politics to one side and work with us to make the difficult decisions, so that the defence investment plan can finally be funded and published.

Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?

That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way—we have been waiting for months. I have stood up at every single oral questions and asked the Government when they will publish the defence investment plan. It feels like they have replied hundreds of times, “We’re working flat out,” and we still do not have it. Can the Minister tell us if the DIP will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara? In particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of the defence investment plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)? It was reported today by the political editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two about when to publish the defence investment plan—they are working flat out, having this discussion. Mr Swinford said on X: “The first conflict of the transition period: Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment Plan despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office.” It is a simple question: who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts? Is it the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is not the real risk here that the defence investment plan, which the Government promised, will now be treated like a political football? The end result will be that defence supply chains in this country, and those of our international allies, will see that we are not worth doing business with.

As loath as I am to talk about political footballs, given that our football team is in action tonight, it is nevertheless pretty obvious: whether it is football, rugby or a tug of war, we already have a massive argument between the heart of Government and the shadow Government over who is in charge. At a time when we face serious threats, that is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in.

The hon. Gentleman is right to hold the Government to account, because the plan is massively delayed. He is surely aware that all of us here, including those from my party, who spent time in government in the last few years, know that ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of the threat we face. Do not all parties need to recognise that? We have the smallest Army since Napoleonic times. We have 8,000 drones in stock, while Ukraine is using 8,000 drones a day. Is it not time that we worked together across the parties to make sure we defend our country in the way we all need to in the years to come?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, to be fair, I have always said that we do need to work together in the national interest. I have said repeatedly that spending on defence fell under successive Governments since the fall of the Berlin wall. That must be blindingly obvious. There are decisions that Labour made, that we made and that the Lib Dems made us make in the coalition—for example, about the nuclear submarines—so everyone has some culpability in this record.

I am responding to that intervention, if hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I am going to take one more intervention, and then make some progress.

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservatives for what they are bringing forward today. Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that. As an example of how warfare is changing, the papers today are talking about warfare that could be done by artificial intelligence, with maybe some 10,000 drones. The Minister for the Armed Forces who resigned mentioned that in his personal statement in Parliament last week. When it comes to deciding the defence strategy, does the shadow Minister agree that we must look at new technology and at how wars are going to be fought? They will be different, but we need to be on the winning side, so is it not time we did that?

The hon. Member’s interventions are always at the cutting edge, and he was spot on there. It is not just about the funding. As he says, with warfare changing so fast, we need to prioritise capability. Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative, so it is incredibly worrying that, once he finally got to see the defence investment plan, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was “not built for the threat we face.” This country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting-edge drone tech produced by UK small and medium-sized enterprises. I cannot emphasise enough that we were a leader. When we consider the progress we were making in supplying drones that were so effective on the battlefront in the spring of 2024 and in bringing forward extraordinary counter-drone capability such as DragonFire, it was another strategic blunder by Labour to put procurement on hold while we waited for the strategic defence review, and now while we are still waiting for the defence investment plan. With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement.

My hon. Friend is talking about the future of warfare, and this issue was very much raised when we attended Space-Comm earlier this year: how the delay in the DIP is affecting our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does he agree that this is an important point, and that the Government should set a space strategy, as the previous Government did in 2022?

That is exactly why we have announced a policy of a sovereign defence fund, with £2 billion extra per year for drones, AI and tech, alongside £11 billion, as I have said, from the National Wealth Fund—repurposed from net zero to defence—to fund our sovereign industrial base, so that it can scale up and meet the level of output we will require to be war-ready.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised air defence. Does he regret the cuts made to air defence under the last Government, when funding for defence reduced so dramatically, and does he welcome the investment this Government are making in air defence, learning the lessons we are now seeing in Ukraine?

I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about. What investment in air defence? We procured Rapid Sentry. What does he think is being used on our bases in the middle east right now to defeat drones? It is the stuff we procured when we were in government. Who procured DragonFire laser? I did, and it is going to be the most cutting-edge air defence. I procured the radio frequency directed-energy weapon, which could also be incredibly cutting edge in frying—literally frying—entire swarms of drones. This is where we need to be at the cutting edge. We invested in it; this Government specialise in dither and delay. As important as drones and tech are, our most important capability remains the people who serve. While it is critical that the Government rapidly embrace the uncrewed revolution right across our armed forces, we must also back our people. That is why, when we were in government, we increased pay for junior ranks by 9.7% in 2023, and I took the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes when I was a Minister. On housing, I want to ask Ministers a very important question that they did not answer yesterday. Until very recently, they have consistently repeated a pledge to invest £9 billion in military accommodation over the next 10 years. With rumours that this funding will be cut, as reported in the press, yesterday the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked if this commitment stood. Will the Minister say in her speech whether that is the case—yes or no? In Armed Forces Week, I must of course pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves. Back in 2023, we also increased the bounty for reserves personnel by 5.8%, and with the threats we face, I believe we must continue to strengthen our reserves. Finally, we agree wholeheartedly with what the previous Minister for the Armed Forces said in his resignation statement about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. He said that “the IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics, and we must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means.” —[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 733.] Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State for Defence—a veteran of Operation Banner himself—agrees that, whoever is the next Prime Minister, a top priority must be to scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and back our veterans? To conclude, assuming that the right hon. Member for Makerfield becomes Prime Minister in the coming weeks, he will have many items in his in-tray, but the first duty of any Government is defence of the realm. Given that Labour’s own Secretary of State for Defence until a few days ago resigned, saying that Labour’s defence investment plan would make the country “less safe”, it must be obvious that this is the top item for the new Prime Minister’s attention. If the new Prime Minister is to succeed, the quantum of cash on the table will need to be far more substantial, given the threats we face, and that means finding the money without increasing our national debt or taxes. Instead, to make our country stronger and more resilient, we are offering to work in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence. In Armed Forces Week, we all agree that the men and women who serve our country are second to none, so I ask Ministers again: are they prepared to work together with us to find the cash to fund defence, so that we can give our brave personnel the tools to do the job and keep this country safe?

I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add: “looks forward to the publication of the Government’s Defence Investment Plan; recognises the Government’s commitment to providing the resources the UK’s military needs; welcomes that the Government has provided the biggest uplift to defence spending since the Cold War; supports the Prime Minister’s commitment to hitting 2.6% of GDP on defence spending in 2027, and 3.5% by 2035; further recognises that taking such decisions is never easy and will mean significant reallocations of funding from across Government departments because strong public finances are also part of what keeps the UK safe; endorses investment in the capabilities that the UK’s armed forces need, after they were hollowed out by the previous Government; and further endorses the signing of more than 1,400 contracts since July 2024, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies.” On 5 May 2013, I joined the British Army as Officer Cadet Jones, joining the mighty 29 Platoon Alamein Company at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I was joining an Army with a full-time strength of just under 100,000 personnel. Operation Herrick in Afghanistan was still ongoing, although soon to draw to a close, and ISIS was on the offensive. It had been several years since the invasion of Georgia by Russia, but perhaps that would prove to be a one-off. The Army’s main platforms—apart from those procured for Afghanistan, such as the light role Foxhound—were Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT, the combat vehicle reconnaissance tracked. Those were all ageing platforms, including some bought before I was born. In 2015, now Lieutenant Jones, I was posted to Germany, serving with the indomitable 44 MFMI Company. I was now part of an Army of a strength of just 82,000. Operation Shader had been launched to counter ISIS to great effect. Herrick had ended and been replaced by the more limited Operation Toral. I was attached to the 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade, which was still made up of Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT. Crucially, by then Russia had launched its first operation in its evil assault on Ukraine and had annexed Crimea in 2014. It was clear then what Russia’s ambitions were, and its tactics of little green men showed that warfare was already changing. Most importantly, this clearly showed that, once again, war was on the doorstep of Europe. How useful, hon. Members may think, to have an armoured infantry brigade based in Germany, with a railhead connecting to the whole network of Europe, and able to move armour quickly and at short notice, as a sign of our commitment to defence. Alas, however, the decision had been made in Westminster, and I watched as, instead of readying for the new threat, our bases closed down around me and our troops moved back to the UK. When, as Captain Jones, I left in 2020, troop numbers had dropped to the mid-70,000s. The main Army platforms were still the same as when I had joined, but troop numbers were down, morale was down and our footprint was down.

I recognise similar circumstances at that time when I served, which was for a shorter period than my hon. Friend, but does she recognise the massive impact on morale of the successive real-terms pay cuts that the Conservatives gave our brave armed forces during that period?

I do recognise it, and also the wider impacts of the state of the housing that I, like my hon. Friend, had to live in. I also recognise the relentless pressure on our fantastic people, who were being asked to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road—a story that was repeated across many of our public services.

The Minister mentions the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrongly, but she seems to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her that that was because of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape we faced at the time and that our allies were doing the same? At the time, the Labour Opposition did not oppose it and did not criticise it. Is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an observation?

I am criticising the decision makers for that decision and, on reflection, I think that others would agree with me. All of this occurred under Conservative Prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a Conservative Government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.

We have talked about the changes after 2014. Might we also look back to what was referenced earlier, under the 2010 coalition Government, where the blame seemed to very suddenly shift to the Liberal Democrats? It was a joint decision to delay what was happening with our submarines. I will take no arguments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), because it was his party that helped to damage Barrow-in-Furness. If they had not, with Conservative Members under the coalition Government, made the commitment to pause, we would have our boats in the water now and our submariners would not be spending 200 days at sea.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those who were responsible for the defence of this country and the decisions they made.

I am fascinated by the Minister’s remarks about the withdrawal of troops after the cold war, many of them to Salisbury plain in and around my constituency where they continued to train for current operations. Is she seriously saying that she would recreate the British Army of the Rhine? Is that Government policy—for this Government, or for the Government to come? If so, how is she going to fund it?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s trying to conjure up me saying something that I have not said—I do appreciate that. He will be aware that I was talking about decisions made in the mid-2010s and I am critical of those decisions. He will also know that being able to undo something is not the same as never having done it. I hope he will appreciate that I am sincere in what I am saying there. The Conservative Government attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement, short-sighted cuts, shameful negligence and refusal to adapt to new threats, and members of the current shadow team played key roles in that record of failure.

I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I, too, served with 20th Armoured Brigade and was deployed in operations from Germany over to the Balkans. She talks about mismanagement. She is in a position where, unless more funding comes forward, the Government are about to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the second world war. How does she square that circle?

I am proud of what we have already achieved in government on defence. We have raised defence spending, despite the record of previous Governments. I am in a position to argue every day for our armed forces to get what they need to have, and I will continue to do so. The Labour Government were elected in places such as Aldershot, Portsmouth and Plymouth to fix the Conservatives’ mess, and we have begun to do so. Recruitment is up, retention is up and morale is up. Personnel have received three above-inflation pay rises, and there has been real action to improve housing, enabling our armed forces to focus on national security.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make some progress. RAF pilots recently flew over 3,000 hours of defensive missions, intercepting drones and missiles to protect our people and our allies in the middle east. The ground-based air defence crews protected UK and allied bases under fire, shooting down more than 100 drones. Our Royal Navy and Royal Marines expertly intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel, and they work around the clock to protect our underwater infrastructure.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make a little bit of progress. I think I have been quite generous. From the High North to the far east, as our world becomes more dangerous, demands on defence grow. As usual, our armed forces are responding with incredible professionalism and effect. Our forces continue to deliver vast amounts of military equipment to Ukraine, including our largest ever numbers of drones, and they are ready to lead the multinational force to bolster Ukraine’s defences in the event of a ceasefire. In the middle east, we have HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay deployed, along with autonomous mine-hunting equipment, to play our part in a multinational mission to secure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz and bring down prices for families across the UK.

I thank the Minister for giving way. If everything is so great, why has Lord Robertson described the Government’s situation as one of “corrosive complacency”?

I am proud of the record we have achieved so far in Government. I think we all recognise that there is more to do and we are working hard to do that.

I thank the Minister for giving way. She is giving a really passionate speech and talking about her personal experience of being in the armed forces. It is important that the Conservative party hear again the figures she quoted in respect of the number of armed forces personnel at the start of her time in the forces and the number at the time she left, and the difference in the amount of officers. Will she also talk about what the Labour Government are doing to support our armed forces personnel and to increase morale, which is hugely important?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the importance of our armed forces personnel. I am very proud to be able to point to the improvements we have made in recruitment, retention and morale, which show that we are being effective in delivering for them.

I will not give way; I am going to make some progress. The motion before us may claim otherwise, but the facts are that the work being done by our armed forces on multiple deployments speaks for itself. Every hour of every day, our armed forces are out there across the world serving their country, serving UK interests, and protecting our freedoms and prosperity. It is business as usual for them, and it is business as usual across defence.

The Minister talks up the effect that our armed forces deliver in various different theatres, but they are doing so on a shoestring. While the DIP is delayed, apprentices will not start this August in Scotland or this September in England. Investment by primes will not happen this financial year because of the delayed DIP. More important than that, our allies look at the United Kingdom and see an investment plan that does not exist and a Government in disarray. More important than that, those who would seek to do us harm look at the UK now and see a country that either does not know how to, or cannot afford to, defend itself. Is she proud of that legacy?

It is on the hon. Gentleman as well. He has questions to ask about his party’s support for defence—for example on its refusal to fund the welding school that would have brought us vital skills. The Defence Secretary is working through the DIP line by line, so that our personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear that he will get the DIP right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara.

Will the Minister give way?

I think I have been generous. I am going to keep going—thank you. Unlike the suggestion in today’s motion, the DIP has not halted this Government’s investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces. Since the election, we have signed over 1,400 major defence contracts, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies as we deliver on our commitment to back British.

rose—

I have given way enough times; I will keep going. The Opposition want to use the wider situation in Westminster for political grandstanding—it is all they can do and it is all they know how to do—but we are rebuilding our armed forces for our age of big data, AI and autonomy, and have reclaimed our position on the world stage. We have committed to an uplift in defence spending. We have delivered the biggest export deals for decades and fuelled defence as an engine for growth, benefiting communities across the UK. That is a record to be proud of, and one that we will build on as we build warfighting readiness.

Will the Minister give way?

I will keep going. Rather than debate the issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government from the party that gave us five different Prime Ministers and five different Defence Secretaries in 10 years—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.

We have a plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030 from a party whose manifesto committed to spending just 2.5% by that date, and calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a former Government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted, underfitted and unsuited. They left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes delayed or over budget. It is a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland, from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful—it protected nobody. We have had many debates on the issue that the Government are reflecting on. I have set out my position many times, and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress the Bill in due course. As I have said before, I am mindful of the responsibility to get it right.

Will the Minister give way on that matter?

No, I am going to finish. Armed Forces Week is a moment to give thanks. But the best thanks a Government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these Benches, but our full backing. There are more officer-cadets, lieutenants, and Captain Joneses serving today—we are a big family. I say to them that the Conservative Government failed me; this Labour Government will deliver for them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it. In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support. Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I would absolutely be delighted to.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that—not many people do! I remind him that his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches also marched through the Lobby and made the savings in the armed forces budget when they were in Government. His party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds. Can the hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he would intend to fund that—it is borrowing, is it not? Would that not make the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse at this troubling time?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.

I am grateful that the hon. Member is entering into the semi-consensual spirit that we have seen from some. I recognised in my speech that spending had fallen under successive Governments. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), it is important to point out that the Lib Dem position is to raise £20 billion extra through war bonds, but that is not their only policy; their other policy is for international aid to rise to 0.7%. Where is the money going to come from for that? Is it aid bonds, or other borrowing—how will they fund that massive black hole?

I do not believe that there is a black hole, because international aid is not a zero-sum game. We cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless we are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source. International aid is a fundamental part—

The money is not free—where is the money going to come from?

The money is there. If we do not spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line in not only treasure but blood.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am going to make some progress. The Liberal Democrat amendment recognises the reality that I have outlined on Europe, the United States, and Britain’s role at the heart of European defence. It speaks of the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment, and the need for deeper, pragmatic co-operation with European allies. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the cold war.

The Defence Committee has just come back from Norway. It worries me that some defence programmes may be withdrawn in the DIP. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence programmes set out in the defence investment plan are important for not only our national security but maintaining and deepening the UK’s relationships with our allies and partners?

My hon. Friend has asked me to speculate on elements of the DIP that I have not seen; he has the privilege of the insights he has gained from his recent visit. I simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks that he talks about pays multiple dividends in defence co-operation and long-standing and sustainable defence diplomacy. At a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since they have been since the end of the cold war, that is particularly important. Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine, while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and Europe. At the same time, Donald Trump’s wavering commitment to European security casts doubt on NATO’s collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place: one that is more fragmented and unstable, and in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.

So far, the debate has been about how much funding should be found for defence. We should also think about the resignation speech by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who said last week that the DIP, which he has seen, does not strike the right balance between high-end sophistication and low-end mass. He said that “the defence investment plan does not strike that balance”. —[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 732.] Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the balance between sophistication and mass?

My hon. Friend speaks from a position of authority from his personal experience and his role in Committees in this House. I defer, as always, to his superior insights on the matter, and would not differ on anything he has suggested. Britain’s European allies share our values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences; instead, we should shape and lead that effort. On the Conservatives’ watch, our Army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, while the Navy’s surface fleet fell to its smallest size since the English civil war. We saw crises of recruitment, retention and morale and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly, with shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British political history.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, I know that women make up only 11% of the regular forces. We cannot talk about defence readiness while failing to recruit and retain half the population. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence investment plan must include a concrete plan to reach the women in defence charter’s 30% target by 2030?

My hon. Friend puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is intrinsic to the publication of the DIP. We should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed forces, who perform brave service every day.

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I want to turn to legacy. Our motion calls on the Government to drop the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which the Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, voted against on Second Reading. That Bill has now famously been described by the outgoing Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), as “unfit for purpose”. Is the hon. Gentleman’s party, like us, still opposed to the Bill, and does that also apply to his colleagues in the House of Lords?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.

Ah! My right hon. Friend knew that, obviously.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly knew exactly the structure that I would adopt today. This is where the consensus briefly ends. I contend that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and, through its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour, too. The ECHR is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve, but in truth it helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability when the state has failed in its duty, and withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case. This is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans, which is why we voted against the carry-over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, the Bill lacks the safeguards that veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations without genuinely new evidence. The Government’s Bill should be human rights compliant and rooted in transparency and independent oversight, upholding victim’s rights while importantly ensuring that no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given what he is saying about Northern Ireland, would he support a private Member’s Bill that would set out in law that there should be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, new and compelling evidence has come to light? If so, I can only recommend that he come to the Chamber on 4 September, when my Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill will have its Second Reading.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights. At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.

As he comes to his conclusion, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity to express his specific regret for the role that the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition Government in slowing down the nuclear continuous at-sea deterrent programme; indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it with Biggles-type aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers, which would have put us in a very dangerous position. As it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it, and one of the reasons why there is such difficulty in the MOD budget now is that we are catching up on that essential spending on the continuous at-sea deterrent.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I in my role as spokesperson today have acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the past. Frankly, I think that those mistakes need to be shared across the House, because they are shared across this House. 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 businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost overseas. Ministers must publish the defence investment plan immediately to reassure partners and provide a road map for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement. At a time when Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. The resignations of the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister were a clarion warning from those who have scrutinised the numbers that they were left wanting.

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The Liberal Democrats are famously known for their love of bicycling. Does he agree that it would be a good idea for the Government to drop their plan to spend £4.5 billion over five years on creating cycleways and rededicate that money to defence?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. The United Kingdom is a modern 21st-century European nation. I had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on a Lime bike using our cycleways. Frankly, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other—I am perfectly happy for the Government to spend money on both cycleways and defence. It is a very strange equivalence that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not in his place today, which is disappointing and shows a failure to engage with issues affecting our armed forces and defence. I would implore him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible. Strength in this moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies. That is why our amendment calls for the defence investment plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue £20 billion of defence bonds, which would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investments, strengthen our industrial base and give Britain’s businesses the confidence that they need to expand and hire. However, the investment cannot stop there. The Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest and convene cross-party talks in the spirit of collaboration across this House, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has talked about today—only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending. Britain must lead, and Britain must lead in Europe. Our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats. Britain should now be leading European defence. That is why we have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union.