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:

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.

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?

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?