Defence Investment Plan

Debate between Derek Twigg and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not for me to make guarantees on behalf of other Government Departments, including the Treasury. I am sure that he will understand that. I do not think that any Minister outside the Treasury would be in a position to make that guarantee.

I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about these matters, so the guarantee that I can give him is that in the time I have had available, I have looked very carefully at the mix of capabilities contained within the plan and made a number of changes in order to deliver capabilities that I thought were required sooner rather than later. Has that involved making some difficult choices? Yes, it has. Has it involved cutting some capabilities? Yes, it has. But what I have to do is do right by defence and be satisfied that we have the resource available and the right capabilities in place to allow us to operate alongside our allies in a very dangerous world.

That is not an easy process, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I hope he will also acknowledge that today’s investment plan represents an important step forward, but as I have said consistently, there is still a requirement to spend more on defence.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to read the DIP this morning in the reading room. There are some important questions that need to be answered. It is clear that the last Government left the armed forces in a poor state, and this Government have been doing all they can to try to repair that, but for me, the key question is this: given the threats we face today globally and in Europe and the state of the world economy, does this plan meet those threats and provide us with the security and defence capability that this country needs at this time?

My view is that it clearly does not, and I think we have to make a much greater contribution. We need to get to 3% by the end of this Parliament, and we need to set out a plan to achieve that. Otherwise, it also leaves a great deal of uncertainty in the defence industrial base about the ability to ramp up and upskill to meet those requirements.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee and for his previous service in the Department. I therefore take seriously the points he made. He is right to highlight the nature of the threats we face as a country. That is why, in addition to the work we are doing in Defence, it is incredibly important that activity is joined up across Government to ensure that wider resilience and wider societal response. That work is under way with the Cabinet Office.

My hon. Friend made a point about uncertainty for industry. The truth of the matter is that the publication of this plan today will ensure greater certainty for our industry partners, who we now want to work with closely. We rely on them to be able to manufacture the capabilities we require to keep our country safe. This is a big shot in the arm for UK industries, and I look forward to working closely with the defence industries in the months—and hopefully years—to come to ensure that we are buying British and taking their capabilities and deploying them to meet the nature of the threat that we face.

Chinese Embassy

Debate between Derek Twigg and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to all members of his Committee. Parliament entrusts the ISC with holding Government to account, and the ISC is able to do that in a way that other right hon. and hon. Members cannot. He made two key points. First, he shared the Committee’s analysis of the concerns expressed about national security. I hope that Members in all parts of the House listen carefully to what he says, and look carefully at the judgment that his Committee arrived at. Secondly, he made an important point about process, which I take seriously. I have no doubt that quite a lot can be learned from the process, and I am happy to talk with him and his Committee to identify the lessons that should be learned, and to ensure that we do things better next time.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly:

“the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”

Would the Minister like to comment on that?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reiterate the points I made about process. I have a huge amount of respect for the Committee. I had the pleasure—that is how I will describe it—of appearing in front of the Committee not so long ago. I do not think it is a state secret to say that the Committee gave me a pretty tough grilling, and that is absolutely how it should be. The point he made about process is important, as is his point about the letter from the director generals. It is a rare occurrence for the director generals to make public comments. They are both extremely professional, and I have the pleasure of working with them regularly. They are both people of great integrity, and the House and the country should listen very carefully to what they have to say. They have made the point that, collectively, our security services have 100 years of experience in dealing with the challenges from foreign embassies. That is not to be remotely complacent about the nature of the threat that we face, because clearly it is very different from what it was in the past.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Debate between Derek Twigg and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to give the hon. Member the answer. The minutes were provided by the Government to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so there is his answer. He also referred, on several occasions, to the application for the Chinese embassy. Let me explain to him, for the sake of absolute crystal clarity, what the position is with regard to the embassy. I think that will be helpful to other Members as well.

As Members will know, an independent planning decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government by 20 January. National security is the first duty of government, and it has been our core priority throughout this process. The Home Office and the Foreign Office provided views on the security implications of this build throughout the process, and we have been clear about the fact that a decision should not have been taken until we had confirmed that those considerations had been resolved. The letter recently sent to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government now confirms that all national security issues raised have been addressed. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate in London.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I think that many of us are still somewhat bemused by the fact that somehow, despite the three witness statements, the Crown Prosecution Service thought that it could not go ahead with a prosecution. I welcome much of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, but I think it would be useful, following the questions asked and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), if he agreed to come back to the Committee after the Government has responded to its report and recommendations, so that we can be given a clear timeline for the changes that rightly need to be made.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend will understand that there is nothing more I can add with regard to his point about the Crown Prosecution Service. As for his substantive point about engagement with Committees of this House, let me give him that assurance. I genuinely welcome the constructive scrutiny carried out both by the Committee of which he is a member and the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I think that they provide a huge amount of value, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) an absolute assurance of our continued desire to co-operate closely with them.

Corporal Stewart McLaughlin

Debate between Derek Twigg and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis]

rose—

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?