Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

In this paper entitled “Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness” that I am just about to explain briefly to the House, we refer to Norway’s concept. Norway’s total war concept is being embedded in its national life and embedded across Government policy through all branches of Government.

For example, we refer in the report to the need to galvanise our universities to be ready for war, so that research and development programmes are directed towards suitable and useful capability, creating sovereign national capability and protecting those research programmes from foreign infiltration. I love having foreign students in our universities—it is good for the economy and for our universities—but we cannot have Chinese nationals at the heart of chip manufacture and design, robotics or AI systems. We have to protect our national technology from being spied on by people sent to this country to go to our universities in order to collect that information, steal it and give it to our enemies.

The context of the document, which is almost old hat even though it is only a few months old, is the changing geopolitical situation, the withdrawal of America from European security, the collapse of the rules-based international order, the failure of democratic governance models to rise to the challenge, the unpreparedness of most western democracies to be ready to confront the hybrid warfare that we already face, and our lack of adaptability. I commend the point made by the former Armed Forces Minister: there is no point in ordering a whole lot of kit that will be out of date as soon as we get to the next war. If the next war starts in the Balkans, the Baltic states or Poland, it will be about drones. The Government are moving some way on that, but we are so slow. The Ukrainians were way ahead of us in helping to protect the Gulf states while we were still sending multimillion-pound aircraft that cost £25 million an hour to fly to shoot down a drone that cost £150,000. We must adapt our industry to produce cheap, numerous capability so that we have the scale to deal with that.

We need that whole-of-society mobilisation. We need much more adaptable governance.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

We need resilient financial systems. We need sovereign defence capabilities and sovereign critical national infrastructure. I am glad that we have stopped handing over so much of our CNI to foreign owners, but an immediate, radical transformation is required.

This document is 19,000 words drafted for me and for my friend the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), who serves on the Defence Committee and is a renowned expert on defence in the House, by Chris Donnelly, who used to be a Soviet expert at NATO, worked in the Ministry of Defence and finished up teaching at Shrivenham. He is a wise defence guru. If hon. Members want to know how much really needs to be changed, they should just read through these 19,000 words of analysis and recommendations.

There is a huge task, but to carry it through we need to carry the people. The SDR promised a national conversation—where is that national conversation?

[Fred Thomas]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

Defence Investment Plan

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Member for his service, and I know that he has constituency interests in these matters. He referred to the £150 million that has been announced for the Royal Marine commandos for the hybrid model of crewed and autonomous insertion craft and drones—a bit of a mouthful. That is an important capability. I would like to reiterate what an extraordinary job the Royal Marines did in the English channel a couple of weekends ago in interdicting a Russian shadow fleet vessel. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. They do extraordinary work, and this Government have a huge responsibility to ensure that they have the right capabilities. I or one of my Ministers would be happy to discuss the technical detail further, though.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The investment plan lays out that this country will spend £63 billion on our nuclear deterrent over the next few years, but that is not just to keep the UK safe; we offer that as an umbrella protection across our European NATO allies. That is a massive point. It is extremely expensive; it is more than some entire Departments will get. It is huge, and we should celebrate it. I ask the Secretary of State to assure me that when he travels to Turkey with the Prime Minister for the NATO Assembly soon, and we come under pressure for not having laid out how we will hit 3% soon enough, the point will be made gently to our friends and allies that we are spending a huge amount of money keeping them safe.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who makes an important point. It is right to emphasise that we are the third-largest spender of resource on defence in NATO. He is right to point out the £63 billion that has been committed over the next four years. That is a very large figure, and a very significant commitment. As he will know very well, not least because his constituents benefit from that investment, it also means good, skilled jobs for people right around the country, including in his constituency.

Armed Forces Bill

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.

Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.

Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.

Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.

The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.

Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding

“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”

That is simply not true.

However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.

For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.

In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Which would you do?

[Mr Francois]

We would reduce welfare spending and spend it on the defence of the realm. That is our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?

[Calum Miller]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I quite agree with him that the work of our brave service personnel in the bomb disposal units and those who train them—as I say, at the Bicester garrison in my constituency—deserve to be celebrated. I would resist the temptation to say that I hope everybody’s Armed Forces Day go off with a bang.

The skill and commitment of our armed forces reflect the best of us, and it is a privilege to speak today on this Bill. I believe there is much in the Bill that should be welcomed and that deserves our support. Crucially, it renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty across Government, introduces a Defence Housing Service to oversee and implement improvements in the quality of accommodation for our troops, and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has energetically taken the Government to task for their spending pledges, yet I regret that the Conservatives did not apply the same energy to supporting and protecting our armed forces during their time in office. The scandalously poor quality of service personnel housing serves as the clearest evidence that they allowed a dogmatic commitment to outsourcing to blind them to how they were failing our armed forces.

Armed Forces Bill

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill and the Government amendments tabled today, which improve housing, strengthen protections for serving personnel and their families, and ensure that our armed forces are prepared for the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. Much of this debate rightly focuses on structures, powers and processes, but the strength of our armed forces ultimately comes down to the brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and the families who support them.

In South East Cornwall, we see that every day through the close connection between our communities and the Royal Navy. People arrive from across the UK to begin their service careers at HMS Raleigh, and many leave with lifelong friendships, skills and a deep sense of purpose.

The recruits of Gould 25/37 successfully passed out from their initial naval training just recently. I know the whole House will join me in congratulating them on this significant achievement and in wishing them every success as they begin their careers in service to our country. One recruit marked the occasion in particularly memorable fashion, by proposing to his now fiancée; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Cameron and Lexi on their engagement and in wishing them a long and happy future together. Their engagement is a reminder that places such as HMS Raleigh are not simply training establishments; for many, they are where futures are built and the values of service, commitment and community are lived every day.

As we consider the Bill, we must remember that behind every policy and every provision are the people who make our armed forces great. That is why I particularly welcome Government amendments to clause 3, which creates a new defence housing service, as I think about that young couple and the home they hope to build together. We cannot hope to strengthen recruitment, retention and national readiness if service personnel and their families are living in unacceptable accommodation.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, I have many serving folks in my patch. We have a particular issue in Plymouth related to South West Water, which I know she also deals with. Unlike their neighbours, when there are outages, people in service accommodation cannot immediately access compensation pay. While their neighbours who are not in service accommodation pay South West Water directly, those in service accommodation go through a kind of third-party service and therefore do not get that compensation immediately. The Minister is well aware of the matter, because he helped me out with some related casework last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at that in the Bill, to ensure that people in service accommodation get compensation just as quickly as their neighbours and are not disadvantaged by being in the forces?

[Anna Gelderd]

I agree that we must work together on these important issues. We cannot hope to strengthen our recruitment, retention and national readiness if the accommodation is unacceptable. The Bill delivers a landmark programme of investment to build, renew and repair military homes and put forces families first. The Tory privatisation of military housing cost taxpayers billions, while leaving many service personnel and their families in accommodation that simply was not good enough.

I also welcome amendments to clause 2 on the expansion of the armed forces covenant, which will extend to recognise that service life presents unique challenges, including frequent relocations, disruption to education, difficulties accessing healthcare and impacts on family life. Ensuring that public bodies properly recognise those challenges is an important step towards delivering the support that serving personnel, veterans and their families truly deserve. This issue matters to our armed forces. We know that military morale fell to deeply concerning levels under the previous Government—something that should worry every Member of this House.

I represent a constituency with proud military communities, and I know the challenges faced by serving families and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frequent moves can disrupt education and support networks at the very moment when stability is most needed. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work being undertaken in partnership with the Department for Education to improve continuity and support.

I am also particularly pleased to welcome the amendments to clause 7 to strengthen protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. Violence against women and girls remains one of the greatest challenges facing our society. No one should ever face abuse, intimidation or violence, and certainly not those who serve our community in this way.

In a few weeks’ time, I will have the privilege of attending another passing-out parade at HMS Raleigh. The Minister has previously joined me to meet veterans in Torpoint, home to one of the country’s largest veteran populations; I hope he will accept my invitation to revisit South East Cornwall at the earliest opportunity, to meet the recruits who represent the bright future of our armed forces and to discuss the vital role that my constituency continues to play in supporting our nation’s defence.

This Bill recognises that a strong armed forces depends on strong people, strong families and strong communities such as mine, and I am proud to support it. I look forward to seeing the difference that these measures will make for those who serve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Recruitment to our forces has for too long been beset by delays. There is no shortage of young people who want to join the forces, but those delays have led to a large majority of them going off and doing other things. He will have seen that we have changed the regulations, which often restricted recruitment and were barriers to young people joining. He will have seen that we have introduced direct entry for cyber recruitment, and that we are set to put in place a new contract next year for the first ever tri-nation recruitment. That will speed up recruitment and make it more efficient.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

In all the years that I served as a regular in the military, the continuous attitude survey showed that morale was dropping year on year. Since Labour has come into government, that has reversed; the continuous attitude survey is at last going in the right direction under this leadership. Can the Secretary of State explain why that is?

[John Healey]

There is a serious point behind my hon. Friend’s question. Armed forces numbers are growing. We have turned the corner on recruitment and on morale, as he says, and satisfaction, in particular with military homes, has risen 12% in the last year. This Government are on the side of our forces and their families. This is a Government delivering for defence, and delivering for our armed forces.

Defence Readiness

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about Estonia. Britain has troops deployed in Estonia providing a tripwire, as he well knows, having no doubt spent some time with them recently. Will he join me in encouraging the Government to make every effort to arm and equip those troops with the capabilities necessary simply to survive? Does he agree that at the moment, those troops do not provide much deterrent force at all, and will not do so until we give them the technologies that have been standard in modern warfare for multiple years now?

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that if we are to have an effective deterrent in the Baltics, it must be operationally ready to fight the threat that he identifies, not just look good on paper.

I will move on to the role of information and how we are informing the British public of the threat. I have made the point before that we must trust the British people with more information about the threat that they face, whether that is in relation to cyber-security or subsea cables and energy infrastructure. Unless the British people fully understand the threat that they face, they will not put the necessary pressure on Government or give us licence to act more quickly, as all of us in the House know we must, to defend ourselves.

I believe that information breeds teamwork and togetherness, and a lack or a void of information creates speculation and misinformation from our enemies—and, indeed, from some in this House. We must ensure that the British people are the ones keeping us on our toes, and that we are defending them in the way that we should. I point to the recent cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and the retail sector, as have been mentioned. These are all threats that the UK is facing, and we must be much more up front, straightforward and trusting with the British people about that information.

I move on to talk about some of the priorities for the long-term defence of the United Kingdom, which I am afraid requires uttering the initials DIP. I do not want to revisit the arguments that we have already had, but I urge Ministers to ensure that the defence investment plan looks at long-term planning as well. When the document is published, we should not focus only on some of the more immediate things.

In my constituency, we are looking at the work that needs to be done around our submarine fleet, as was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). For example, work needs to be done on contingent docking facilities at Rosyth to ensure that a lack of infrastructure does not delay or curtail the operation of Dreadnought-class submarines in the future. I know that Defence Ministers are aware of the threat that poses. When we get to that position, Dreadnought must be able to enter service immediately and fully, taking the pressure off Vanguard.

Defence

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. That is exactly what I am beginning to hear in my constituency. I referred earlier to a queue of companies wanting to come to South West Devon. My concern is that the queue is going to get shorter if the investment under the DIP does not come forward.

Following the strategic defence review came the defence industrial strategy. Again, it was another lauded document, with further references to industrial clusters, which it called

“critical for the competitiveness of the IS-8 and national economic resilience”,

including to “maritime autonomy in Plymouth” and so on; it kept promising. There was a fantastic paragraph in the strategy about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, to which I have already alluded. It was an exciting prospect and has been a positive development. The city has got going; we have Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver. But the defence investment plan is required to fulfil this aimed-for growth and to enable contracts—like those just mentioned by my hon Friend—to be brought forward, with the jobs that have always been promised. For businesses, the SDR and the defence investment plan were exciting, but they are still missing the funding. This is a threat to our national sovereign capability and to the economic growth that the Government seem convinced that they are going to deliver.

Furthermore, there is a delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and that is hampering growth too. Businesses in my constituency want the green light in order to go forward on their testing, but those trial areas have not come forward—we just see more dither and delay. I raised this matter recently in Prime Minister’s questions, asking for the changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and hundreds of pages of applications.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Member celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to create Team Plymouth. She celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to designate Plymouth the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, and she celebrates the countless defence technology companies crowding into our wonderful, vibrant city. Can she acknowledge, in the spirit of balance, that this Labour Government have delivered some good things for defence?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his comments, although if he had been listening, he would have heard me say that I welcome all those things, but without the defence investment plan it will disappear in a puff of smoke. I am sure that, like me, he wants to see Plymouth and the surrounding area capitalise on the strategy. We can see the things that Team Plymouth will bring, but without the defence investment plan, we will see people walking out of the door.

We have the King’s Speech in May, I believe—that has been the worst kept secret—and I would suggest that is the perfect opportunity for the Government to deliver the changes required to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. At the moment, they are saying that there needs to be a legislative opportunity and are looking at other Bills, but if they were serious about delivering for defence and growth, why not bring forward a unique Bill? It need not take very long, and it could be included in the King’s Speech. That would show that the Government have the ambition to make the necessary changes. We need to get deals across the line, and we need to give the businesses investing in our community the funding to enable those deals to happen. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say to reassure my constituents in that regard.

To conclude, I had an incredibly constructive letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), about marine autonomy test sites and the regulations. I think this is the hook:

“Marine autonomy is a cross-departmental priority of the Government, as detailed in the Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy…the Modern Industrial Strategy…and the Strategic Defence Review…The draft legislation for maritime autonomy exists and the Department for Transport will continue to seek parliamentary time for these important clauses.”

I make my point again: what are they waiting for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Governments of all colours reduced defence spending after the cold war to spend more on health, education and welfare, but the world of today is not the world of 1991. This Government must deal with President Putin rather than President Yeltsin. Since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, it has become increasingly clear that we need to spend more on our armed forces. The Government have admitted as much. Last year, they said they would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a good start, albeit not enough—but thus far they have failed to set out a programme for how that money will be spent. Where is the defence investment plan? Twelve months have passed and no extra money has gone into advancing our military capabilities. Meanwhile, the Government have found billions of pounds to spend on welfare so as to placate their Back Benchers, to try to save the Prime Minister’s skin. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not regard defending our country as important as defending his own job.

Three weeks ago, the Government finally announced a £1 billion contract for the new medium helicopter. That contract will keep Leonardo operational in Yeovil. That is vital for Somerset’s economy as well as for the UK’s defence infrastructure, and I welcome that announcement, but the deal was announced at the last minute only to stop the factory closing. That demonstrates how unserious the Government are about setting their plans for defence. If they were serious, they would have published their defence investment plan as promised in the autumn; instead, we have had delay and excuses ever since. The Government are happy to set out their plans for welfare spending years ahead, but they cannot tell us their plans for defending the country.

An additional problem is that the Government are run by human rights lawyers. They see all matters on the global stage through the prism of international law rather than what is in Britain’s national interest. I imagine that Lord Hermann lives in the hope that Russia and China will one day adopt such an approach, but I fear that he will be disappointed.

The Government apply that myopic approach to how they treat our military personnel and our veterans as well. There are about 4,400 veterans living in my constituency—I have met many of them at the Bridgwater and Burnham-on-Sea branches of the Royal British Legion—and I pay tribute to every one of them for their service and the sacrifices they have made for our country. They have told me how worried they are by the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those men faced down terrorists who threatened our country. Now, decades later, they are not being honoured for their service; rather, this Government treat them as suspects. Terrorists who murdered British soldiers have effectively been granted an amnesty—we know that no future action will be taken against them—but veterans who served the British state are to be hounded like criminals for doing what they were ordered to do.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member mentions quite rightly the brave men who served in Operation Banner. Does he agree that women also served in that operation?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the additional time.

The legacy legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government intended to halt that injustice is now being repealed by Labour. That is disgraceful. Not only is Labour’s campaign against our veterans deeply unfair; it endangers us in future conflicts. In a more dangerous world, with a looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces. What signal are the Government sending to young recruits by prosecuting our veterans and showing that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare, with the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General?

The Minister knows that republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour’s naiveté to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events. I call on the Government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.

Middle East: Defence

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The UK Government are urging Iran to de-escalate. We are deeply concerned about regional stability. Part of the reason for our co-ordinated defensive actions—the contribution we are making in the regional co-ordination centres, but also with our jets flying in defence of middle eastern allies—is to reinforce regional security and stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement this afternoon, and included the confirmation of the commitment to approve for the Ministry of Defence access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities as they are needed to the middle east. I am sure the House will welcome that, as it will welcome the fact that she said,

“I am committed to giving our military the resources they need.”

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership at this time. One of the defining characteristics of the UK’s response to the crisis when Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was the political unity that this party, the Labour party, offered our country. Does he find it extremely disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying that our military are “hanging around”, when they are putting themselves in harm’s way to defend our interests abroad? Does he expect, as I do, the shadow Secretary of State to apologise for that really disappointing, cheap political point scoring?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I had the honour of spending part of Thursday with our personnel on our base in Akrotiri, it was not just the teams and the pilots flying the fast jets who were working flat out—the F-35 team I spoke to had deployed at five days’ notice to Cyprus. The whole of the military personnel on that base were doing so, including those looking after and ensuring the relocation of non-essential personnel and families to hotels in the Paphos area. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more insulting than the suggestion that they are simply “hanging around” in the middle east. I really would like to hear—we did not hear it from the shadow Defence Secretary—any Conservative Member contest what their leader said and apologise on her behalf. Let us have the sort of support that recognises that our armed forces are in the region to protect British personnel, British bases and British interests. We are proud that they are doing that job.

Ministry of Defence

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It is shocking, as my hon. Friend says from the Front Bench. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, not only is it terrible for defence companies wanting to be able to plan their manufacturing programmes, but it is not good for MOD personnel, because they do not know how to plan either.

Current events in the middle east have given a serious warning that we need to increase defence expenditure. It is therefore really important that we see the defence investment plan so that Parliament can scrutinise the latest plans. Without this information, the Office for Budget Responsibility has questioned whether the Government will be able to reach their target of 3% in five years’ time. That will also be too late, because we need to get the investment soon. As everybody knows—and the Minister certainly knows—it takes a long time to procure and manufacture some of these important bits of kit, so we need to get on with that now.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that, given what has happened in the past few days in the middle east, the country needs to spend more on defence, but does he agree with me that the country needs to spend differently on defence? When drones cost barely tens of thousands of pounds, we need to start buying or making capabilities to take down drones that do not cost the British taxpayer millions and millions of pounds.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. and gallant Member has great experience in these matters. I think he must have been reading my speech. If he is patient, I think he will get exactly what he wants.

The PAC recommended more than two years ago that the Government should set up a sensitive scrutiny committee to examine confidential military expenditure. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister on the Front Bench today, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, for their careful consideration of that matter. I hope it will now be possible to make real progress, but as the Minister will remember, I raised this matter in the estimates debate in June last year. I hope it will not be necessary to raise it again in another year’s time.

There is a commitment to increase defence expenditure from 2.2% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, followed by an increase to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. In the Government spending review, the current budget is expected to increase by 18.2%, or £11.3 billion by 2028-29. Minister, we really do need to see those numbers incorporated into the Government’s expenditure plan in the autumn Budget so that we can be absolutely certain about them.

Many Members will know—certainly the Chair of the Defence Committee knows, because I have been a guest on his Committee—that the MOD has been reorganised into the Quad: the permanent secretary Jeremy Pocklington; the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton; the National Armaments Director, Rupert Pearce; and the Chief Of Defence Nuclear, Madeleine McTernan. I sincerely hope, given their new powers, they will radically reform how the MOD functions. We need to take a more strategic view of systems that we procure—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas)—and consider above all the capability and speed we are able to acquire them.

Why is it, I say to the Minister, that the Japanese can procure their version of the highly sophisticated Type 26 frigate, a Mogami class, in a third of the time that we do? The consequence of that is that the Australians have just struck a deal for £10 billion to purchase those ships from the Japanese. Why is it that the Israelis can procure their military equipment with just 1,000 people, yet our procurement body, Defence Equipment and Support, employs 12,500 people? Our procurement system is far too slow, subject to mission creep, usually late and usually over-budget. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Ajax is a classic example of all those problems. We need to learn those lessons, move on and make sure they do not happen in future.

Last week, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned—he is no longer in his place—I joined a group of 20 MPs who visited Ukraine. We were in air raid shelters several times during our visits to Odessa and Kyiv. On one night the Russians fired 290 drones: 220 were destroyed but 70 got through, causing a significant amount of damage, and a few injuries and fatalities as well. Ukraine’s technology and digital capability in tracking and destroying those drones is some of the most sophisticated in the world. The drone operators’ experiences are directly and rapidly informing their procurement decisions. The Ukrainians are able to change the specification of their drones within a week. I suggest that it would probably take us some months to do the same thing.

One of the top Ukrainian military experts told us that the future of warfare was following three domains: drones, cyber/electronic and space. I think, hearing those words, that some of our capabilities in those areas need bolstering pretty rapidly. We and NATO need to learn the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Without being too specific, there are severe gaps in NATO’s anti-drone technology.

The experts also made the telling point that modern main battle tanks can cost between $4 million to $9 million per unit, but they can be destroyed by a swarm of drones costing less than $20,000 each. They say that tanks are effectively redundant. The Ukrainians inform us that 80% of their kills are as a result of drone strikes. Modern warfare is changing rapidly, and the MOD needs to be sufficiently agile to adapt.

From the recent activity in Cyprus, and other lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine and ongoing war in the middle east, we need to invest in comprehensive counter-drone systems and training across our armed forces. As an example, we use the Sky Sabre air defence system, which can shoot down drones, but can cost up to £250,000 a shot. We need to invest further in anti-drone technology to ensure we can do this far more rapidly and cheaply.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, last Thursday the PAC visited RAF Marham, which houses two F-35 squadrons. I have four main takeaways from that visit, all of which stem from the lack of urgency to be ready for war according to General Walker’s three-year timescale. First, the accommodation for our servicemen needs urgent upgrading. It is a disgrace that servicemen can be sent on long tours while their families do not have proper accommodation.

My second takeaway was the effect that has on retention. We were told that pilots and training instructors for the F-35 programme are 50% below optimum levels, which is highly unsatisfactory for a project of this importance.

Thirdly, it is difficult to plan the whole operation when the timing and procurement of the additional 27 F-35s are unclear. Hopefully, that will be revealed in the defence investment plan when it is published.

Fourthly, one of the squadrons had recently returned from the highly successful Operation Highmast to deploy around the world, ending up in Japan. Now, in a matter of a week or two, they have had to redeploy to the middle east. This is a good illustration of how some of our servicemen face considerable stretch. This is to be expected in wartime, but more resources must be deployed to support them and their families. Another example of that is that our submarine crew on HMS Vanguard recently served a 204-day deployment.

The MOD budget is going to grow considerably, but the money is not going to purchase military hardware in the most strategic or cost-effective way. That will happen only if the Quad radically reforms the way the MOD has been run, especially with smarter recruitment of personnel and procurement of equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will. My hon. Friend, who serves on the Defence Committee and did in the previous Parliament, will remember that total spending on defence in the last year of the last Government was just under £54 billion. She will know that this year and next year, it is set to be over £65 billion. She will see the increase in defence spending, she will recognise the importance of making that commitment, and she will recognise the value of the strategic defence review in setting the vision for transforming our forces, so that they are more ready to warfight, and better able to deter.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to increase the speed of the development and adoption of uncrewed defence systems.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

The Government are working exceptionally hard to ensure we speed up our procurement of uncrewed systems. In 2024 alone we are buying up to 5,400 drones, moving up to 8,000 in 2026. Really important is the development of our drone uncrewed centre of excellence, which will be launched later this year to provide better co-ordination and co-operation across defence, industries and academia in the delivery of uncrewed systems.

[Fred Thomas]

Britain’s future security depends on developing, testing and, crucially, adopting uncrewed systems quickly and safely, but the regulation is immensely complex. It spans many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The regulators include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Military Aviation Authority, Ofcom and the Environment Agency. The list goes on—it is endless—and for the military, the police, the agencies and our innovators, the barriers are stifling. My hon. Friend will know that I have worked with stakeholders to develop proposals for reform, which he has seen, and I know that the MOD, the Department for Transport and even the Treasury are considering them, but to make real progress, we need coherence in this area. Will he now help me to convene a meeting of all the key regulators across the Departments to drive this forward?