Defence Readiness

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin]

I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and as well as increasing the scope of who can be called up, it creates a consolidation of different types of reserves and allows zig-zag pathways for specialists who can come in and out of the reserves, so it is absolutely a step in the right direction.

One thing that is missing at the moment might create the political space for an increase in defence spending. I was slightly waylaid by the right hon. Member who intervened, but I should have said that to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic area, we are talking about a 50% increase in defence expenditure, not £1 billion here or £2 billion there. A 50% increase in defence is the scale we are talking about.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Martin]

I will not, if that is okay, because we are short on time.

To create the political space for some of these trade-offs, because that is a huge amount of money—£30 billion extra every single year—we need to have the national conversation on defence that was announced in the strategic defence review, but has been notable by its absence. That is why I, together with the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Richards in the other place, have formed the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We hope to raise public awareness not just of the threats, because I think the public understand the threats we face, but of the lack of capability, and the diminishing capability, in the UK military.

I recently went to a school in my constituency to talk to sixth-formers, and I have asked this question in several schools since, but they all assume we have a fleet of about 50 or 100 ships. When I tell them that we have 14 frigates and destroyers—surface combatants—they are shocked. The general public do not know the state of the British military, which is entirely incommensurate with the threat we face.

In conclusion, because time is very short, our military is a paper tiger. Sooner or later, we are going to be found out, and when we are found out and the battlegroup in Estonia is overrun or an aircraft carrier is sunk, Suez will pale into insignificance. This King’s Speech falls far short of what is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

My belief in the importance of national defence is rooted in the single, simple idea that the United Kingdom is a nation inherently worth defending—not because of tradition or nostalgia, but because of the values of decency, respect, hard work and community that continue to define our society and can never be taken for granted. Sadly, these values are not universally held, and when we look beyond our borders, we see a world that is increasingly dangerous, worryingly unpredictable and more divided than I can remember.

That is why I welcome the Government’s steadfast commitment to improving Britain’s defence readiness, through both their pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and the various measures outlined in the strategic defence review. However, the scale of the challenges we face today is unprecedented, and our job is to meet them. Our approach to boosting Britain’s defence readiness cannot be focused on spending alone. Instead, we need to think about how to strengthen the industries that support our military capability, whether by streamlining procurement or empowering defence-focused SMEs to better respond to global conflicts.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alaba]

I apologise, but I will not give way, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak.

All too often, we hear from SMEs in the defence sector that access to funding is limited, slow-moving and difficult to secure. All too often, we see innovative British companies sell up or even relocate overseas. Take Ballistic Dynamics for example, an SME that is passionate about boosting the UK’s defence capability, but whose founders report facing structural barriers such as a lack of consistent funding opportunities and frustratingly opaque tender processes.

In these troubling times, when our adversaries are increasingly bold in their challenges to our stability, home-grown industries will be a key component of what some are calling our pre-war phase or, in some cases, our grey zone. That pre-war phase must include the full utilisation of our highly trained and highly disciplined reserve forces who are too often undervalued in defence planning. I am glad to see the Government’s efforts to improve the recruitment process for reservists, and I would encourage even greater investment in the facilities, institutions and training that support them.

I also appreciate the focus on the reserve forces more generally, but it has to be noted that the very limited reference to the active reserve forces in the SDR is causing concern among some sections of the armed forces community. The strategic reserves as a concept is seductive, but it relies on many optimistic assumptions to be realistically relied on as part of any defence plan, whereas the active reserves exist now.

Preparing the United Kingdom for the potential of future conflict is a monumental task and it will require collaboration throughout Parliament. I urge Members across the House to work together to protect the security of the country, its citizens and our shared values.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I have spoken in this Chamber at some length about defence and the urgency of rearmament, and I was proud to join the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and Field Marshal Lord Richards in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament.

Before I turn to what the Government are doing about defence readiness, I think it is worth pausing, as we always should, on how we got here, because context always matters. A century ago, the Member for Epping—one who understood well what it meant to watch a nation sleep while danger gathered—described the period of neglect and lost opportunity in defence as

“the years that the locust hath eaten”.

I think we can apply the same epitaph to the years of stewardship of defence of the previous Government and the coalition Government. The locusts were busy: armed forces’ pay was cut in real terms in nine out of 14 years; forces housing was in such a state of disrepair that complaints reached a record 13,000 in a single year; troop numbers fell to the lowest level since the Napoleonic era; frigates and destroyers were cut by a quarter, minehunters reduced by half and ground-based air defence spending was slashed by 70% in their final years in office; and the defence industrial strategy sat on a shelf gathering dust, with a commitment on paper, but nothing in practice. They certainly were the years that the locusts had eaten.

That is the inheritance Defence Ministers have to contend with. I have spoken before about the urgency of rearmament, and I will not repeat myself, but I will say that I am incredibly proud of the Government’s Front-Bench Defence team. I believe they have brought coherence, great industry and a genuine patriotic determination to sort out the mess they inherited, and they deserve to be recognised for that.

I am glad that the Government are investing over £270 billion across defence during this Parliament—not as an accountancy exercise, but as a genuine strategic commitment to rebuilding our national security from the ground up. As we meet our commitments made at The Hague NATO conference to reach 3.5% in the future, I understand that there will be difficult discussions to be had, just as there were difficult discussions about foreign aid. However, there is no magic bullet when we are talking about increasing defence expenditure, and pretending that one thing will solve the issue is simply not realistic. In the two previous periods during which this country had to rearm significantly—the 1930s and the 1950s—it was a combination of increased taxation, increased borrowing and difficult choices about public expenditure that did it. I am not convinced by wishy-washy words about how just cutting welfare will sort it all out.

Crucially, something else this Government understand and the previous Government never grasped is that defence spending is not just a cost. It is an investment and an engine for growth. We spend £32 billion annually with industry, equivalent to £460 for every person living in this country. UK defence supports 463,000 high-quality, well-paying jobs—one in every 60 jobs across the UK.

[Gideon Amos]

In the south-west where I come from, 96,000 jobs relate to defence, so it is a huge sector. In my town, SMEs are key to those jobs. Despite welcome changes, with the Defence Office for Small Business Growth from the MOD, portals are still unnavigable for many small businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD should do more to make contracts available for our small businesses and SMEs?

[Tim Roca]

I was in Bristol recently at the National Armaments Director Group, the renamed defence Government support group, and I was glad to hear that it is doing more on SMEs. Maybe the Government Front Bench will comment more on that later, but it is right to recognise that SMEs are crucial and that, in the hon. Gentleman’s area of the country, they are really important. These are livelihoods, communities and the kind of good skilled unionised jobs that those of us on the Labour Benches have always stood for.

I want to acknowledge the other work the Government have done: last year, £1.5 billion was committed to building the factories of the future, including the first energetics factories in two decades, creating over 1,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands; the £8 billion deal with Turkey sustaining a 20,000-strong workforce across Scotland, Lancashire and Bristol; and the Type 26 frigates selected by Norway which were mentioned earlier in the debate. I was disappointed to see Sweden choose France over the UK in its frigate decision today, but we will just leave that to the traditional UK-France enmity. There is a genuine defence dividend that is measured not in press releases, but in real jobs in real communities the length and breadth of this country.

Turning briefly to something I hope will receive the attention it deserves, the SDR rightly made several important recommendations on strengthening home defence and resilience in the context of a whole-of-society approach to national security—several hon. Friends have talked about that today. The threats we face are not confined to the battlefield. They reach into our infrastructure, our supply chains and our communities. Resilience must be built across the whole of society, not just within the wire fences of our military establishments. With that in mind, I was reassured to hear the Minister, at the beginning of the debate, say that Ministers are working hard and that we will in due course see a defence readiness Bill. The legal and institutional framework for defence readiness matters and I think we all want to see that Bill come forward.

I am by temperament an impatient person when it comes to defence—as you will be impatient for me to finish the speech, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the threats are not waiting for us. I am a fair person and it is only fair to say that in my view the Government are doing serious and sustained work for the renewal and rebuilding of our armed forces, restoring our industrial base and making Britain once again a country capable of defending itself. I certainly hope that the years the locusts have eaten are behind us.