Defence Readiness

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (o), at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret the absence of a Defence Readiness Bill from the Gracious Speech, and the 10 month delay to the publication of the Defence Investment Plan; call on the Government to bring forward both as a matter of urgency; further call on the Government to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament; further regret that the Gracious Speech commits to re-starting inquests into Northern Ireland veterans; and also call on the Government not to progress with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 to protect veterans and improve the morale of all who serve in the armed forces.”

It is an honour to open the final day of debate on the King’s Speech on behalf of the Opposition. Today’s debate is on defence readiness. May I begin by expressing how saddened I was to hear of the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan from the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery? My condolences, and those of the whole Opposition, to her family, both personal and regimental.

Before turning to the defence-related matters that were or were not included in the Government’s programme for the next legislative Session, I pay tribute to the men and women serving in our armed forces right now across the globe, whether they are on board our nuclear submarines, which provide a continuous at-sea deterrent, or deployed in the middle east to defend our overseas bases. I thank them for their service and unwavering professionalism.

I also pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian allies, who continue to defy those original expectations of an early Russian victory. When we take steps to publicly show our sympathy for Ukraine’s heroic struggle—for example, by wearing badges, as I have done every day since the invasion, or by flying the Ukraine flag from local and national Government buildings, we do so not just to show solidarity with a democratic nation under brutal attack by a dictatorship, but because it is firmly in our national interest to assist Ukraine in keeping Putin’s military in check. When newly elected councils make it their first priority, on entering office, to pull down the Ukrainian flag, we are entitled to ask if the party in question cares about the fate of its people, and understands the implications for our national security of Russia triumphing.

Finally, I pay tribute to all those who served our country in the past: our brave veterans. That brings me to Labour’s plans, as set out in the King’s Speech. Of all Britain’s military capabilities, few are more important to our defence or more widely admired, particularly by the United States, than our special forces, yet at a time of war on two fronts, Labour is ploughing on with a Bill that will reopen vexatious legal actions. That not only threatens our veterans, but would undermine the morale of all who serve today, particularly in the special forces. Those special forces include the Special Air Service, and those in the regiment that was on duty in Loughgall in 1987, and who shot IRA terrorists who were driving a digger with a bomb in its bucket towards a police station, and firing machine guns into the building as they approached. I believe that those soldiers were acting to defend our society from terrorists intent on mass murder. Whatever one’s view, surely going back almost 40 years to events that took place in a split second makes no sense.

Crucially, in October 2023, coroner Justice McAlinden declined to list a new inquest into Loughgall precisely because of the cut-off date set by our legacy Act, which therefore did its job of halting such cases and genuinely protecting our veterans from endless litigation. However, in his comments, Justice McAlinden added that preparatory work for the inquest should continue, because there would be a general election the following year, and that might affect how the legislation was implemented. He had a point, did he not?

Fast-forward three years, and with war now facing us, not just in Ukraine but in the middle east, the Government of today remain intent on repealing the protections that we put in place for veterans. It goes without saying that Labour’s plans will harm our veterans, once again keeping them awake at night with the fear that they will be hauled before our courts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister for bringing this matter forward. He is right to put it on record; it is very much part of this debate. However, this goes further than the veterans who cannot sleep at night, and the families who are worried about what will happen to their father, brother or sister. Does he agree that this is affecting recruitment? Those who want to join the Army are saying, “If we join and get involved in a battle to protect this country, we could find ourselves being persecuted for it, or taken to court.” Does he agree that, for that reason and others, the Government must be fair, when it comes to legislation, and must listen to the points that he put forward?

[James Cartlidge]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very good interventions. He has hit the nail on the head. This is not just about veterans, as important as they are; it is about the wider impact on recruitment. Indeed, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it, or his. In November last year, nine former four-star generals wrote:

“This lawfare is a direct threat to national security…The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”

I say this to Labour MPs: when considering the troubles Bill and the issue of lawfare, surely the overriding factor to consider is the threat that we face as a nation, and the impact of the legislation on our ability to defend ourselves. Do they really think, in their heart of hearts, that this is what they should be prioritising, when we need our soldiers more than ever? I put this challenge to all those who intend to stand in Labour’s leadership contest. Will those candidates seeking to become our next Prime Minister recognise that the first duty of any leader is defence of the realm, and that it is therefore in the national interest to scrap the troubles Bill and back our brave veterans?

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that no party and no victims’ group in Northern Ireland supports the Conservative party’s approach to the past, and that even the Dillon judgment last week did not in any way rule it legal? Would he not agree that soldiers following the rule of law is a matter of recruitment, too? No soldier wants to be painted with the brush of not having followed the rule of law. Would he care to tell the House how many of the 300,000 soldiers who served under Operation Banner in Northern Ireland have faced judicial proceedings? It is in the very low two figures.

[James Cartlidge]

I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Having served in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many veterans I was there with and others who were there before, and there is a scintilla of a real question mark about how they will be treated. The vexatious nature of these complaints will, of course, eventually drag them back into the courts. That is the fear. They are sure that they are innocent, but by the time the courts have finished with them, innocence would not matter at all, because their life would have been destroyed. Does my hon. Friend not agree?

[James Cartlidge]

I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Our legacy Act was based on what happened in South Africa. We may not like it, but if we want peace and reconciliation, any changes in the law that favour those who may have been guilty have to apply to both sides. It is simply a statement of fact. As I think I just showed with Loughgall, our Act of Parliament—the legacy Act—did indeed stop an inquest that would have been damaging to the armed forces but which I do not believe would have led to any prosecutions.

Turning to what was not in the King’s Speech, the strategic defence review promised that:

“A new Defence Readiness Bill should provide the Government with powers in reserve to mobilise Reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict.”

With war on two fronts, surely such legislation should be the absolute top priority of this Government, but alas, there is no defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech. Why not? The defence readiness Bill is not ready. What else is not ready? The defence investment plan is not ready, of course. We know that the Government are working flat out—[Hon. Members: “At pace!”]—and at pace, but the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box almost a year ago that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. It is now 10 months late, so when the Minister responds, can he tell us exactly when we are going to get the defence investment plan?

Most importantly, we are bound to ask why we still have no defence investment plan. The DIP is meant to set out the detailed procurement decisions intended to implement Labour’s strategic defence review, so what do the authors of Labour’s SDR, appointed by the Prime Minister, think about the failure to publish the DIP and the impact of that on delivering the SDR? Each of the three key authors—Dr Fiona Hill, General Sir Richard Barrons and Lord Robertson—has absolutely slammed the Government for their failure to deliver. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO, stated:

“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”

We agree 100%. The fact is, the current Prime Minister bottled it on welfare reform, U-turning repeatedly despite a majority of more than 160, and failing to make even modest changes to working-age benefits while removing the two-child benefit cap.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

To be charitable to the Government, there is actually £34 billion that could be spent in defence, given that they had another U-turn on the Chagos deal. Maybe there is a delay in the plan because they are trying to decide how to spend that money, or can my hon. Friend think of another reason?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend has remarkable foresight, because I will be coming to the Chagos issue.

This is the key point: had the Prime Minister held his nerve and reformed the benefits system, toughening the rules for working-age benefits and keeping the two-child limit, as was his previous position, he could have found the billions to fund defence rather than entrenching welfare dependency even further. Given this total failure of nerve from the Prime Minister, he had some brass neck to use his response to the King’s Speech last Wednesday to accuse us of “defence austerity”. Let me remind the House that last year the Government insisted on £2.6 billion-worth of reductions to the Ministry of Defence budget. This year, they are insisting on a further £3.5 billion of cuts. They will say that they were the last Government to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, in 2010, but they always omit the caveat that when that same Labour Government came to power in 1997, they inherited defence spending from us at 3%.

Indeed, in talking about so-called austerity, this Government also conveniently forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, had Labour won the election in 2010, it was planning to cut 25% from the defence budget. At least their Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time had the good grace to leave a note confessing that there was no money left, once again relying on us to clear up the mess of a Labour Government who had run out of other people’s money, not for the first time in history.

The worst thing about Labour’s resorting to history is that it is completely irrelevant. I have repeatedly accepted that defence spending fell under successive Governments since the end of the cold war. That is irrefutable, but it was because the world we lived in was one where we thought peace would last. Today, however, the threat is completely transformed and, instead of looking back, the public want us to confront the challenges we face right now, to be ready for battle and above all to be honest about the choices needed to find the cash for defence. That is why we have started to set out fully funded steps towards spending 3% of GDP on defence, as was last achieved under a Conservative Government.

Let us take the example of Chagos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) did in his very good intervention. Labour Members may delude themselves that, like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, their Chagos deal is merely resting, and pining for the archipelago, but we know that the deal is dead. It is an ex-treaty. Even if they disagree, with no treaty legislation in the King’s Speech, it must be clear even to them that the hundreds of millions of pounds due to be sent to Mauritius during this Parliament, primarily from the Ministry of Defence budget, must now be available to be spent elsewhere.

That is why, earlier this month in Portsmouth, the Leader of the Opposition and I set out that we would use Labour’s Chagos cash for a better purpose: accelerating the construction of the 13 frigates being made in Scotland that we ordered when we were in government. The fact is, there is no other way to address the serious shortage of surface ships in the short term than by accelerating the build of those 13 fantastic new warships. Indeed, just a few days after we set out our policy to do exactly that, lo and behold, HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service, confirming the urgent need to act on defence readiness and to be willing to divert cash from elsewhere.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, had his Government not got rid of shipbuilding in my city but instead put some plans into place, we may well have been able to continue to build ships there? Instead, they decimated it and left us with three incompetent Portsmouth Ministers.

[James Cartlidge]

I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project.

On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increase defence spending, with confirmation that we would restore the two-child benefit cap and use the savings for our military. We have also set out plans to move £2 billion a year of research and development funds from other Government Departments to fund drones and drone tech across the board. However, if we are to become the world leader in uncrewed warfare that I still believe we can be, not least after our extraordinary support for Ukraine, we do not just need our services to have the cash to test and train; we also need to invest billions into transforming our defence industrial base.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on the industrial base.

[Mark Pritchard]

While I welcome the Type 26 global combat ship, as I am sure my hon. Friend does—that is an important naval deal with Norway—will the timeline of its delivery not give the first ships to Norway rather than to the United Kingdom? If I am wrong, that is great, but if that is the case, there must be a discussion in the MOD about extending the life of the existing—

[Mark Pritchard]

If I am wrong, great—I am used to being wrong on many occasions, but I am happy to be wrong on something we need to get right.

[James Cartlidge]

I am aware that timelines are an issue on a couple of dimensions in the Chamber at the moment, so I will come to my conclusion shortly. My right hon. Friend asks a fundamental question about the Royal Navy when we know we have shortages of surface ships. I hope the Minister will set out exactly how many Type 26s we will order irrespective of the Norway deal. I support the Norway export deal. How many will we be ordering in addition to that? The written answer he gave me was very ambiguous. We need to get that extra money into the industrial base, which is why our alternative King’s Speech has a sovereign defence fund Bill.

There is one other important Bill in our alternative King’s Speech: our promise to repeal Labour’s terrible Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not enough to oppose Labour’s lawfare; we would restore full legal protections for our veterans, boosting morale and sending a signal that we will always have the back of those who serve. The public know that it is madness at a time of war for the UK Government to be prioritising putting our soldiers back in the dock for serving their country. That is why our motion today calls on this House to reject Labour’s plans and scrap the troubles Bill. We will always defend those who defended us.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

Learning from Ukraine has been very important. To be fair, the Government have made some steps in that direction, but we can always do more to learn from our friends who are testing this technology in the field day in, day out.

Defence takes time. Industry needs a demand signal, our allies need confidence and our adversaries need to see resolve. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. That is not a slogan or a press release, but a serious plan to make Britain safer.

We must also understand that Britain’s defence does not begin and end at our border. That is why forcing a choice between spending on defence and international development is entirely false. Just yesterday, former senior British officers wrote in The Times about the danger that cuts to development pose to our security and described aid as the “first line of defence” for the UK. The Government must urgently reverse course on the cuts, which only undermine this country’s security and soft power around the world.

Last year’s strategic defence review highlighted the need for an urgent injection of cash into our armed forces. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate launch of defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years to support immediate, capital-intensive defence investment.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is always very generous in giving way. He says that the Liberal Democrats would issue war bonds for the extra defence spending, which is just other borrowing. He has also said that he would maintain aid spending at 0.7%, which is a huge increase in spending. How would that be funded?

[James MacCleary]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending.

Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more. For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow.

If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors. It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change.

Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine. We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads.

National security should not be subject to short-term political games. That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience.

The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation. That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it.

The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life. That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I begin by joining others in expressing my condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), despite our best efforts to retire him at the last general election.

The test of any of us in politics is: did we leave things in a better place than we found them? Thanks to the choices made by this Labour Government, the NHS is on the road to recovery. Waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March—the biggest fall in a single month outside of the pandemic for 17 years. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years, patient satisfaction with access to general practice has gone from 60% to 75%, and at a time when public trust in politicians is low, we hit our target of recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers three years early.

On social care, I am proud that we are investing an extra £4 billion; that we have delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s; that the extra £150 million in the disabled facilities grant is providing more dignity, freedom and independence to thousands more disabled people; and that the first ever fair pay agreements will be delivered in social care, because the people who care for our loved ones should never care for their own. That was all made possible thanks to the efforts of the entire NHS and social care team.

In the four and half years that I have led for Labour on health and social care, I have met the best of them: the ones who ran towards danger in Southport and fought to save those children; the ones who scrubbed up and went to work during the pandemic, while the rest of us retreated to safety; the ones who bring new life into the world; and the ones who hold our hands at the end. Leading that team has been the greatest joy of my life.

The depth of love and gratitude I have for the people I have worked with is beyond words—the brilliant team of Ministers and officials at the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly my private office, NHS England, the best team of special advisers in Government, and the leaders and frontline staff across this remarkable system. I am rooting for all of them, as well as for my successor as Health Secretary as he takes on the best job in Government.

I will not pretend that leaving Government has not been an emotional wrench. The scars that I bear on my abdomen from my cancer treatment are a daily reminder to me of a time in my life, not so long ago, when I was thinking not about politics, but only about survival—and the NHS was there for me when I needed it. Walking through the doors of my Department every day as the person entrusted with protecting the very service that saved my life has been a massive responsibility and the most enormous privilege, and not one that I gave up lightly or hastily.

I left the Government because we are in the fight of our lives against nationalism, and it is a fight that we are currently losing. Unless we change course, we risk handing the keys of No. 10 to Reform, and I do not want that on our consciences. For the first time in our history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom. Scottish and Welsh nationalism represents an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom. Reform UK represents a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great—values and ideals that are written into the DNA of the national health service that it would dismantle, given the chance, and whose very existence is an act of courage as well as conviction: that healthcare should be provided based on what each of us needs, not on what any of us can afford. It is a reminder that, even in our darkest hours, this country is capable of doing big things. It is our responsibility to defend that promise and the values that it represents, not just for the NHS or even for the survival of this Government, but to win the battles that we thought were long since won: of progressives against reactionaries, of patriots versus nationalists, of hope over hate. That is our fight. It is Andy Burnham’s fight in Makerfield, and it is Labour’s fight for the soul of our country.

For too long and too often, patriotism in Britain has been left to the loudest voices and the narrowest arguments, as though love of country belongs to one tribe, one party or one point of view, but the Britain that I believe in is bigger than that. Patriotism is not about who you exclude; it is about who you stand beside. It is not rooted in fear of change or suspicion of difference; it is rooted in solidarity—in the belief that we rise or fall together. That is the best of our country’s story: a Britain where people from different backgrounds, different faiths, and different nations and regions, still see themselves in one another; a country where the son of Indian pharmacists can become our first Hindu Prime Minister without having his Englishness questioned; a patriotism built not on blood and soil but on shared values, shared institutions and shared responsibilities.

I understand that SNP and Plaid Cymru Members will not see themselves in the English nationalist politics of the party whose Members sit on the Bench behind them. But nationalism is not progressive, and nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. Nationalism says, “Look inward. Protect your own. Turn away from the others.” Patriotism says, “This country is strongest when we are confident enough to be outward looking, generous and united”—united, but not always the same. On the Labour Benches, we believe in a stronger Scotland and a stronger Wales as part of a fairer United Kingdom.

Twenty-eight years ago this week, the people of Northern Ireland took a leap of faith and voted to endorse the Good Friday agreement—the triumph of hope over bitter enmity, and a reminder that a bigger and better politics is possible when people have courage. That is why we must reject the politics that tries to divide us—whether that is dividing the countries of the United Kingdom or the people who call Britain their home. The nurse from Nigeria is not the enemy of the factory worker in Newcastle. The family fleeing war is not responsible for the cost of living crisis. Division is the oldest trick in politics, and Britain deserves better than that.

The future of this country will not be built by setting neighbour against neighbour; it will be built by renewing the bonds between us, with decent jobs, strong public services, safe communities, a place we can call home and a sense that everyone has a stake in Britain’s success. That is the patriotism we need today—not a brittle nationalism built on grievance, but a confident British patriotism: decent, fair-minded and internationalist, bound together in common endeavour with the conviction that our greatest strength has always been one another. We need to mobilise that spirit as we face the gathering storm.

The war in Iran may be over for now, but this fragile peace has not resolved the crisis in the strait of Hormuz. Even if it were resolved tomorrow, the long-tail consequences for the global economy and the British people will be stark. The tragedy for this Government is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been delivering the fastest growing economy in the G7, falling inflation and lower interest rates, but her hard work has been undermined by the consequences of a war we did not choose. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for keeping us out of it. It will be painful for the British people, who have weathered crisis after crisis: some imposed on us, like the wars in Iran and Ukraine and the pandemic; and others, like austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss’s joyride with the British economy, the result of poor political leadership.

When I gave my maiden speech 11 years ago, I argued that none of the problems facing our country would be solved by leaving the European Union. Today, in the dangerous and volatile world we find ourselves in, dominated by an unpredictable superpower in the USA, a rising superpower in China and a failed superpower in Russia, it is even more clear that we would have been better off leading Europe than leaving the European Union—not despite our sovereignty and the need to control our borders, but to enable those things. That is why I argue for a new special relationship. It is also why I welcome the assurances that the Government are strengthening sanctions on Russia to underline the rock-solid support that we have given President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. The frontline in Ukraine is the frontline for our freedom and democracy. We are meant to be the party of internationalism and solidarity. It is only too disappointing to see Reform councillors taking down the Ukraine flag when the British people want to fly it in solidarity. It is truly, truly shameful.

NATO’s Secretary-General is right to warn today that our alliance has an “unhealthy” reliance on one ally. We need to invest more heavily in our defence, and more rapidly. I know that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his team do not need persuading on this—nor do they need lectures from Conservatives, who ran down our capability and now have the audacity to heckle from the sidelines like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade has not turned up fast enough. I am with the Secretary of State and his team all the way.

[James Cartlidge]

Bankrupting the country has consequences.

[Wes Streeting]

The shadow Secretary of State mentions “bankrupting the country.” I think he is thinking about Liz Truss and the joyride that he was no doubt cheering on. A period of silence, or at least an apology, might be welcome from those on the Conservative Front Bench.

We need to recognise that a nation draws its strength from the condition of its people. A recent survey of 16 to 29-year-olds suggested that around half of all young people in this country would not be prepared to fight for it. I am not so sure about that; I think they would be every bit as brave and self-sacrificing as their grandparents and great-grandparents were, or as their contemporaries holding back the Russians in Ukraine have been. When the cause is just and the need is urgent, they will step up, regardless of what they might have told opinion pollsters.

I know that because, when this country was facing a dire threat—from covid—young people did step up. The generation least at risk gave up the most to help the rest of us keep safe. And how did Britain repay them? By short-changing them on their education, layering on debt, making it harder to get on the housing ladder, and failing to protect them from the AI jobs apocalypse. This generation is the first left totally exposed to the time-sucking algorithms and perils of social media. The Education Secretary and I have raised our concerns about the impact of this on their learning and their wellbeing, but I also wonder what it is doing to their sense of connection with community and country.

But patriotism is not a lecture that the old deliver to the young; it is a relationship. For generations, Britain understood that relationship as a social contract: you work hard, you play by the rules, you contribute to society, and in return you can build a decent life, a secure job, a home of your own and a family if you want one, with the hope and conviction that your children will do better than you did. A generation ago, the average home cost around four times average earnings. In many parts of Britain today, it is eight, 10 or even 12 times average earnings. Private rents consume vast proportions of household income. Millions of young people who work hard and do the right thing cannot see a path to home ownership or security. Today, nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. Many are trapped in insecure work, unable to move out, delaying starting their families and postponing adulthood itself.

Layered on top of this economic insecurity is a new technological anxiety. For generations, people believed that there was a ladder of advancement, with an entry-level job, skills acquired over time, promotion, security and progress. Now, many young people fear that artificial intelligence may remove the lower rungs of that ladder altogether. They ask what skills will still matter. Will there still be routes into stable, middle-class lives for kids from working-class families like mine? Will deindustrialisation be replaced with reindustrialisation and the jobs of the future? Will opportunities extend to our towns, rural and coastal communities, or will inequality become entrenched? Those are not irrational fears; they are rooted in real economic change. Unless mainstream democratic politics can answer those questions, others will exploit that vacuum—they already are.

Defence is about hard power and capabilities, but it is underpinned by the soft power that binds a country together: pride, belonging, shared activities and institutions, and hope. We need to rebuild those things for modern times. This is the calling of the Labour party, which was brought into existence to champion the interests of the working man and woman—for the many, not just the privileged few. It gave me—this kid from a council estate in Stepney in east London—the chance to realise my potential, to go to a great university, and to spend my career tackling the injustices that hold back other kids from backgrounds like mine.

The greatest tragedy of Britain today is that the next generation, for the first time in our modern history, faces worse prospects than the last. The question is not whether young people would fight for their country, but when their country is going to fight for them. This is our generational challenge: not only to deal with the immediate issues of affordability, small boats and NHS waiting lists, but to face up to a turbulent world being remade by climate change and the biggest and fastest industrial revolution in the history of the world; to make sure that no one is left behind and no one is held back—that is our job now, as the old economy of the 20th century finally gives way to the AI revolution of the 21st; and to tackle the crisis facing the next generation as an emergency, with the urgency that the moment requires.

Never waste a minute: that has been my mantra in government, and it is why I do not believe our party has time to waste treading water. The thing about emergencies is that they make the impossible possible. Look back at the crises we have confronted: we could not vaccinate against the deadly virus—until we could; we could not nationalise the banking system—until we could; we could not reorient our entire manufacturing base towards building aircraft—until we could; we could not build hundreds of thousands of homes fit for heroes—until we could.

In times of greatest peril, our country has been capable of doing big things. We still can. Britain used to punch above its weight in the world. We still can. Each generation used to provide a better future for the next. We still can. Another member of the cancer club, the late, great Bowelbabe, Dame Deborah James, famously said:

“take risks; love deeply; have no regrets; and always, always have rebellious hope.”

It is with that in mind—and with the belief that we can and must do better, with deep love for my party and my country, with no regrets, and with rebellious hope—that I have left the Government. The Labour party was elected to deliver real change. We still can.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

It is indeed; the hon. Gentleman is right. We should pay tribute to, support and welcome those employers who make it possible for their staff and employees to serve as reservists. We do so in the civil service, and there are many very good commercial firms that do the same. We need more to do that, we need more to serve as reservists, and we need to change the terms on which our reservists serve. That is why we are making amendments through the Armed Forces Bill.

It is fair to say that Members on both sides of the House urged on me questions about the publication of the defence investment plan. The Chair of the Defence Committee did so, as did the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who spoke from the Dispatch Box to wind up for the Opposition, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). Everybody wanted the DIP published sooner, including me. The Prime Minister knows of its importance and has been clear to the Liaison Committee that it is a personal priority. I say to those on both sides of the Chamber, and particularly to Opposition Front-Bench Members: we have to get this right.

The equipment programme and the procurement plan that we took on was over-committed, underfunded, and unsuited to our changing threats and battlefield conditions. Defence has not done a line-by-line assessment of how it spends taxpayers’ money for nearly 20 years. The last Government made commitments of tens of billions that were not funded. [Interruption.] The shadow Defence Secretary is chuntering, but let me use an example that he himself used. He announced a £10 billion munitions strategy: it was never developed, never published and never funded. It was announced, of course, just weeks before the election. Those are the problems that we have to sort out.

[James Cartlidge]

One of the most critical issues in defence at the moment is the munitions position. Obviously, we did not publish it; we were not allowed to as it is a highly sensitive document. I cannot state what the figures were. We had a general election and we became the Opposition. However—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being intervened on as I intervene.

To be clear on the 14 years point—I hope that those on the Government Benches agree with this—we gave a vast amount of munitions to Ukraine. We did that to protect Europe so that we did not end up with a situation where Russia conquered Ukraine early. It was the right thing to do, but it left massive gaps in the inventory that we were filling. If we had become the Government, we had a plan ready to go and it was funded by cutting the civil service. That is why Labour Members did not like it. The way that we were going to pay for it is something that no Labour party could agree with.

[John Healey]

The shadow Secretary of State has admitted to the House exactly what I was saying. The munitions strategy that he announced weeks before the election was never developed and never funded, and the country cannot be defended with unfunded commitments.