James Cartlidge
Main Page: James Cartlidge (Conservative - South Suffolk)Department Debates - View all James Cartlidge's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the chaos in Government which means a temporary Prime Minister will be attending the NATO summit; further regrets that at such a dangerous time globally this country is not being properly governed; calls on the Government to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, or at a minimum to act to provide the £28 billion that the Ministry of Defence has asked for primarily by cutting welfare and to publish the Defence Investment Plan immediately to deliver this; agrees with the former Secretary of State for Defence that any Defence Investment Plan which included a rise in defence spending of 0.08% from next year to 2030, with no date for raising that spending to 3% and no path to an increase to 3.5%, would fall short of what is required, particularly as intelligence assessments note there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030; further calls on the Government to ensure that the Defence Investment Plan prepares the UK for future conflicts; and also calls on the Government not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill which is unfit for purpose as it fails to protect veterans who risked their lives to protect this country.
It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. Before I commence my speech, I wish to respond to the point of order made by the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry yesterday—not least as neither myself nor the Leader of the Opposition were able to respond to his point of order because we were not given advance notice of it. That may not be mandatory, but surely it would have been in the spirit of proceedings, given that it related to the urgent question to the Secretary of State for Defence tabled by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday.
As a reminder, last Monday’s urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition concerned the extremely serious situation regarding the previous week’s resignations of the two most senior Defence Ministers at the time. In her questions, my right hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State was not responding, given the severity of the circumstances. The DRI Minister said at the time:
“The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.]
That point was repeated a little later in good faith by you, Mr Speaker, in response to a question from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In the DRI Minister’s point of order yesterday, he admitted that that was not true.
James Cartlidge
The DRI Minister admitted in his point of order yesterday that what he said last Monday was not true. He said that the Secretary of State
“arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 71.]
That begs the question: why did the Secretary of State not respond? To quote chapter 21, paragraph 20 of “Erskine May”, His Majesty
“cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.”
Given this, not only should a Minister of the Crown surely desist from raising the monarch in the Chamber in such a context; it is particularly inappropriate to do so when the facts prayed in aid are not correct.
Mr Speaker, this is cowboy stuff—very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House—and it is not the first time. The Armed Forces Minister, in her previous role as Veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the Dispatch Box after saying at oral questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was “not a details man” and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army, who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. Finally, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior sight of the strategic defence review because I had supposedly not allowed him prior sight of the defence Command Paper refresh when I was a Minister. Petty as this was, it was also—again—wholly untrue.
This is not acceptable; Ministers must tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. I said that I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it. I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am a little bit worried about using the language of “truth” and “facts”. In fairness, both the Minister in question and myself were told that the Secretary of State was down at Windsor last Monday. We did not know what time he was coming back; we were not told—none of us. I want us to be careful when talking about “truth” and “facts”, because I really do worry about how we attack each other in this House. In all the cases that the hon. Member has highlighted so far, the record has been corrected. This debate is about defence spending, and I am not quite sure how going back in history fits into that. Hopefully, we will get to the topic of the debate soon.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I informed your office about this issue earlier, because we feel it is very important.
Mr Speaker
Telling my office is one thing; unfortunately, my office has not had time to tell me.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have made the point and I hope Ministers are listening.
It is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise—
Mr Speaker
Order. To finish off our discussion, what I was offended by on the day in question was the calling of a Member who served in the armed forces—a gallant officer of this House—a coward. I did not think that was appropriate and I am sure that all of us will regret such comments against each other.
James Cartlidge
Noted, Mr Speaker.
As I was saying, it is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today, to their families and to our veterans.
The last time I spoke in an Opposition day debate on defence was in March, on the subject of the long-delayed defence investment plan. Since then, we have still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we have had chaos: the resignation of the Secretary of State for Defence; the resignation of the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and yesterday, the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit, those resignations from the Ministry of Defence were fatal for his career, and they have a common thread—namely, Labour’s massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence, despite war in Europe and the middle east. As the previous Defence Secretary said, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that “falls well short” and would
“make the country less safe”.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case. Does he share my concern that, during last week’s urgent question, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and the Secretary of State could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been set out? I am hearing rumours that the new Type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in plans six months ago. At a time when defence is so critical, does that concern my hon. Friend?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who served in the Navy, was a Defence Minister and speaks with expertise, has made an extremely serious and important point. This is why we want to see the defence investment plan. We have been waiting for it for months, and we have been promised it repeatedly from the Dispatch Box. We need to see the details, whether they relate to the Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force.
Of course, the previous Secretary of State knew that this was a problem. Let us just remind ourselves of what else he said. He said that he was being
“forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations”.
That is a staggering indictment. The Prime Minister was seriously considering a financial settlement for defence that would, in the words of the man responsible for defence in this Government until less than two weeks ago, make Britain “less safe”. But the former Defence Secretary he was not alone in that warning. Last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued a stark message of his own when he said:
“We’ll have to dial back our activities; our exercise, operational activity, if the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase”.
That is the stark reality. If the financial offer stays the same at a time of war and the most profound threats to our nation since the cold war, defence will have to be cut and our country made less safe. Last year the Government cut £2.6 billion from defence, and they are cutting £3.5 billion this year. How much more is to come, when our country needs the complete opposite?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Ankara is going to be extremely interesting this year, especially at a time when characters like Foreign Minister Sikorski are pointing out that Poland will be spending 4.8% of its GDP on defence while we spend £4.5 billion on cycle tracks? Mr Sikorski has pointed out that that is indicative of the priorities of this Government, and, as a committed Anglophile, fears that it is indicative of this country retreating into the shadows. It is difficult to avoid that conclusion, isn’t it?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend—who also served in the Navy and as a Minister—speaks with great expertise. He is absolutely right to remind us that the problems with the defence investment plan relate to our international prestige and how our allies see us, and they are worried. Poland is a close ally of the United Kingdom. I am proud of the strength of our relationship, and I think that we should all listen to what our allies are saying about the need for more funding. However, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: why? Why would the Government have to cut defence?
Dr Arthur
Of course, this is not a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending; it is a debate about how much we increase it by. The hon. Gentleman has talked about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What did our allies think when his Government were cutting defence? Can he tell us?
James Cartlidge
That is a nice try, but the question that the hon. Gentleman needs to answer is this: if things are so good, why did both the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces resign?
James Cartlidge
I will give way to my right hon. Friend in a minute, especially as I am coming to an area of policy that she knows only too well. As I was saying, we ask ourselves: why would the Government have to cut defence? And the answer is: because they will not cut welfare. With that, I give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Esther McVey
Can my right hon. Friend clarify the financial offer that the Prime Minister made for the defence investment plan? Can he confirm that it was only 0.08% of GDP, which was £10 billion in real cash terms, not the £13 billion on offer? That was what prompted the Defence Secretary to resign, because it was not enough to keep our nation safe.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is literally on the money. That is exactly right. It was a derisory increase to 2.68%, when the 2.6% figure already includes elements such as the intelligence budget, which have been used to inflate it.
I was speaking about welfare—
James Cartlidge
I will in a bit, but first I want to make an important personal point. I did not have the privilege of serving in the armed forces, but I did have the privilege of being Defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business; I employed people—and I will never forget the time when I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system that we inherited from Labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people’s aspiration, but I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping them in dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents.
Luke Akehurst
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that welfare is only part of the story when it comes to where we might need to find the money? It would provide valuable revenue resource, but much of what we are talking about is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I will suggest where I might like to find the money, but I should like to know now which capital budgets the Opposition would look at in order to increase capital spending.
James Cartlidge
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which he asked it. He is being very open and is asking the question: where are we going to get the money? We have been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important, but it is not just about the quantum; getting people into work instead of on welfare would make us a more resilient country. He asks about capital. We have said—people may disagree, but it is a clear commitment—that we would take £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund that will currently be going to net zero, and ringfence it for defence. That is our priority, given the world we are facing.
Dr Mullan
The challenge we have at the minute is that not only do we have a shadow Opposition, but we have a shadow Government—a whole set of Ministers who will soon be in place. We have someone who is potentially about to become Prime Minister, but we know almost absolutely nothing about his priorities on defence, on the strategic challenges or on welfare. Does it concern my hon. Friend that we are going to get somebody new, when we know very little about his position on these incredibly important issues?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because what this all creates is massive uncertainty. Defence is a massive industry in this country. That uncertainty is damaging for our defence businesses and dual-use companies right across the nation, which employ thousands and thousands of people, so we need far more certainty, whoever is going to be Prime Minister.
I was talking about welfare reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reformed the system of tax credits through the introduction of universal credit. Before the pandemic, we saved billions of pounds from welfare, all in the face—as my colleagues will remember—of unending and total opposition to any reduction in welfare dependency from the Labour party. But Labour Members cannot go on like that, setting their face against welfare reform. It must be obvious that, in the national interest, we have to reform welfare.
Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, knows that we need to cut welfare to fund defence. Lord Robertson, the former Defence Secretary, knows it too, saying that we cannot keep Britain safe with an “ever-expanding welfare Budget.” That is why the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister last week to offer our support, in the national interest, to cut welfare and fund defence. Last week, I repeated that offer to the Secretary of State during his statement on Monday. He did not answer, so I wrote to him last week with the same offer, and I hope he will accept. I hope he will now confirm that he wants to put politics to one side and work with us to make the difficult decisions, so that the defence investment plan can finally be funded and published.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way—we have been waiting for months. I have stood up at every single oral questions and asked the Government when they will publish the defence investment plan. It feels like they have replied hundreds of times, “We’re working flat out,” and we still do not have it.
Can the Minister tell us if the DIP will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara? In particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of the defence investment plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)? It was reported today by the political editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two about when to publish the defence investment plan—they are working flat out, having this discussion. Mr Swinford said on X:
“The first conflict of the transition period: Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment Plan despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office.”
It is a simple question: who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts? Is it the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is not the real risk here that the defence investment plan, which the Government promised, will now be treated like a political football? The end result will be that defence supply chains in this country, and those of our international allies, will see that we are not worth doing business with.
James Cartlidge
As loath as I am to talk about political footballs, given that our football team is in action tonight, it is nevertheless pretty obvious: whether it is football, rugby or a tug of war, we already have a massive argument between the heart of Government and the shadow Government over who is in charge. At a time when we face serious threats, that is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to hold the Government to account, because the plan is massively delayed. He is surely aware that all of us here, including those from my party, who spent time in government in the last few years, know that ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of the threat we face. Do not all parties need to recognise that? We have the smallest Army since Napoleonic times. We have 8,000 drones in stock, while Ukraine is using 8,000 drones a day. Is it not time that we worked together across the parties to make sure we defend our country in the way we all need to in the years to come?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, to be fair, I have always said that we do need to work together in the national interest. I have said repeatedly that spending on defence fell under successive Governments since the fall of the Berlin wall. That must be blindingly obvious. There are decisions that Labour made, that we made and that the Lib Dems made us make in the coalition—for example, about the nuclear submarines—so everyone has some culpability in this record.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cartlidge
I am responding to that intervention, if hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I am going to take one more intervention, and then make some progress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservatives for what they are bringing forward today. Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that. As an example of how warfare is changing, the papers today are talking about warfare that could be done by artificial intelligence, with maybe some 10,000 drones. The Minister for the Armed Forces who resigned mentioned that in his personal statement in Parliament last week. When it comes to deciding the defence strategy, does the shadow Minister agree that we must look at new technology and at how wars are going to be fought? They will be different, but we need to be on the winning side, so is it not time we did that?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Member’s interventions are always at the cutting edge, and he was spot on there. It is not just about the funding. As he says, with warfare changing so fast, we need to prioritise capability.
Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative, so it is incredibly worrying that, once he finally got to see the defence investment plan, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was
“not built for the threat we face.”
This country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting-edge drone tech produced by UK small and medium-sized enterprises. I cannot emphasise enough that we were a leader.
When we consider the progress we were making in supplying drones that were so effective on the battlefront in the spring of 2024 and in bringing forward extraordinary counter-drone capability such as DragonFire, it was another strategic blunder by Labour to put procurement on hold while we waited for the strategic defence review, and now while we are still waiting for the defence investment plan. With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking about the future of warfare, and this issue was very much raised when we attended Space-Comm earlier this year: how the delay in the DIP is affecting our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does he agree that this is an important point, and that the Government should set a space strategy, as the previous Government did in 2022?
James Cartlidge
That is exactly why we have announced a policy of a sovereign defence fund, with £2 billion extra per year for drones, AI and tech, alongside £11 billion, as I have said, from the National Wealth Fund—repurposed from net zero to defence—to fund our sovereign industrial base, so that it can scale up and meet the level of output we will require to be war-ready.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised air defence. Does he regret the cuts made to air defence under the last Government, when funding for defence reduced so dramatically, and does he welcome the investment this Government are making in air defence, learning the lessons we are now seeing in Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about. What investment in air defence? We procured Rapid Sentry. What does he think is being used on our bases in the middle east right now to defeat drones? It is the stuff we procured when we were in government. Who procured DragonFire laser? I did, and it is going to be the most cutting-edge air defence. I procured the radio frequency directed-energy weapon, which could also be incredibly cutting edge in frying—literally frying—entire swarms of drones. This is where we need to be at the cutting edge. We invested in it; this Government specialise in dither and delay.
As important as drones and tech are, our most important capability remains the people who serve. While it is critical that the Government rapidly embrace the uncrewed revolution right across our armed forces, we must also back our people. That is why, when we were in government, we increased pay for junior ranks by 9.7% in 2023, and I took the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes when I was a Minister.
On housing, I want to ask Ministers a very important question that they did not answer yesterday. Until very recently, they have consistently repeated a pledge to invest £9 billion in military accommodation over the next 10 years. With rumours that this funding will be cut, as reported in the press, yesterday the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked if this commitment stood. Will the Minister say in her speech whether that is the case—yes or no?
In Armed Forces Week, I must of course pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves. Back in 2023, we also increased the bounty for reserves personnel by 5.8%, and with the threats we face, I believe we must continue to strengthen our reserves.
Finally, we agree wholeheartedly with what the previous Minister for the Armed Forces said in his resignation statement about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. He said that
“the IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics, and we must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 733.]
Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State for Defence—a veteran of Operation Banner himself—agrees that, whoever is the next Prime Minister, a top priority must be to scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and back our veterans?
To conclude, assuming that the right hon. Member for Makerfield becomes Prime Minister in the coming weeks, he will have many items in his in-tray, but the first duty of any Government is defence of the realm. Given that Labour’s own Secretary of State for Defence until a few days ago resigned, saying that Labour’s defence investment plan would make the country “less safe”, it must be obvious that this is the top item for the new Prime Minister’s attention. If the new Prime Minister is to succeed, the quantum of cash on the table will need to be far more substantial, given the threats we face, and that means finding the money without increasing our national debt or taxes. Instead, to make our country stronger and more resilient, we are offering to work in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence.
In Armed Forces Week, we all agree that the men and women who serve our country are second to none, so I ask Ministers again: are they prepared to work together with us to find the cash to fund defence, so that we can give our brave personnel the tools to do the job and keep this country safe?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I think I have been generous. I am going to keep going—thank you.
Unlike the suggestion in today’s motion, the DIP has not halted this Government’s investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces. Since the election, we have signed over 1,400 major defence contracts, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies as we deliver on our commitment to back British.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful that the hon. Member is entering into the semi-consensual spirit that we have seen from some. I recognised in my speech that spending had fallen under successive Governments. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), it is important to point out that the Lib Dem position is to raise £20 billion extra through war bonds, but that is not their only policy; their other policy is for international aid to rise to 0.7%. Where is the money going to come from for that? Is it aid bonds, or other borrowing—how will they fund that massive black hole?
Dr Pinkerton
I do not believe that there is a black hole, because international aid is not a zero-sum game. We cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless we are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source. International aid is a fundamental part—
Dr Pinkerton
The money is there. If we do not spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line in not only treasure but blood.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.
Graeme Downie
I was slightly concerned that I was going to have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage, but I absolutely agree with him. Any politician who wraps themselves in a flag, without there being any substance to their reason for doing so, is not worthy of leading any constituency or party—and certainly not any country.
As I have mentioned previously in the House, I grew up in Berlin from 1987 to 1990, and I was there when the Berlin wall came down. That gives me an unusual insight for someone of my age. I grew up hearing Russian artillery one mile away, and seeing Russian helicopters testing and firing. I was there when Rudolf Hess died, and I saw the various security measures in place. That makes me unusual among people who are my age or younger, most of whom have not seen what a cold war threat is. Most have been used to a safe world, and have not seen the necessity of increased defence spending, unless they have a member of the armed forces in their family, or have served in the armed forces themselves. The majority of people in this country who are my age or younger do not know what a threat from Russia, or indeed any other country, looks like.
I have said before that I believe that the UK is already in a conflict with Russia. Not only that, but we are a frontline nation and should always consider ourselves as such, whether we are talking about our RAF jets taking off from Lossiemouth or Coningsby to defend our airspace, or our Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Force aircraft in the High North protecting our subsea cables from Russian threats. This country is in conflict with Russia, and Russia considers itself to be in conflict with us. We must always respond accordingly. The attacks extend into cyber-space. Every day we see thousands of attacks, whether on private businesses or on our defence and energy infrastructure. The threats are there. We also see misinformation peddled online that seeks to undermine our democracy. This country is in conflict with Russia. In order to respond effectively to that, the public need to understand the direct implications for them. They must recognise that a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover has consequences for our economy. A cyber-attack on Marks & Spencer has consequences for people’s ability to buy a jumper, and for the staff working there as well, but these attacks also have a direct impact on our economy and society every single day.
It is always slightly daunting to be in the Chamber for debates like these—there are Members present who have served in the military, and who know far more than I do—but I believe that there is a conversation that we must have across this House. We must, wherever possible, draw lines between the threats that we face, and the detailed military programmes that we talk about, and what they mean for the day-to-day lives of people in this country. Otherwise, those people will not grant any Government the licence to increase defence spending and capability in the way that Members from across this House want.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman always speaks on defence matters. He has a unique passion for them, which I very much respect and admire, as a result of his upbringing near the Berlin wall. It has just been reported by the BBC that No. 10 has said that no new major policy or spending decisions will be made until the new Prime Minister has been appointed. If that is the case, how can the defence investment plan be delivered before the NATO summit? Does he agree that that question now has to be answered?
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the former Minister for his intervention. There is a huge challenge to us, in that we have to turn our ploughshares into swords rather than the other way round. We need industry that is sufficiently flexible to flick the switch and turn the lawn mower factory into the drone factory in double-quick time.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. For many people this would have been an obscure argument some years ago, but I genuinely think that how we procure drones is one of the most critical questions for the country. Does he agree that we need to think about SMEs as mission partners and that rather than thinking about the hardware, we effectively buy a service—a learning—from them? That way, the thing we buy is not the capability but the cultural change towards constant iteration, which is how we survive in a war such as the one we see in Ukraine.
Lincoln Jopp
The other group that has been bypassed, and which I did not mention, is the 18 prime contractors. This is direct to the SMEs. I am afraid that the model that we have developed since the end of the cold war has seen the 18 primes getting rich off defence pounds and SMEs getting legged over. The national armaments director should look seriously at the way in which that is done, in order to capture the innovative nature of SMEs that are doing some wonderful stuff. Ironically, they are not selling that to the MOD; it is all going overseas.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar about showing honesty about the threat, I agree that we must be very clear about the threat and express it outside this place at every opportunity. The Prime Minister of Norway talks about defence about once a week in all his radio and television interviews. We met Norway’s joint forces commander, and even he goes on once a week and talks about the threat. Okay, Norway is nearer Russia, and it has a small land border and a very large sea border with Russia. The strategic defence review mentioned starting a national conversation; it seems to be a conversation of one line. If we are to get the investment that defence needs, we need to talk much more openly.
One other thing that happened during the cold war, I am afraid, is that the MOD became much more secretive. The Defence Committee always used to get things such as the major projects review and the equipment plan to see how the pounds were being spent. We do not get those any more. Similarly, James Heappey came to give evidence to the Committee on the Afghan data breach, but he got quite lyrical and started to say that he felt uneasy that, as Minister for the Armed Forces, he was getting lots of documents that said, “You can’t tell Parliament this” and “You can’t tell Parliament that”, because it was all highly classified. He claims that he wanted to be able to tell Parliament more but was constrained from so doing by the classification system. The Defence Committee used to do its own redaction. It used to get the full threat picture and was grown up enough to redact and not release secrets to the public. That would be a much healthier way of doing things as we go forward.
I turn finally to the moral component of fighting power. We have talked a lot about the physical component, and the moral is to the physical as three to one. We know that is true because Napoleon said it, and he was brilliant. I have had conversations with both former and current Ministers about the undermining of the moral component of fighting power with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. That is why, when I came tenth in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, I took the opportunity to attempt to put in law that there should be no further investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, there is new, compelling evidence.
The Bill comes to the House of Commons on 4 September and I very much hope that I can get cross-party support for it. I fear deeply for the stain on the moral component through the constant hounding of our veterans; indeed, I declare an interest as I spent three-and-a-half years of my life in uniform trying to bring peace to that place. I was not shot and blown up there but somewhere else. When the children of the schools in my constituency hear that I have been shot, they all look at me and say, “Where?” I always say, “On the roof of the Mammy Yoko hotel in Freetown.” [Laughter.]
The moral component must be reinforced; it does not need resourcing. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Defence was only prepared to accept the job because he had some deal over Northern Ireland veterans. I look forward to finding out whether that is indeed the case, because our veterans need protecting from those prosecutions.
Andrew Lewin
I am not sure that I would agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I am also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I am saying that we had a period of history after Crimea where much of the west was not investing sufficiently in defence, and it is also the case that the Conservative party was in government at that point in time.
The point about 2024 is an important one—we had an important general election for the country. We hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence, so I looked back at their record and their manifesto. What was their offer to the country on the eve of the general election? It was a big cut in national insurance—a cut that would have cost £10 billion a year. Again, when faced with the decision, two years into the Ukraine war, “Are you going to prioritise defence spending?”, that was not the choice they made, was it?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Member talks about the Ukraine war. It has to be remembered that only one European country stood by Ukraine at the outset of that invasion. Our Secretary of State for Defence and the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson took the decision to arm Ukraine against the advice of the Foreign Office. Does he seriously think that any other recent Prime Minister in this country would have defied the advice of the Foreign Office? Can he tell us which other European country had the strength to stand by Ukraine and keep them in the war so that Russia did not get to Kyiv?
Andrew Lewin
But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, so we were united as a House on that. I agree with the hon. Member that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgment, but he had the full support of our Prime Minister today.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her comments. HMS Raleigh is an important training establishment for the Royal Navy. Right across the country, whether in the Navy, Army, Air Force or the new direct entry scheme for cyber, we have some brilliant people training the next generation of talent in our armed forces. I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who serve at HMS Raleigh.
This has been a good debate with some passionate speeches across the House. People are passionate because they care about defence; indeed, that is why I stand here as a Defence Minister. I care about defence, I care about our national security and I am proud that I am part of a Government that also do. A number of themes have been discussed and I will detail them here. Across the House, we have spoken about defence spending, readiness, armed forces personnel and veterans, and about how we deal with the inheritance left by the previous Government, how we value our people more and how we publish the defence investment plan. I will return to each one, but first I will turn to the DIP.
Those who were present at Treasury questions this morning will have heard the Chancellor say:
“The Ministry of Defence is producing a defence investment plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new defence investment plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.”
I think that answers the question.
Luke Pollard
I will make some progress. That was a clear answer to the questions that have been asked on the matter.
When it comes to defence spending, which was raised by a number of colleagues across the House, let me be clear: this Labour Government are spending more on defence. I welcome a debate that asks how we can spend even more and faster, but we should be clear that we are spending more on defence. Next year, we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. That figure was not met in a single year of the previous 14 under the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The shouty people on the Opposition Front Bench say the world has changed. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) must be terrible when he goes to the cinema in terms of being shouty. I agree that the world has changed; that is why we are spending more on defence. Would I like to spend more? Of course I would.
Luke Pollard
No, I will make some progress.
We are spending more of this increasing defence budget with British companies. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) mentioned Kraken in his constituency, which I visited very recently. He will be pleased to hear, if he is not familiar with this, about the increased orders that we have given Kraken for its K3 Scout. I believe there is a K3 Scout on show in Speaker’s Court at the moment. Kraken is a brilliant company investing in cutting-edge technology that we are backing not only for 47 Commando in the Royal Marines, which is in receipt of K3s for Project Beehive, but for the autonomous hybrid Navy options, especially in the strait of Hormuz. It is a brilliant company doing brilliant things.
When it comes to readiness, let me say clearly that we need to develop our warfighting capabilities, moving from an era of expeditionary warfare. The strategic defence review set out clearly the change that is required. Our forces have been postured and resourced for a period of expeditionary warfare for quite some time, leading up to where we are today, and the SDR set out that we need to move away from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness against a peer adversary. That means a number of things. First, it means retiring old kit and equipment that is not suitable for that task. Secondly, it means massively reforming our procurement system so that we can procure faster.
We inherited a broken procurement system that we are fixing, and I am pleased that the new national armaments director is leading much of that work. I know that we can achieve improvements in procurement because the brilliant men and women of our Ministry of Defence do so in the support that they provide to our friends in Ukraine. On one side of their desks, they can use increased permissions to procure kit and equipment for Ukraine faster. On the other side of their desks, we are trying to make it easier for them to procure what could be similar equipment for our own armed forces.
Luke Pollard
No, I am going to make some progress.
The third area that people have spoken about today is armed forces personnel and veterans, and I am grateful to a number of Members from across the House for mentioning people who are doing incredible things in their own constituencies. I believe it was the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who spoke about Tony McCawley, who runs the veterans breakfast. I thank him and the hundreds of people like him who run veterans breakfasts up and down the length of the country. I know it makes such a difference for veterans, especially those who might be having a tough time, to go somewhere where there are other people who have walked in their boots—maybe in a different unit and maybe at a different time of service, but having someone they can relate to makes such a big difference.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who spoke about Muster Point and Stuart Mendelson from Stevenage, who is doing such a good job in supporting veterans in his community as well. I know that if there were more time, every single Member who has spoken would have been able to single out brilliant people doing brilliant things in their own constituency, and I thank them.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me now answer the questions about the inheritance that we face. I have already spoken about the SDR wanting us to move from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness, but we now need to deliver the changes that we have set out. We have made good progress, but we inherited a situation where 47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed. I believe that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was responsible for those delayed programmes when he sat in my seat.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me also be clear about the inheritance that we have in housing and in morale. We inherited a situation where many of our armed forces were living in housing that was frankly unacceptable. They had black mould in their children’s bedrooms, leaky boilers and leaky roofs. We are sorting that out with a generational repair, and nine in 10 military homes will be either refitted or rebuilt in the next decade. We have already delivered the first 1,200, with the worst homes on our military estate being able to be refitted. That has been delivered by taking those houses back into public control.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) did say that I was a good Minister, which I am sure is a kiss of death for my career, but I welcome it none the less. He asked me how I am trying to answer the questions; I am answering the questions by not giving way, so that I can answer the questions that have been asked. I have taken copious notes.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress; I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The fifth area that we have spoken a lot about in the debate is how we value our people more. Valuing our people more means improving their conditions, and that means improving defence housing and improving childcare for deployed personnel, including deployed personnel in the United Kingdom, such as those deployed and based in Scotland. We have taken an important step in addressing that.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress, as I have said a number of times. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start listening.
I am exceptionally proud of the biggest pay rise for 22 years. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the effective real-term pay cuts to our armed forces under the Conservatives. Well, they have had above-inflation pay rises from this Labour Government.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to be answering the questions raised and not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Let me turn to the questions that have been asked. [Interruption.] They are very shouty, Madam Deputy Speaker—a little bit angry as well.
I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and rate him highly. I appreciate his honesty in speaking about decisions that his party made when it was in coalition with the Conservatives. I have not seen that level of honesty in many of the speeches from Conservative Members, but I am grateful to him.
Luke Pollard
I am still not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) made a good point about numbers versus capabilities. I have responded to a number of urgent questions and debates around the defence investment plan, but I want more discussion about the new capabilities we need to bring on board. For instance, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned, how can we invest in more deep precision strike and integrated air and missile defence? How can we ensure that we are looking at F-35As? That is precisely what we need to invest more in.
I listened carefully to the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and I am grateful to him for making it. In particular, his experience of having to bury men from his regiment shows what an important, experienced figure he is; we in this House need to listen to him. He asked about the national armaments director ripping up the rules around procurement.