Defence Investment Plan

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.

Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.

Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.

After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?

You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?

There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?

Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that

“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]

That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?

[Luke Pollard]

I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.

The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.

Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.

[James Cartlidge]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.

Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Armed Forces Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

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

[Al Carns]

I commend that fantastic question. Yes, I have seen the defence investment plan. Importantly, we are primarily focused on learning the lessons from Ukraine and acting upon them—something that the last Government failed to do at the right scale, hence why I left the military.

New clauses 1 and 6 seek to exempt members of the reserve forces deployed on operations from the ECHR, and would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15. The UK has binding international obligations under the ECHR, including in limited extraterritorial circumstances where we exercise control over individuals or areas. Those obligations have implications for the way UK forces, including reserve forces, conduct UK operations. I will not shy away from the fact that we hold our armed forces to the very highest legal standards, and time and again they deliver.

New clause 1 seeks to change domestic law, but it would not remove our international obligations. The UK cannot opt out on a case-by-case basis; doing so would simply shift cases to Strasbourg. New clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR. I will read that again: new clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision does not provide them with any additional powers. I do not want to be in the same club as Belarus or Russia.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Ukraine has derogated from the ECHR. Does that put it in the same bracket as Belarus and Russia?

[Al Carns]

I remind Conservative Members that clause 12 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, introduced by the previous Government, would have required any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 in relation to significant overseas operations. The previous Government removed elements of clause 12 during the Bill’s final stages, because concerns were raised that the provision risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law and being committed to human rights. It was the previous Government who did that. Clause 12 was also seen as unnecessary in that the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision did not add any additional legal powers.

New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England, and it sets out the functions for the proposed office holder. I acknowledge the sentiment behind the new clause, which is to ensure that those who have served receive the recognition and support they deserve. The Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not statutory offices, so such a role would not in itself require legislation. We are putting in place the Valour programme, which will first look at digital. There will be a Valour lead and a digital headquarters, and there will then be Valour officers and centres. Once that is in place, we will need to consider whether we need a veterans commissioner for England, how that docks into the Valour programme, and how it docks into the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We will update the House in due course once that is in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind hon. Members not to walk in front of a Member when the Minister is answering their question. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I echo the Secretary of State on the sad news from Iraq and, on behalf of the Opposition, send condolences to the family concerned. It is very sad news indeed.

I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: has the Treasury signed off the defence investment plan?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me when I answered before, but I can say to him very clearly that the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.

[James Cartlidge]

No wonder the defence investment plan is so late: the Labour Government still have not worked out how to pay for it. The good news is that others have. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary, has said:

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

and Tony Blair himself warned last week:

“By the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. No serious country can do that.”

Is not the truth that whoever becomes the next Labour Prime Minister must do one thing above all else to boost defence, and that is to cut welfare and spend the savings on the British armed forces?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck. There is no recognition of the fact that we are increasing defence spending by a record amount since the end of the cold war, no recognition that this year the defence budget will be £11 billion greater than in his last year in government, and no recognition that there are contracts in place, including the AUKUS pillar II contract, that we have signed and that he did not sign when he was the Minister responsible.

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.

Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Defence Investment Plan has still not been published despite the Government promising Parliament that the plan would be published in Autumn 2025; notes that the Government’s delay has frozen procurement and has stopped the UK from learning lessons from its long-standing support for Ukraine and left the UK vulnerable as the world becomes more dangerous; believes that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 should not be proceeded with because they are a threat to morale, and that the Diego Garcia Treaty should not be ratified to ensure that the UK continues to have sovereignty over its military base; calls on the Government to publish the Defence Investment Plan as soon as possible; and further calls on the Government to increase spending on the UK’s armed forces, specifically delivering 20,000 more troops over the next Parliament, paid for by restoring the two-child benefit cap, and redirecting net zero funding to defence, to ensure that the UK spends three per cent of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.

It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. I join the Liaison Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee in asking the Government one simple question: when on earth will they publish the defence investment plan? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that simple question. It means that, at a time of war and conflict on multiple fronts, and amid the most dangerous time for our country since the cold war, instead of delivering rapid rearmament, Labour is presiding over a procurement freeze. Perhaps that should come as no surprise, given the Prime Minister’s constant habit of dither and delay.

Since 28 February, when the US and Israel started their campaign against Iran, the Conservative position has been that, had we been in government and the US had asked to use our bases, we would have granted permission. In contrast, the Prime Minister has not only dithered and delayed over sending the Royal Navy to the middle east, but constantly U-turned on whether to allow the US to use our bases. That is weak leadership when we need to stand strong in this dangerous world. Now, we are seeing the consequences of the Prime Minister’s weakness on the home front. As war wages around us, he is unable even to confirm whether the defence investment plan will be delivered this week. I urge the Minister to tell us at the outset of his remarks, but before he does, let us remind ourselves of what Labour Ministers have said before.

On coming into office, the Defence Secretary made a choice. He chose not to implement the munitions plan I had produced, which detailed comprehensively how we could rapidly replenish the vast amount of shells and missiles that we had given to Ukraine. Instead, he decided to launch a strategic defence review that would boil the ocean. In multiple written questions, we asked what Labour would do on specific capability, and the answer was always the same: “Wait for the SDR.” So we waited and waited—it was promised for the spring of 2025, and was delivered in the summer—but the SDR did not have any of the specific procurement choices that our entire defence industry is waiting for. After all the hype about the SDR, those decisions were punted into yet another review: the defence investment plan.

In June last year, the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that

“the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]

But summer turned to autumn, autumn turned to winter, and still there is no DIP.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

Maybe the hon. Lady knows when we will get it; I give way.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has some chutzpah, given that one of his Government’s many defence reviews had more pictures than pages. I agree with him that we should be serious-minded on this matter—we need to be prepared for defence—but under his Government, projects were delayed and aircraft carriers were without aircraft, and the ongoing Ajax saga is still be resolved. He needs to take responsibility, too. Across the House, we all want to ensure that we are ready to defend our nation.

[James Cartlidge]

There was no question in that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that the Government need to get on and deliver the defence investment plan. To be fair, MPs from across the House have said so, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. We all know that it is in the national interest for the DIP to be published.

After all, the defence investment plan being delayed has consequences, the most serious of which are for our military personnel, who we want to have the best equipment for their job. In taking the decision to pause urgent procurement and instead boil the ocean, the Defence Secretary walked into a Treasury trap. Procurement has been on hold ever since, and the Ministry of Defence has been forced to focus on in-year savings, including £2.6 billion for this year alone. Such penny-pinching explains why, until HMS Dragon finally arrived on the scene, we had no warships in the middle east for the first time in decades.

One of the most critical consequences of the delay to DIP is the Sea Viper Evolution procurement. The fact that a US destroyer intercepted at least one of the missiles that Iran fired at our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia underlines how important it is that our Type 45s are able defend against the most advanced threats. For the UK, that requires the Sea Viper Evolution upgrade for our Type 45 destroyers.

In my own SDR submission as shadow Defence Secretary, through numerous speeches in the House and in many written questions, I have repeatedly urged the Government to accelerate Sea Viper Evolution as a priority for our munitions plan. I am sure that members of the public who are watching this debate, worried about Iran’s attack on Diego Garcia, would expect such a capability to have been ordered as rapidly as possible. However, in a written answer this January, when I was once again chasing this critical upgrade, I received the inevitable response that continued progress on Sea Viper Evolution remains

“subject to the defence investment plan.”

That is the problem in a nutshell—the impact of Labour’s procurement freeze in real time. The reality is that Sea Viper Evolution is not due to reach full operating capability until late 2032.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

At Defence questions last week, the Secretary of State said that the delay to the defence investment plan was not holding up important investment plans, which came as a surprise to me, given that right now there are UK personnel on NATO’s border with Russia without specific equipment that would otherwise have been procured in my own constituency. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the delay is in fact having significant impacts on defence procurement?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a gallant gentleman who served in the Royal Air Force, knows exactly what he is talking about. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is having a real impact, and it is not just me saying that.

The serious consequence of this paralysis is our brilliant defence industry hanging on by its fingertips. This morning, I addressed a roundtable attended by many defence primes and small and medium-sized enterprises in Westminster. They are the experts at the coalface, and they spoke of British defence companies going abroad or even having to close because of delays to the defence investment plan, and a defence industry under strain when it should be firing on all cylinders.

When it comes to consequences, on a personal basis, what I find most disheartening of all is the impact of this paralysis on our ability to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine. I am incredibly proud of how, in government, the Conservatives stood by Ukraine even before Putin invaded.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I came into this place only in 2017. I was deeply disappointed by what happened in 2014 and our failure to stand by Ukraine on the invasion of Crimea. I think Michael Fallon was one of the few who said, “We should actually take action.” What was the hon. Gentleman’s view and what would he have done?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2014—over 60,000, I think, under Operation Interflex. I think there is a very strong consensus in the House on support for Ukraine. Obviously, there were limitations on what we could do. We have done everything possible. We were the first country in Europe to stand by Ukraine. We sent weapons before the invasion started. We did not wait for Putin to invade so that we could comply perfectly with international law. Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the guts to ignore the Foreign Office and send those weapons, despite that—premeditated. If Kyiv had fallen and the column of tanks heading to Kyiv had not been intercepted, we would have been in an extremely serious situation.

I am making a point about procurement. This is important. By April 2024, we were providing Ukraine with drone and counter-drone capabilities that were proving decisive on a real battlefield, against the peer military threat in Europe. They were not being produced through the old system, full of delays and overspend, but by British SMEs, producing them cheaply, swiftly and with constant feedback from the frontline. We were therefore incredibly well placed to deliver the vision of the MOD defence drone strategy—which I published in February 2024 and is meant to be current Government policy—whereby we would be a leading nation in uncrewed warfare. Most importantly, we would have achieved that by providing in parallel for our armed forces the drone technology that we were giving to Ukraine.

By now, our Army should have been training across the board in drone warfare, the Navy should have been fielding the beginnings of an autonomous drone fleet, learning the lessons from Ukraine’s extraordinary victory in the Black sea, and the RAF should have been maximising investment in loyal wingmen—drones that would fly alongside and enhance the lethality of our current Typhoons. But there was one big problem.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with his Government’s drone strategy was that they did not invest in satellites, making us reliant on foreign satellites for full capability, and they did not invest in the radars, as we have, that cover all of Europe and north Africa, thereby making us fully reliant on the US?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady talks about reliance on the US. I remind her that it was the United States that intercepted the ballistic missile heading for our base—our sovereign territory—on Diego Garcia. The point I am making—and it is incredibly important for the House to reflect on this, because it has not been talked about enough, partly for sensitivity reasons—is that we did tremendous things in Ukraine. We supplied drones made by British companies that had an extraordinary impact. I am not going to say any more than that, but that is a statement of fact.

My strategy—it is fairly simple—was that we should, in parallel, do the same for the British armed forces, but in the summer of 2024 we ran into a big problem, and it is the reason why we have no defence investment plan: money. As was the case when we were in government, the Treasury under this Prime Minister has agreed a funding line for Ukraine; that is correct, and we strongly agree with it. But there has been no agreement to fund parallel procurement for our own armed forces.

This golden opportunity to transform our military was lost because the Secretary of State failed to stand up to the Treasury and demand the cash from the Chancellor. So often have I met British SMEs producing amazing battle-tested kit for Ukraine, with nothing ordered by our own armed forces. It is extraordinary, and I think the Minister, who shares my passion for the uncrewed revolution, knows that. As ever, it boils down to hard cash.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another example is Coventry-based NP Aerospace, which I met again this morning? It is producing body armour for Ukrainians, but because of the delay in the DIP, it has no confidence that it will be able to do the same for the British Army. It is a bit reminiscent of 2003, when several in this House went to Iraq with the most shoddy, appalling personal kit that took months to rectify.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who speaks with his experience as not just a former Defence Minister but someone who served in the Royal Navy and still does as a reservist. I ran an SME—it was not a defence SME, but I know the stress of running a company in tough times, and my heart goes out to companies like the one he talks about, which will be struggling right now. They are selling abroad but getting nothing from the British military at a time when we face intense threats. That is not good enough.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

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

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the Government have adopted for planning defence: the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in its own forecasts and figures beyond 2029, and yet the defence investment plan is a 10-year plan. How can the Treasury agree to a 10-year plan when it has not agreed to any funding for defence after 2029? It is just an aspiration.

[James Cartlidge]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly. He is absolutely right. The Red Book details to the penny how much this Government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two-child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years, so how on earth is the MOD meant to change? The key is that the Government are not going to go to 3% in this Parliament. I am going to conclude by setting out five steps, but before I do that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend is never boring in his interventions; on the contrary, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House.

I will conclude with five steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness—positive suggestions from the Conservative Benches. First, we should rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to the Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the defence investment plan, he should use the reserve funding agreed for the middle east operations to place orders for urgent operational requirements, in particular advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for our fighter planes, and Aster air defence missiles for our Type 45s. Secondly, we should deliver drone tech at scale and pace across the armed forces, as we set out in our sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund that we would set a path to 3% this Parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank, ringfencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing £6 billion of research and development funding for drone tech, and restoring the two-child benefit cap to fund a bigger Army.

Fourthly, to save more money for defence, and following Iran’s missile strike on Diego Garcia, we would stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos plan. Finally, to boost immediately the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour’s plans to put our former soldiers back in the dock, simply for the crime of serving their country. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working “flat out” to deliver the defence investment plan. In the national interest this country needs to rearm rapidly. That means the Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill, and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.

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

I read the motion with a sense not of anger but of disappointment, because at a moment like this, when British armed forces are actively protecting our people and our interests in the middle east, intercepting drones, defending our bases, and preparing for further and potential escalation, I had hoped for a more well thought through and balanced motion to contribute to the debate.

Let me start by paying tribute to those who are serving today, at home and overseas, in the air, on land, at sea, and 24/7 beneath the waves, often in conditions of real danger, doing exactly what the country asks of them. This debate should have been about them. Instead, we have a motion that reads less like a serious contribution to defence policy, and more like an attempt to rewrite the record, and to whitewash what happened over the past 14 years. The House knows the record, and the public know it too. Importantly, the implications of 14 years have an impact on our armed forces, and they are bearing the brunt of it. Opposition Members cannot rewrite it, and they cannot run from it.

Let us be clear about the world we are now operating in. A major land war continues in Europe, where 55,000 drones and missiles have been fired by Russia into Ukraine, and there have been over 100,000 casualties on the Russian side alone—that is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. Conflict is spreading across the middle east, and 10 countries have been struck by hundreds of ballistic missiles and thousands of drones. Authoritarian states are becoming more aggressive, and the way wars are fought is changing at pace. This is the most volatile security environment for a generation. This is not a moment for gestures or political point scoring; it is a moment for a serious decision.

[James Cartlidge]

When is the Minister going to publish the defence investment plan?

[Al Carns]

We will publish the defence investment plan as soon as is feasible. The hon. Gentleman will not find anyone who wants more than me more defence spending at a faster rate, but this is a moment for serious decisions to be taken in the national interest. We need to get ourselves back on track. There has been a whole plethora of funding decisions over the last 14 years, which I lived through, and I am sure some hon. and gallant Members present lived through, that in the current environment are no longer fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I will give way in two seconds. What I will say is that a vision without a plan is a dream, and I am concerned that if we had followed the Opposition’s direction, we would have ended up in a nightmare.

[James Cartlidge]

I believe that the Minister was giving way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.

To be clear, the Prime Minister and the Conservative party now have the same position. The Prime Minister would grant the US use of our bases—its bombers have been taking off from our bases. That was our position. The difference is that we have maintained that position from the beginning, 100% consistently, whereas the Prime Minister has U-turned repeatedly. We are the ones who have been consistent; Labour has been blowing all over the place.

[Al Carns]

The Opposition would have dragged us into this conflict quicker than we could possibly have imagined. We have made the difficult but correct decision to remain in a defensive posture. That is the right decision.

Let me deal directly with the record that we inherited. The shadow Defence Secretary himself admitted that defence spending reduced every year because, in his words, people thought we had peace. That assumption has left this country exposed. Ground-based air defence investment, which is now protecting our forces in the middle east with our allies and partners, was cut by around 70% in the Conservatives’ final year. Frigates and destroyers were reduced by a quarter, and minehunters were cut by more than a half. I was the chief of staff of our carrier strike force, which validates our minehunting capability that goes to the middle east. Interestingly, in the 2021 integrated review, the out of service date for minehunters was brought forward to 2026—good decision! Troop numbers were left at their lowest level in modern history. That is the reality, that is the legacy, and that is what we are trying to fix, and we are fixing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; that was very informative.

We saw our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war while the Conservatives were at the helm, and a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces ushered in by their incompetence. We should not be surprised by the disastrous impact that years of Conservative mismanagement have had on our military. What is the Conservatives’ answer now? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion shows that they have learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It is the same old Tory formula: break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[James MacCleary]

Perhaps the shadow Minister has one in his pocket.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member; he does always give way on this point.

There is one capability that keeps us safe 24/7 more than any other, which is our continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Was it, or was it not, a condition of the Liberal Democrats joining the coalition that the programme was delayed, putting massive pressure on the boats, with the result that they are now doing tours of more than 200 days? The Liberal Democrats should be ashamed of that.

[James MacCleary]

It is astonishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would not think that they had been in majority government for 10 years since the coalition. All the crimes that have been committed in history were committed by a minority partner in a coalition more than a decade ago. I make speeches at universities where some of the students were not even born when these things happened. It is extraordinary. We need a serious plan to reverse the damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Why not?

[James Cartlidge]

Take an intervention!

[Michelle Scrogham]

No, I will not be taking interventions. Lots of Members would like to contribute to the debate who have not had a chance to speak because the time has been taken up. The Opposition can feel free to mutter from the other side, but they should perhaps use the ears that are painted on instead of flapping the lips.

I am astonished at the brass neck of shadow Ministers in criticising our readiness, when it was their Government who slashed £12 billion from defence in their first term, and continued that trend throughout their sorry record of 14 years, including by slashing spending on counter-drone systems by 70% in their last year in office.

Few MPs will feel the cost to their communities of the chaos and choices made by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition as keenly as I do in Barrow and Furness. The Opposition Benches are filled with those who were responsible for wreaking carnage on the communities I grew up in. The price of the coalition was to delay the nuclear deterrent; the cost to my community was economic devastation, with 10,000 families where the main breadwinner was out of work, 10,000 skilled workers losing their livelihood, and an industry that is struggling to recover to this day.

It takes nuclear welders 15 years to train and achieve the level of experience that we need to build those boats, but the coalition Government threw that away like a spoiled child with a toy, who expects it to be there when they want to come back to it. Critics at the time said that delaying the replacement for Trident would cost the taxpayer more in the long run as it risked losing skills, and increase the costs of repairing existing Vanguard submarines, which would have to last for longer. MPs at the time said that they did not think the delay would happen, because that would be the “maddest” decision to take—and yet they did it. Those critics forgot to mention the impact on our incredible submariners, who are spending over 200 days at sea on Vanguard, as we stretch that capability beyond its limit. Had it not been for the recklessness of the coalition Government, Dreadnought would be in service now.

After 14 years of hollowing out our defence capabilities, Conservative Members have the nerve to come here today and attempt to blame this Government—a Government who have increased defence spending to its highest sustainable level since the cold war, and who are investing in our armed forces to give them the largest pay rise in two decades and the homes they deserve in order to turn around the recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Tories. This Labour Government are once again cleaning up the mess left behind by those on the Opposition Benches. We do not get to decide when other countries attack, and we can never predict instability around the world. We can, however, predict that history always repeats itself. We can never take peace for granted, but this Labour Government are delivering on defence where the Conservatives failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I, too, will start by agreeing with a member of the Opposition, specifically the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He was quoted as saying that under his own party, our armed forces had been “hollowed out”.

[James Cartlidge]

Under successive Governments!

[Sam Carling]

The shadow Secretary of State says, “Under successive Governments”—that includes his own, for 14 years. It is not often that I agree with Ministers from the last Government, but the former Defence Secretary was absolutely right. The smallest Army since the Napoleonic era, a record 13,000 complaints about defence housing in a single year, and investment grievously cut under austerity—that is the legacy we are looking at, no matter how much the Opposition want us to forget it.

As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), the shadow Defence Secretary is criticising delays, but he was the Procurement Minister when 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on time or on budget, so we need to take what he says with a little bit of salt.

Middle East

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane.

The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz?

It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe? 

When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible.

However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner?

As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes?

If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper?

There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded:

“Continued progress…remains subject to”—

guess what?—

“the Defence Investment Plan.”

In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next?

Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?

[John Healey]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel, and I recognise and respect those. He asked me, first, about the comments from President Trump today. I am sure the whole House will welcome President Trump’s statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the

“COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”,

and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants. That creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation, and the onus is now on Iran to respond.

The shadow Secretary of State went on to the strikes that I have reported on, or the missiles fired in the direction of, Diego Garcia. I just say to him that we have been blunt and open about the threat Iran poses—the threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partners—and to suggest otherwise is completely false. That is why we have been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the shadow Defence Secretary the chance to come into the MOD for a secure briefing. I welcome his thanks for that, but he, as a former Defence Minister, will know that no Government routinely comment on the detail of such threats, due to the nature of intelligence sharing. He will also know that no Government immediately confirm such events, partly because in any conflict events are fast-moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should bear that in mind for the future.

I want to reassure the public, however, on the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about long-range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK, and to say, quite clearly, that there is no assessment that we are being targeted in the UK in that way. We have the resources and the alliances in place to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attack. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom. Our Navy, our RAF and our Army are all involved, and we operate our defence with other NATO allies. That layered defence against missiles or any other sort of threat is an important part of keeping this country safe.

It seems to have taken a war in the middle east for the hon. Gentleman to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. [Interruption.] No, because in the last year of his Government, they slashed defence spending on ground-based air defence by 70%. When he was Defence Minister, he promised a munitions strategy, which he never published and was never funded. It was down to this Government, last June, as part of the strategic defence review, to announce an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATO’s DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—air and missile defence initiative. It is this Government who in this year alone have boosted spending on counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government, and spending on ground-based air defence systems by 50%. It is this Government who are delivering for defence after 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous Government.

I have to say that I am still very confused about the Conservatives’ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must “go to the source” in Iran and that “we are in this war” whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:

“I never said we should join”.

The week after that, the shadow Defence Secretary said on Sky News that there are no easy answers to this.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talks about defence investment planning and spending. We are working to finalise the DIP, but he was, of course, the Defence Minister who left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes not on budget, not on time. He was the one who left a defence programme that was over-committed, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats we now face. It is this Government, a Labour Government, who are now delivering for defence: 1,200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses, and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am not sure that the Secretary of State heard the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), which was incredibly simple: will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises on 26 March?

[John Healey]

We are working flat out to conclude the defence investment plan. The hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Defence Procurement who left defence programmes overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we face, so he will be aware of the scale and significance of the challenge that we are determined to meet.

[James Cartlidge]

There is a reason why that date matters: it is the date when purdah commences before the Scottish elections. Then we will have the Welsh and local elections. It is our understanding—and the Secretary of State is welcome to correct this—that the defence investment plan cannot be published during purdah. If that is the case, and if it is not published before the rise of the House on 26 March, we will not see it until well into May. That is why this question is so important.

I ask the Secretary of State the question again, because he has failed to answer it so far. It is a very simple, straight question, and it needs a straight answer. Will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises for the recess—yes or no?

Middle East: Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing that I received from his officials this morning.

May I begin by offering condolences, on behalf of the Opposition, to the families of the seven US soldiers killed in the ongoing action against Iran? I join the Secretary of State in utterly condemning Iran’s indiscriminate attacks across the region, and I express my gratitude and that of the Opposition to all our brilliant, brave service personnel and their families who are stationed out there.

Of course, the Secretary of State and I agree that the No. 1 responsibility of any Government is to defend their people and that everything possible must be done to secure our sovereign bases, particularly RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, which was attacked by drones a week ago. That is an incredibly serious development. We support the Government in taking steps to use the RAF and other assets to protect the airspace and defend against drone and missile threats to Akrotiri, but also in deploying our air force to defend allies in the region as an act of collective self-defence.

The problem is that any serious integrated missile defence plan for the sovereign base areas on Cyprus would by necessity include the presence of one of our highly capable Type 45 air defence destroyers, yet despite the Secretary of State saying that “since January” we have moved significant military assets into the region, there is not a single Royal Navy warship present and our Type 45, HMS Dragon, has not even set sail. Will he confirm that the Government decided only last Tuesday to send a Type 45 to the eastern Med, after the US action had already commenced and two days after RAF Akrotiri was attacked by kamikaze drones?

Of particular importance is that it has been widely reported that the Royal Navy recommended to Ministers weeks ago to deploy a Type 45 destroyer to the region. Is that true, and if so, when did the Navy make the recommendation to send a Type 45 and which Minister took the decision to decline that advice from the Royal Navy and instead choose not to send a destroyer? Most importantly, why was the decision taken not to send a Type 45 until there had already been attacks on our base on Cyprus? Can the Secretary of State tell us on what date he expects HMS Dragon to be in position to provide air defence in the region? Furthermore, given the Chancellor’s promise in her statement earlier to reopen the strait of Hormuz and France’s pledge to provide escort ships, what other Royal Navy assets will we be sending to assist?

On 19 February, the BBC reported that the United Kingdom would not allow the United States to use its bases to launch an attack on Iran. We know that three US Arleigh Burke destroyers—its equivalent of the Type 45—have for days been based in the Mediterranean, providing Cyprus with defence against ballistic missiles. Does that not mean that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn a week ago, this Labour Government were displaying the most extraordinary double standards to our closest military ally by on the one hand denying the US the use of our bases, while on the other relying on it to protect ours?

One of the bases in question is Diego Garcia, which is absolutely critical for launching US heavy bombers. It is bad enough for the Prime Minister to be U-turning over permission to use Diego Garcia while it is still our sovereign territory, but how much worse will the situation be once we have started paying billions for the pleasure of Mauritius, a close ally of China, having a say on whether such action complies with international law? When it comes to the Prime Minister’s next and 17th U-turn, would not the best thing he could do be to scrap his crazy Chagos deal and spend every penny on the British armed forces?

However, this is not just about the future of Diego Garcia. Last week, the Cypriot Foreign Minister said that there are “questions” about the future of the UK’s military bases on the island. Is not the reality that Greece, France and Spain are all sending ships, and that Labour’s failure to deploy the Royal Navy to the eastern Mediterranean has completely undermined our international standing in the eyes not just of our many allies in the middle east, but of those who can now exploit such weakness? Will the Secretary of State therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that UK sovereignty of our bases on Cyprus is not up for negotiation?

It is not of course just HMS Dragon that everyone is waiting for. At a time of war on multiple fronts, we have been waiting months and months for the Government to publish their long overdue defence investment plan. I cannot emphasise how serious this is: Britain urgently needs to rearm. It was right that we gave a huge amount of munitions to support Ukraine, but that has made our need to rearm even more pressing. When exactly are the Government going to publish the defence investment plan? Can the Secretary of State at least say if it will be published before local election purdah commences? That is a key question.

Finally, is there not a simple reason why there is no defence investment plan, and is it not the same reason why, for the first time in almost half a century, there are no Royal Navy warships in the middle east? It is because when it comes to defence spending, this Government have prioritised welfare over rearmament. They have chosen to spend billions more on benefits rather than strengthening our defence in a dangerous world. After all the Prime Minister’s dither and delay, U-turns and weakness, will the Secretary of State finally demand from his Chancellor what we all know our armed forces need, which is a properly funded plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament?

[John Healey]

Let me start by recognising the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary supports the steps we have taken to put UK defence capabilities in the middle eastern region, and that he recognises and supports the fact that we did that in advance of the current crisis. These capabilities and our co-ordination of them have been alongside our US allies and have been purely defensive in nature. We have been making our best contribution to the protection of British interests, British personnel, British bases and British allies in the region.

The shadow Defence Secretary asks me about HMS Dragon. While we have been building up that significant military presence in the middle east since January, which he for the first time has recognised and welcomed, it is totally right that, as circumstances change, so should our military posture. He asks me when the option of Dragon was first put to Ministers. As the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC on Saturday, he looked at the proposals for Dragon being deployed to the middle east on Tuesday last week, and I signed them off the same day. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about the state of the British Navy, he should take a hard look at his Government’s record. Over 14 years, they hollowed out and underfunded our forces. They cut £12 billion from the defence budget in their first five years. Total frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 17, and in 14 years in government they did not order a single new destroyer. We have Dragon available to go to the middle east today only because the Labour Government commissioned it before 2010. I completely—[Interruption.] I am proud of the work our military are doing in the middle east, and I reject claims about the response. We got ahead of the first strikes in the way that we have set out.

I have been unable to find any evidence, in public or in this House, of the shadow Defence Secretary calling at any stage before the war began for military assets to be moved to the middle east. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary was calling barely a month ago in this Chamber for our military

“to prioritise or repurpose…inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 81.]

The shadow Defence Secretary really is proving himself quite an armchair general—General Hindsight, wise only after the event. I am really disappointed.

The shadow Defence Secretary asks about the defence investment plan. We are working flat out to produce that. He asks about defence spending. He cut it; we invested in defence. We have seen the greatest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we are spending £62 billion on defence, which is £8 billion more than the last year of the Conservative Government.

I am really disappointed, and our forces will be disappointed, that the shadow Defence Secretary did not stand up and offer an apology for what his leader said on Friday. His leader’s claim that British forces in the middle east are “just hanging around” is totally wrong and deeply insulting. They are working flat out, in the face of air raid sirens and warnings, to protect British lives, protect British interests and protect British allies. It is time the Tories did the decent thing, and apologised for her remarks and withdrew them.

Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye to speak in this very important debate. I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), not only on securing this important estimates day debate, but on his excellent speech. We face a common problem, so I am afraid that some of my speech will repeat what he said, but I can assure the House that we did not collaborate on our speeches.

The job of the PAC, as the House knows, is to look at expenditure right across Government. However, Ministry of Defence procurements and finances have too often been dysfunctional in the past. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified his opinion on this year’s MOD accounts because it could not provide adequate accounting records to support the value of assets under construction of £6.13 billion. It also incurred non-budget expenditure of £2.56 billion, which will result in an excess vote.

This debate could not have come at a more significant time, with the events in Ukraine and the middle east. When the PAC last examined the defence procurement budget, over two years ago, the 10-year programme was £16.9 billion in deficit, which the National Audit Office described at that time as “unaffordable”. In June last year, the Government announced a highly ambitious strategic defence review.

The defence investment plan—and I absolutely echo the remarks of the Chairman of the Defence Committee—has been continuously promised at the Dispatch Box, but we are still without the detail. We know that nuclear is consuming over 25% of the entire budget and growing, which is bound to have a knock-on effect on how much we can afford to spend on the rest of the procurement programme, so it is vital that we have the defence investment plan. I say to the Minister in the most gentle but persuasive way I possibly can that, if we achieve nothing else from this debate, will he confirm in clear terms when the defence investment plan will be published so that the PAC, the Defence Committee and the House can scrutinise it properly?

I note that, during today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister did not answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition about the date of publication.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Shocking!

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it is important that that question is answered. It is starting to look less like a plan and more like a convenient excuse for delay. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government today to commit to a firm publication date, not a vague promise but an actual date. Parliament and industry cannot plan without it.

My party has put forward concrete proposals to accelerate defence investment, in particular through defence bonds. We have called on the Government to issue publicly available defence bonds, raising up to £20 billion for capital investment over two years, giving members of the public the direct opportunity to invest in Britain’s security, fixed- term, legally ringfenced to capital defence spending and capped at £20 billion. It is a tried and tested mechanism for mobilising public capital behind a national purpose. We keep hearing how urgent it is to invest, but there is no action.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is always generous in giving way on this point. I hope he has done his homework because I pointed out the last time I asked him that he would have to repay those bonds to the bondholders two years later. Where would that £20 billion come from?

[James MacCleary]

As the hon. Member says, he has asked me that question before. I have done my homework, and we have published the full background. This sits within the Government’s fiscal rules, and is actually a relatively small cost to the Government. Let me now ask the hon. Member—he may wish to answer during his own speech—how his party would invest quickly in defence spending. This is a credible proposal, and I should like to hear credible proposals from others too. We should like the Minister to announce defence bonds, with no further delay.

With conflict in the middle east, it is easy to lose focus on the war much closer to home, in Ukraine. The United Kingdom has so far committed £10.8 billion in military support between February 2022 and March 2026, drawn from the Treasury reserve. The £3 billion annual pledge and the G7 loan facility are welcome commitments, but we can and should go further. The UK holds an estimated £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. My party has tabled the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill to direct those funds to Ukraine’s military, reconstruction, and humanitarian defence, and we are calling for that today.

National security is the first duty of any Government. The spring statement contains real increases in defence spending, and I do not dismiss that, but it also contains a £9 billion accounting adjustment with no explanation, a defence investment plan that remains unpublished, and a 3% target that is still under vague consideration.

British forces are currently engaged in defensive combat operations to protect our bases and citizens in the middle east and eastern Mediterranean. We must focus on not just new kit but existing kit, and it is conspicuous that so many of our vessels are not currently available to the Navy.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear about what is needed. We have proposed pragmatic, realistic steps to make our nation safer now and in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to respond to the debate. I would have loved to go through all the speeches, but given a shorter time limit than I had expected and the consequent cuts in my speech—let alone the defence budget!—I cannot do that. What I will say, genuinely, is that it is always inspiring to hear constituency Members, such as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), talk about the defence industry and defence assets in their constituencies.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

As the hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour, I will.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State, who is, as he says, my Suffolk neighbour. Suffolk is home to the United States air force base at Lakenheath. The American air force has been our enduring friend since at least the second world war. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must do all that we can to support these brave United States air force personnel at this dangerous time in the world?

[James Cartlidge]

When I was a Minister, I was privileged to meet General Campo, then the officer commanding two bases, and to go around them with him. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, we should have provided the use of American bases as part of the mission to attack Iran from the outset, not least because the nuclear programme in Iran is a threat to us. That is still the most important point in the debate about the current action.

Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—mentioned the need to learn lessons from Ukraine. I want to make one very important point about Ukraine. If we had not stepped up in providing weapons even before Russia’s invasion when we were in government, it is conceivable that Putin’s tanks could have reached Kyiv and Ukraine could have fallen. We were able to provide anti-tank weapons to prevent that column from reaching Kyiv because weeks before the invasion, Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the courage to ignore the advice of the Foreign Office and instead be bold to defend freedom. To put it another way, we did not wait for Putin to invade Ukraine before assisting so that we had a perfect case in international law. Thank God we acted pre-emptively. There is a lesson here.

The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent and eloquent speech, giving all the reasons why we need to increase defence spending. To be fair, I think we all know what they are, so I will not go through the details of the threat, but I have to say that it was shocking, with war raging on multiple fronts, that the Chancellor did not provide a single extra penny for defence in her spring statement yesterday.

There are five huge consequences of not setting a path to 3% and instead adopting Labour’s decision to prioritise welfare over the defence budget. The first consequence is that the priorities of the Department are now wrong. The MOD has no choice, with its current financial settlement, but to prioritise penny-pinching and in-year savings over rearmament. The fact is that instead of increasing the budget for rearmament, it is initiating £2.6 billion of in-year savings this year, which leads us to the second consequence: the operational impact. We all know that, shamefully, not a single Royal Navy ship was in the middle east when war broke out. That is because the Department has had to prioritise in-year savings and retrench its activity.

Last December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), confirmed to me in a written answer that

“over the next four years, the Royal Navy will scale back its participation in overseas training outside the Europe, Atlantic, and Arctic theatres.”

That was a premeditated decision to pull our activity out of the middle east, and what have we seen this week? Drone attacks on the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. As a direct consequence of the in-year savings, the Government are having to scramble to deploy HMS Dragon to Cyprus, when it should have been there weeks ago. As a Type 45 air defence destroyer, HMS Dragon will provide invaluable air cover around Cyprus against incoming missiles, but we know from BBC Verify that US Arleigh Burke air defence destroyers in the vicinity are providing cover for the time being. The shocking implication of this is that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn on Sunday, he was preventing the US from using our bases while relying on it to defend them. It is an incredible situation.

The third consequence of Labour’s lack of defence spending relates to procurement, which has effectively been on hold since the general election as a result of the Government’s clampdown on in-year spending at the MOD. At the election, we had a fully funded plan to provide £10 billion extra for munitions. [Interruption.] Labour Members always chunter about that. The plan was to be fully funded by cutting the size of the civil service, and they do not like doing that. They did not like the way that it was funded, but that funding would have delivered the munitions strategy, which I was working on as the Minister for Defence Procurement. I want to be clear: it was a comprehensive plan to replenish our arsenal and, in particular, would have seen additional significant investment in air defence missiles, including for ground-based air defence and maritime defence, which are so critical for our country right now.

The problem is that the incoming Government had a better idea: cancel the munitions strategy and put any orders on hold while conducting a strategic defence review that would give all the answers but which, as I warned, would in the meantime put procurement on hold. Having told us that the SDR would have all the answers, the Government did not make any specific capability choices, which were punted into the defence investment plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and many others have said, the strategic defence review was months late and the defence investment plan, promised for autumn 2025, is still nowhere to be seen. When the Prime Minister was asked at Prime Minister’s questions when it will be published, he did not even attempt to answer the question. To paraphrase the Leader of the Opposition, there is no money for defence because the Government have spent it on welfare. Because there is no money, there is no DIP. And because there is no DIP, there is no procurement.

The fourth consequence of Labour’s penny-pinching approach relates to the lethality of our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and his Ministers like to mock the defence drone strategy that I produced in government in February 2024—the first ever from a major military player, as far as I am aware—but I gently remind them that, they confirmed in a written answer last April that it is Government policy to implement the defence drone strategy. The aim of the strategy is to procure drones

“at scale for both the Ukrainian and UK armed forces”.

The problem is that, since the election, the Labour Government have rightly continued providing drones for Ukraine, which we support, but they have not implemented the other side of the bargain: building a comprehensive UK military drone industrial base and procuring at scale for our military. Because the Treasury has agreed funding for Ukraine but not for our armed forces, the MOD has been buying brilliant drone and counter-drone technology made by British SMEs and sending it to Ukraine, while buying almost none of it in parallel for our own troops. That is why last December we announced the Conservative policy of a sovereign defence fund, which would deliver drones at scale for the armed forces and, crucially, take stakes in British SMEs to establish a strong UK defence industrial base, instead of losing the intellectual property abroad.

The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked where we would find the money, and I will tell the House one way that we would find it. Some £17 billion of public money would be transferred to defence, including £6 billion for drones from other research and development, and £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund to create a new national defence and resilience bank—a UK bank that would support the supply chain. We would also lever in public finance, as the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker) argued for. I agree with them that we need to increase traditional defence spending, but we massively need to lever in private money and fire up the private sector for defence. Most importantly, our policy would put the world-leading technology that we have given to Ukraine into the hands of our armed forces, immediately boosting their lethality.

The fifth big consequence of Labour’s prioritisation of penny-pinching is on the defence industry, risking jobs in every constituency. In January, it was reported that there is the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. For an industry already hit by a £600 million increase in employer national insurance, this is not good enough.

Of course, our constituents do not just want more money spent on defence; they want it spent well. That is why, in February 2024, I introduced the integrated procurement model in Parliament. Its main focus was to learn the lessons of our extraordinary effort to deliver capability to Ukraine at pace. In particular, a key element was the use of minimum deployable capability. That went live in April 2024, so it is fair to say we did not get a huge amount of time to put it into practice, but we did in one important case study.

A number of commentators have made the important point that, in the latest exchanges in Iran, our RAF is having to use expensive missiles to take down cheap drones, and I think that observation was made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). In April 2024, another of our Type 45 destroyers, HMS Diamond, was deployed in the Red sea when the Houthis, like Hezbollah, were receiving ballistic missiles from Iran. These were also used against HMS Diamond, and while her brave and brilliant crew defeated the threat at the time, I decided that we had to have a way of defeating those drones. I therefore not only procured the DragonFire anti-drone laser, but used the new procurement system to ensure it could be in service in 2027 rather than 2032, which means it will be with our ships from next year.

Given that you are making those usual familiar signals, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say finally that when I visited Leonardo—the factory in Edinburgh that makes DragonFire—I was very chuffed to be told that the minimum deployable capability approach had removed hurdles and red tape, so this cutting-edge capability is going to be in service much faster and is genuinely making a difference.

To conclude, all of this points to the crucial need for the Government to follow the lead of our party, and accelerate their plans by going to 3% in this Parliament, not in the next.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

Before thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), let me place on record my thanks to the brave men and women of the UK armed forces, who are at this very moment defending not only UK interests in the middle east and the Mediterranean, but those of our allies. I know that the whole House will send our support for them in the job they are doing.

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for introducing this debate and for securing it. It is an opportunity to talk about how we can improve our procurement, value our people more and make sure we are bringing to our armed forces the capabilities that they need in this more difficult time.

We know that the world is increasingly volatile and dangerous. Having just returned from Ukraine this morning, I know that when the eyes of the world are rightly on the middle east, it is important that we as a House clearly and unitedly send a message that we still stand with Ukraine and will do so for as long as it takes. That was the message I gave to the Ukrainian Ministers I met yesterday, and it is one that I know will be echoed by those from every party present for this debate.

The Prime Minister has said recently that

“hard power…is the currency of the age”,

and he is right. What we have seen since the last general election is a Government making the necessary decisions to transform our hard power and increase our warfighting readiness. The spending commitments we have made—2.5% of GDP from April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 5% on national security by 2035—represent the largest rise in defence investment since the end of the cold war.

Alongside these historic increases, we have published the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, and we are fundamentally reforming defence to finally put it on a sustainable footing. We are leading support on Ukraine, leading in NATO by bringing our allies together, and working flat out to complete the defence investment plan. The DIP will strengthen, modernise and equip our armed forces to meet the threats we face. The decisions we are taking are worth hundreds of billions of pounds, and nothing is more important than getting them right. That is our singular focus right now.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, given the time pressures. Given that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the very explicit question of when the DIP will be published, will he tell us: when will the DIP be published?

[Luke Pollard]

Well, I had to sit through the hon. Member’s drivel, so he can sit through mine until he finds out the answer to that one. I want to respond to the main points raised in today’s debate by a number of speakers; it is important that I use the time I have to respond to them.

I welcome the clarion call from the Defence Committee to go faster and further on defence spending. It is right that we have increased defence spending, with an extra £5 billion in our Budget this year and more coming next year, but the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough is a strong one, and it is one I know he will continue to make. We were, as I believe he said, the third largest percentage spender in NATO in 2021, and we remain the third largest spender in cash terms in NATO, but I recognise the argument he makes. Let me say to him clearly on Ajax that it remains one of my priorities as Minister to make sure that we can fully field equipment that is safe for our people and to make decisions based on safety. I want our industry and our forces to innovate and be bold, but they must not compromise on the safety of our people. I cannot be clearer about that.

My hon. Friend also asked about the supplementary estimates, and I am happy to provide some clarity. A large part of the increase relates to the technical accounting updates to ensure the Department’s asset values are accurately recorded. These adjustments do not provide additional spending power and have no impact on the Department’s cash budgets, so they are technical, non-cash accounting adjustments. As programmes mature and asset information improves, it is standard practice to update these valuations. This ensures that the Department’s accounts reflect the most accurate value of its equipment and estate. The adjustments do not indicate a loss of capability and have no in-year cash impact. I was asked about that by a Conservative Member, but I hope that is helpful to him, too.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) was right to raise a number of important issues. He is certainly right when he says that defence programmes are usually late and usually over-budget. When we inherited the defence programmes from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 major defence programmes were delayed and over-budget; that is a record for which he should have stood at the Dispatch Box and apologised, but the Opposition do not want to claim any responsibility for what they handed over—they only want to throw stones and blame for the future. To be a constructive Opposition, it is necessary for the shadow Secretary of State to be helpful and constructive with advice, not just to seek to forget about his responsibility for the mess he caused.

The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is also right about accommodation. It was unacceptable that our service personnel and their families were living in accommodation with black mould, leaky roofs and broken boilers. It is for that reason that this Government announced £9 billion to refit, refurbish or rebuild nine in 10 defence homes over the next decade. That will directly support our defence personnel and their families, on top of the largest pay rise in 20 years. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) described that as a cash bung. The largest pay rise in 20 years for our people, accompanied by a second above-inflation pay rise, has seen morale not fall under this Government, unlike when his party was in power, when it fell in every single service in every single year. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is also right to make the case for reforming the MOD. That is exactly what we are doing with the process of defence reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is proud to represent the home of the Royal Navy. As MP for Devonport, I am also proud to represent the heart of the Royal Navy; she and I have much in common. She is right to ask about HMS Dragon. I am pleased to give her an update about the ship and the ship’s company. The Royal Navy is working at pace to prepare HMS Dragon for deployment to the eastern Mediterranean. HMS Dragon has begun re-supplying her air defence missiles at the ammunition facility at the naval base in Portsmouth. She will then return for a logistics re-supply before sailing. For security reasons—as she will know, as a Portsmouth MP—we do not comment on precise departure dates of our Royal Navy assets. She will also know that we have two Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters armed with drone-busting missiles already deploying to the region. They will reinforce the additional RAF Typhoons, F-35B jets, ground-based counter-drone teams, radar systems and Voyager refuelling aircraft which we have already deployed to the region. Our jets are now flying continuous sorties to take out Iranian drones and missiles threatening UK people, interests and bases, and threatening our allies.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s contracts with Palantir.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

Palantir is a strategic supplier to the Ministry of Defence, providing secure data integration, analytics and AI platforms that help to support operational planning and decision making.

In 2022, the Conservative Government signed a three-year enterprise agreement with Palantir, in light of the growing significance of faster operational decision making, and the impact that that technology has had in operations, including in Ukraine. This Government negotiated a new enterprise agreement to update the one signed in 2022, and that was published in a transparency note in December last year.

As part of the development of the new enterprise agreement, the MOD negotiated a strategic partnership with Palantir last September. The SPA reaffirms the strong relationship developed between UK defence and Palantir over the past decade, and includes new commitments that this Government secured from Palantir, including £1.5 billion investment into the UK, a new UK defence tech SME mentoring scheme to help companies grow and access the US market, and a commitment that London is to be the company’s European defence headquarters.

This Government took over what the Tories started in 2022, but we made it work better for Britain and better for our forces. As the Defence Secretary has said, the contract was his decision, and his alone. Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. The deal that we struck with Palantir will significantly reinforce the innovation of our forces, and reinforce the safety of this country as we move towards warfighting readiness.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the detail, let me say that the Mandelson scandal is truly shocking. When debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein’s crimes.

Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on MOD contracts have emerged, to which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the MOD signed a contract with the US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million. Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own Government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, and was granted to a US company by direct award. Why was that?

For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company. From my time as the Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and to our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis, but this is about transparency. Above all, the question is: to what extent did Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which he was a controlling shareholder at the time, benefit from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors—access that was used to deliver a defence contract of some £250 million to a client of Global Counsel without competition?

Regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Palantir in February 2025 in Washington DC, is it true that no minutes were taken? If they were not taken, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson’s firm? The Minister must answer that. In the build-up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK Government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were? Did they involve any clients of Global Counsel?

Finally, let me mention the actions to take. Given the public interest in this matter, will Defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the Humble Address, will the Government publish, as part of the Mandelson files, all relevant material relating to this contract award?

[Luke Pollard]

As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract; it was a decision made by the Secretary of State, and it was his decision alone.

As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that Conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022, and he knows that the MOD uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support operations and wider data analytics. I am sure he is not suggesting that we should not be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his Government were wrong to formalise the relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I do not think he is.

It is really important that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, the then ambassador unfortunately was not available to meet, or was not there, but the Prime Minister has been clear at the Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency. We intend to publish as much material as we can, as soon as reasonably possible. The Cabinet Office is working with the Met police and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents does not prejudice the Met investigation, or the UK’s national security and international relations. That process is under way, and that is in addition to the other actions that the Prime Minister has already taken.