Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

He did.

Let me say that that is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people, who recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people and want to see them prevail, and above all want to see a peace that will last.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this evening? I hope it is heard widely across the world, and I hope it is heard in Moscow and Washington. I hope it is heard particularly in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. I do not wish to see peace at any price; I wish to see Ukraine prevail. I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect.

Given that context, I will ask my question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier today about the numbers that had been committed. The Prime Minister said: “Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that.” Figures are being briefed to the newspapers, but I do not know whether they are correct. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief us on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher, and some other Members of the House may wish them to be lower, but I want this House to hear what his plans are.

[John Healey]

I really welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response, his question, the way in which he speaks for the House, and his urging that this statement—and, indeed, the declaration of intent signed in Paris yesterday—will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv; I am sure that President Zelensky will ensure that. I will play my part in doing that shortly as I visit the country, and I will discuss the further work that needs to be done with Ukraine’s military and political leaders.

On the question of detailed numbers, yesterday was a political declaration—a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the nations that are participating in, and contributing to, the coalition of the willing means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. I have certainly not been briefing the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers and very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser and undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees we are developing, with them and for them.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his list. This Government have come into power and put in place a very clear, concise programme to increase recruitment and retention. There is a list: there is the armed forces discovery scheme, zig-zag careers, and the cyber direct entry scheme; the first cohort graduated in November ’25. We are scrapping a huge amount of red tape left by the last Government. If somebody had athlete’s foot as a child, they could not join the military, and people needed multiple sets of medical records. That was ridiculous. We also have financial retention incentives. [Interruption.] Individuals on the Conservative Benches can say that they know, but they did nothing about it; I lived it. We have done a single living accommodation review, and we have a Christmas travel payment. [Interruption.] There are great comments coming from the Opposition, but they did nothing about it. We have done it, and as a result we see a 13% increase in recruitment, and a reduction in outflow by 8% for the first time in 14 years.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As the shadow Defence Secretary was reading out the letter from the squadron leaders and warrant officers that was published over the Christmas break, I looked across the Chamber, and was very surprised to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and two Defence Ministers shaking their head. We have had feedback from numerous generals, squadron commanders and warrant officers, so can I just understand where the Minister is coming from? Why does he think he is right and they are wrong?

[Al Carns]

I fully respect the hon. and gallant Member; he has experience from Northern Ireland during the troubles. I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. We absolutely respect those individuals’ views; we also respect the statistics on those who are currently serving, which we have looked through in the Ministry of Defence. I would welcome a discussion with many of the individuals who the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. Since some of the articles came out in the press, I have had discussions, multiple times, with several of them. We need to work together to make sure they are comfortable with the Bill, and we are doing so. On top of that, we have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other veterans, but when we come down to the common denominator, the statistics show that there is not a recruitment and retention issue caused by the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As Members well know, the moral, physical and conceptual components are critical to fighting power, but in some cases, the conceptual and moral components are one. We must ensure that the Bill protects veterans going forward, which is what I will do. We will protect the moral component.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am disgusted by the mistreatment of our brave LGBT veterans who served between 1967 and 2000, and I am pleased that the Government have now delivered 48 of the 49 recommendations made in Lord Etherton’s independent review. One of those was the unveiling of the LGBT+ armed forces community memorial, which I was deeply honoured to be able to attend alongside LGBT veterans and service personnel. The one outstanding recommendation recognises the unique experiences of female veterans, and work is ongoing on a number of initiatives towards that, including the launch of a new women veterans forum.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. A wish a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman and the whole House.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. Taking bold decisions is the hallmark of this Government, because it would not be enough simply to tinker with some of the procurements we inherited, given the necessary increase in our capabilities to meet the threats that exist. When the defence investment plan is published, it will set out bold decisions, but it is really important in relation to Ajax that we get to the bottom of what happened during Exercise Titan Storm. The Ajax vehicle has completed 42,000 km of testing without such injuries, so we need to understand what has happened with the vehicles that have caused these injuries. Not all the vehicles on that exercise caused injuries, and that needs to be taken into account as part of the investigations. I am looking forward to those results when they come, so that we can make a clear and bold decision one way or another to bring this saga to an end.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I think the procurement Minister will know that I asked his predecessor whether the National Armaments Director would have carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to defence procurement. She answered from the Dispatch Box that not only would they have that ability but they would be held to account for so doing. Defence Committee members do not want them coming in front of us in a year’s time to say, “We wanted to change things, but they wouldn’t let us.” Now that the Minister is in his role, will he reassure us that the policy remains that the National Armaments Director, for their £600,000 a year, will be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement?

[Luke Pollard]

Rupert Pearce is already making substantial changes to how we procure and delivering a programme of change, with reform within Defence Equipment and Support and the wider national armaments director group that is essential if we are to achieve warfighting readiness. Not only does he have a clear policy steer in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, but I have witnessed quite impressive substantial change in the few weeks he has been in place. I hope that the Defence Committee will be able to hear from him shortly. There is a lot more work to do if we are to get on top of a procurement system that is too slow, too expensive and does not yield the results for our people that they need it to yield, but he is making a good start in that respect.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This morning, eight four-star generals and an air chief marshal took the unprecedented step of writing to the newspapers. Their letter deserves to be heard in full and to be entered the public record. They write:

“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces, we do not speak out lightly. Yet on Armistice Day we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.

No member of the armed forces received a “letter of comfort” after the Good Friday Agreement. What they relied upon was far stronger: the belief that if they acted within the law, under proper orders and in good faith, the nation would stand by them. This bill tears up that compact. Be clear, those who served in Northern Ireland do not seek immunity, they simply seek fairness—the recognition that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate authority and illegitimate violence. To erase that distinction weakens the moral authority of the state.

By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered in pursuit of political ends as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy. That is not reconciliation; it is abdication of responsibility. Trust between the state and the individual who serves it is the cornerstone of military effectiveness. If servicemen and women begin to doubt, when they believe that lawful actions taken in the service of the crown will one day be re-examined in the misplaced light of hindsight, then recruitment, retention and morale will suffer.

Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of “lawfare”—the use of legal processes to fight political or ideological battles—which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative. We will lose our fighting edge at exactly the moment it is most needed. And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.

The prime minister and attorney-general must recognise that an ever-broadening interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights is being used against those who act under lawful authority of the crown. The state owes its servants more than political reassurance it must ensure that those who apply necessary force on behalf of the nation are not left to face the consequences alone.

The government must restore legal clarity, reaffirm the law of armed conflict, deviate from the application of the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and relevant international conventions and ensure those who act under lawful authority are protected. A new, honest framework is required. The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”

The letter is signed by General Sir Peter Wall, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, General Sir Patrick Sanders, General Sir Richard Barrons, General Sir Chris Deverell, General Sir Richard Shirreff, General Sir Tim Radford, General Sir Nick Parker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford. I will say on the record myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these are men whose boots I am not fit to polish.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I am very happy to do so. I am meeting north-east colleagues about how we can drive more jobs and opportunity. As we look at establishing not just growth zones but defence technical excellence colleges and the six new munitions and energetics factories, there is a strong case for the north-east to receive some of that defence investment.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security?

[John Healey]

I have nothing to add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who asked the same question. What a waste of a question.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first and then come to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the negotiations. He is making great play of the fact that the previous Government started the negotiations and that there were 11 rounds of them. Is he not aware that, in 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution saying that we should enter into conversations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Those negotiations went on for 17 years and ended in 1981. In 1982, we all know what happened. So it is not where we start; it is where we finish.

[Luke Pollard]

I say politely to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a lot of time, and I respect his military service—that that comparison we have seen of the British Indian Ocean Territory with the Falkland Islands is shameful. I have seen the tweets from the Conservative party asking, with a map of the Falkland Islands, “Are they next?”—a shameful comparison, which stokes the flames of division and threatens the sovereignty of such overseas territories. Let me be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth from the Foreign Office has been clear at the Dispatch Box: there are no changes or implications for any other British overseas territories. Indeed, the British overseas territories support the deal. I hope that we will not need to revisit this again, but any implication that seeks to apply the experience of BIOT to other overseas territories is unhelpful to them. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman wishes to create no question marks over those overseas territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will take two more interventions, and then I will make some progress. I am aware that the debate is one that people want to speak in.

[Lincoln Jopp]

If the Minister is such a big fan of the social time discounting method that has been applied, will he tell the House where the social time discounting method has been used in other parts of Government to generate net present value?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have published the full methodology, and that the social time preference rate is only one part of the calculation that we have used; we have also used the OBR’s inflation deflator mechanisms as well. He will also know that we published the full costings at the point of the treaty being applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. At the beginning of the intervention, I was going to point out that there were five years during which the Liberal Democrats were very close to the Conservative party, but I will remove that thought from my head and agree with him. This does seem a very strange hill for the Conservative party to die on, but I am not surprised by the level of hypocrisy we have seen from some Conservative Members.

That is the real hypocrisy. The Conservatives have attacked the cost of this deal, but they will not reveal what their own deal would have cost. Government convention means that their numbers are locked away—secret, hidden, unable to be scrutinised and compared. They will hide and hide. Would Conservative Front Benchers like to give any figure, in any currency of their choosing? What was their number? How much was it going to cost? What was the number on the bottom of the piece of paper after 11 rounds of negotiations? The truth is that this Government secured the deal that the Conservative party knew was critical for our national security, but could not deliver.

While we are talking about costs, let us put this into perspective. As the Minister said in his opening speech, France pays €85 million a year for a base in Djibouti, one that shares a fence with a Chinese naval facility and enjoys none of the security that comes with this Government’s deal on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger, more secure, and delivers unmatched operational freedom for the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what this treaty delivers. It secures Diego Garcia; it locks in control of the land, the sea and the electromagnetic spectrum; and it shuts out foreign militaries from the outer islands. That is a serious deal—a deal that represents value, one that the Tories could never close, but now choose to attack from behind a shield of secrecy.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do not know whether the hon. Member listened to the outstanding, forensic dismantling of the Government’s case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but on the basis that every constituency in this country will kiss away the opportunity to have £52 million as a result of this deal—that is what it is going to cost in total—would he like to tell the people of Dunfermline and Dollar why he would rather give away that amount of money to a foreign Government on a spurious legal basis than invest it in his own constituency?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—he is someone for whom I have a lot of respect. I would tell my constituents that this country is now safer and more secure because of the deal that this Government have done.

Let us see who is on the Government’s side. The United States backs the deal, with President Trump having called it

“a very long-term, powerful lease”.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, NATO and the overseas territories all back the deal, because they understand that Diego Garcia is vital to our security and theirs. Who lines up against it? Who is the proud company that the Conservatives keep? Nigel Farage and Reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

We do not know why Lord Cameron closed them down, because the Conservatives have not released any details of the deal that they negotiated up to that point. Maybe the costs were too high because they had not negotiated a better deal, or maybe things like the 24-mile security zone were not included in the deal, but this Government have secured a better deal. It is important for us to secure our national security.

It is also worth pointing out that Conservative Governments have not looked after our national security over the last 14 years. I have served, and I have seen the damage that was caused by 14 years of under-investment and neglect of our armed forces. Our Army has been reduced to a size that has not been seen since the time of Napoleon. Service accommodation standards are scandalous, which our people do not deserve in the slightest, and the Conservatives cut the defence budget so deep that Russia felt that we were too weak to stop an invasion in Europe. I am pleased to see that this Labour Government are investing again in our armed forces and starting to fix the damage of those 14 years.

Since we are talking about investment, let me touch on the investment value of this deal. Diego Garcia’s location—far from major population centres—makes it the ultimate secure base. It is a deepwater port in a key staging area in the Indian ocean, and is vital for our submarine operations. It contains the longest runway in the entire Indian ocean, putting our aircraft in reach of Africa, the middle east and east Asia. In order to continue the operation of such a base for 99 years, we are looking at an average cost of £101 million a year. That is around 0.2% of our defence budget—less than the cost of a single aircraft carrier. As we heard from my hon. Friends, it is a better deal than the French have achieved in Djibouti for a base that is right next to the Chinese operations, and has a total cost that is less than the amount of money that the last Government wasted on faulty PPE during the pandemic.

Diego Garcia is vital for our national security—I think everybody in this place agrees with that. Two years ago, the Conservatives also agreed on the need for a deal.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. On the pricing, he said that Government Front Benchers are putting it out that this is a good deal. Would it still be a good deal if it was £35 billion or something like that?

[Alex Ballinger]

As the hon. Member will know, the official Government statistics say the cost is £3.5 billion, which is about 0.2% of our defence budget. I wonder what other assets in the entire world that may be worth 0.2% of our defence budget are quite as effective and important as Diego Garcia.

I will come to my conclusion. The last Government wanted a deal. They started negotiating a deal and conducted 11 rounds of negotiations on a deal. Now, however, because they think that they can score some political points, they are choosing to side with our adversaries. I humbly suggest that if they really had the UK’s national security in mind, they would agree with what the US State Department told the Foreign Affairs Committee on our recent visit to Washington, and some of the Conservative Committee members were in that meeting. The US State Department told us, “Thank you for securing this deal, which we think is vital for both our nations’ security.”

Afghanistan

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do indeed. I know from Afghan families who were relocated in the early days to my own constituency in South Yorkshire that it was the voices of Members on both sides of the House, speaking up in exactly the same terms as my hon. Friend just has and recognising the debt this country owes to many of those who worked alongside or served with our armed forces and who made possible in the first place the very difficult job that our forces undertook in Afghanistan, that provided a warm welcome, and they continue to do so. To those Afghans, we are offering a new home and a chance to rebuild their lives and contribute to our country.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the tone of voice with which he delivered it. I commanded the Scots Guards in 2010 in Afghanistan, at the high watermark of violence. I was very well served by Naz and Mukhtar, and I will always be grateful both to the Ministry of Defence for getting them to Britain and to the communities in this country who have welcomed them to their new lives here. I want to focus on a particular phrase the Secretary of State used. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it was a civil servant who carried out the leak. The Secretary of State said it was a “Defence official” and The Times is reporting that it was a soldier. I think it is worth clarifying exactly whether it was a civil servant, a spad or a soldier, because conflating the term “Defence official” to cover members of the armed forces is something that might come back to bite the Secretary of State if he continues to do it.

[John Healey]

This was a data breach that took place three and a half years ago under the decision and leadership of the previous Government and previous Defence Ministers. The challenge this Government faced was far bigger than the actions of one official that long ago. My full focus since the election in July last year has been to get to grips with the costs, the proportionality—or disproportionality—of the schemes in place, and the lack of accountability to Parliament, freedom of the press and public knowledge. It is that set of factors that has taken up my time and my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

It will mean a coherent specialist approach to Government-to-Government agreements on sales of our capabilities being based in the MOD, which has expertise in those capabilities. This is going to mean extra jobs and growth, and that jobs can continue in the UK beyond the delivery of our own domestic orders because there will be export orders to fulfil. That should reap a defence dividend across the nations and regions of the UK as our manufacturing jobs continue to deliver for defence.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Ametek, a defence manufacturer in my constituency, has reported to me that the process of getting a defence export licence has almost ground to a halt in the past 12 months. Could the Ministry of Defence send someone sufficiently threatening round to the Department for Business and Trade—perhaps the Veterans Minister—to persuade it to get a grip of its processes and speed everything up?

[Maria Eagle]

I am sure that we can make representations to that Department to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in applications for export being granted, where that is appropriate.

National Armaments Director

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate, which, if I may say so, is particularly appropriate in Armed Forces Week. Let me also thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, for being here to listen to my speech. I hope the Minister will answer a few of my questions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who would have joined me following our joint application for the debate, but his Committee has been away from Parliament on a visit.

The defence budget is one of the most important estimates that the House can debate and scrutinise. With war waging in Ukraine, the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict and with what is now happening in Iran, our world feels increasingly unstable. The Prime Minister has recently returned from the G7 and is now at the NATO summit, ensuring that our interests align with our European, AUKUS and American allies, which is critical. As General Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said last July, we must be ready for war within three years, and the rest of my speech is devoted largely to that theme.

I wish first to discuss the figures in the defence budget. I think that most Members are pleased that defence spending is now considered a priority. The strategic defence review announced in early June was welcomed, and confirmed that defence spending would rise from 2% to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an extra 0.1% going towards intelligence and security services contributions. There was a further commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, but it has been noted that no date has been set so far. The new announcement by the Prime Minister at the NATO summit suggests that the Government will expect to spend 5% of GDP on national security and defence by the end of the next Parliament or by 2035, which includes 3% spent on core defence spending and 1.5% spent on resilience and security.

I ask Members to bear with me while I go through the somewhat complicated figures that this involves. In 2024, 1% of GDP was about £28 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, but hopefully our GDP will increase as the years go by. Members should note critically that a percentage increase in the budget is not the same as an increase in the percentage of GDP, hence the much higher figures that I am about to give. According to the Treasury Red Book, the current Ministry of Defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is around 2.2% of GDP. For the Government to reach the needed 2.5% of GDP by 2027—setting aside the fact that the MOD budget does not quite align with the NATO-compliant spending—the defence budget must increase to around £70 billion in 2027-28. With the extra 0.1% that I mentioned earlier, the total is £72.8 billion. Therefore, another £9 billion to £11 billion needs to be found in the next two years.

If we are to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, the defence budget will need to equate to around £84 billion in current prices. After today’s announcement, the equating figures are 3.5% or £98 billion on core defence and 1.5% or £42 billion on resilience, so the total spending by 2035 will need to be £140 billion. These calculations are dependent on the GDP staying the same and not increasing, in which case the budget will of course increase as well. I simply ask the Minister: where is all this money coming from? It is a huge amount of money.

Given the failure to produce the defence investment plan alongside the strategic defence review, the SDR is merely a list of ambitions and aspirations, with few receipts and invoices attached. When he gave the ministerial statement on the SDR, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm when we would be able to scrutinise the figures, but I understand that the defence investment plan is still an unfinished piece of work and is not due to be published until the autumn. That is a long way off.

I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which is always looking at how effectively money is spent, whether it could be spent more effectively to give the taxpayer best value for money, and whether spending is feasible. However, the Committee has not been able to fulfil its statutory role of scrutinising defence equipment spending for at least 12 months. The last defence equipment plan was published in November 2022, and it set out a 10-year spending plan for equipment procurement, costing around £305.5 billion. There was a £16.9 billion shortfall compared with the money that was then available.

I am pleased that the permanent secretary accepted the invitation to come to our Committee in April to discuss the equipment plan, but he did not come with any proposals as to how and when we might be able to scrutinise the relevant defence expenditure, to see whether the huge aspirations were affordable in the current budget, in the next budget of 3%, or in the following one of 3.5%. It is really important that Parliament has a timetable for when we can do that scrutiny.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the equipment plan; does he share the Defence Committee’s frustration that the last time anyone was able to scrutinise that spending was in 2022? Is he aware that when Lord Robertson came to the Defence Committee to discuss the strategic defence review last week, he was surprised that the Defence Committee was being denied access to the equipment programme—as indeed are the Public Accounts Committee—meaning that the Government simply cannot be held to account for what they are spending money on?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently, and I have also made it. The Minister will have heard and, hopefully, she might have something positive to say when she responds to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When I gave my maiden speech just under a year ago, I took the opportunity to express my frustration that the Government had announced a spending review that would essentially buy the political cover to get to a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. The frustration I expressed was that the dogs in the streets knew that we needed 2.5%, and that we essentially wasted the best part of a year.

The evidence for that is clear to us all. Lord Robertson and General Barrons appeared in front of the Defence Committee when the Government kicked off the strategic defence review, and I said that when Lord Robertson had done his prior defence review, it was very clearly threat-based and foreign policy-led, whereas this one seemed to be saying, “2.5% is the answer, but now what is the question?”. It proved to be the case, because part way through the strategic defence review the Government asked, “What can you get for 3% by the next Parliament?”, and then they asked, “What can you get for 3% by 2034?”, and then, “What can you get for 3.5%?”. As the Prime Minister turned up at the NATO summit, we got the mystery bump up to 5% for defence and security. My suspicion, maybe slightly cynically, is that that 1.5% is made up of 0.75% smoke and 0.75% mirrors, but we shall see. It would be churlish of me, while defence expenditure is going up, to question it. I therefore think it is important to concentrate on how the money will be spent.

I remind the House of an exchange that took place at the Defence Committee the other day with the Chief of the Defence Staff after the publication of the strategic defence review. He said that we come from a position of strength and that this additional expenditure will simply make us stronger and more secure. I said, “I obviously did not expect you to know the answer to this question, but if I were to ask you, how many working tanks have we got?” He batted away the question in the following way:

“I suppose my caution on that would be that, while we are charged with the nation’s security and safety, it may be that having 50 tanks or 100 tanks is not necessarily going to be the defining factor as to whether the country remains safe. To me, that is the problem with those questions.

I come back to this: is our readiness at a level that we are playing our part, with our NATO partners, and achieving deterrence with Russia?”

Clearly not. He continued:

“Are we really confident about that?

The problem with a micro example is that it skips over what is fundamentally our security construct. We are a beneficiary of a collective group of nations in Europe. Never mind our 50 tanks or our modest increase in the Army; they are increasing their armies by tens of thousands and they are increasing their tanks by hundreds.”

If that is the attitude the Minister is getting to our having very few working tanks, she should be wary of the voices she might be getting from certain parts of the Ministry of Defence. I think that she and the Prime Minister would like some options beyond simply reaching for the nuclear button; there needs to be something in between. I hope that she will take that forward in her conversations with the national armaments director on their priorities.

I asked the Minister when we were discussing the national armaments director whether the director would have free range to tear up the book on defence procurement. The book certainly needs tearing up. I speak as someone who, as well as serving on the frontline on four tours of Northern Ireland, the first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, managed to squeeze in about five years in the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Minister is aware of the conspiracy of optimism in equipment planning, where people in uniform will tell part-truths about how much things will cost to get them into the programme—it is called entryism, and it has been going on for years—and then, all of a sudden, those same people will come back and say, “Minister, I am afraid our aircraft carriers won’t cost the £2 billion we told you; they will cost £6 billion. But what are you going to do? You’ve already announced them, and anything else will cause you huge amounts of political pain.”

I urged the Minister to tear up the rulebook, and she gave me a positive response: the national armaments director will indeed be earning their salary. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said it was £400,000—I think that he or she will be on a potential £600,000 with bonuses—but they have got to be worth that. They must have free range to tear up the book. As a member of the Defence Committee, I do not want them giving us evidence a year after their initial appointment and saying, “I wanted to change things, but they just would not let me.”

This is my final point. Alongside the appointment of the national armaments director, we have defence reform going through. It was telling that when Lord Robertson and General Barrons came back to the Defence Committee having published their SDR and I asked them about the culture change required in the whole of defence reform, Lord Robertson told an interesting story. When Colin Powell moved from uniform to politics and was asked, “How do you bring about a culture change in an organisation which has gone in the wrong direction?” General Powell said, “Well, how do you stop a column of ants? You stamp on the first 10.” The Minister needs to prepare herself for some seriously robust conversations with the Ministry of Defence if money is to be spent wisely and honestly on things that go bang and bring about the effect—not just the input—that we all desire.