Defence Spending and Readiness

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Shameful!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not have that. Do we understand each other? I am not being funny; you are a shadow Minister, Dr Mullan—I expect better.

[James Cartlidge]

The DRI Minister admitted in his point of order yesterday that what he said last Monday was not true. He said that the Secretary of State

“arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 71.]

That begs the question: why did the Secretary of State not respond? To quote chapter 21, paragraph 20 of “Erskine May”, His Majesty

“cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.”

Given this, not only should a Minister of the Crown surely desist from raising the monarch in the Chamber in such a context; it is particularly inappropriate to do so when the facts prayed in aid are not correct.

Mr Speaker, this is cowboy stuff—very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House—and it is not the first time. The Armed Forces Minister, in her previous role as Veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the Dispatch Box after saying at oral questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was “not a details man” and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army, who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. Finally, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior sight of the strategic defence review because I had supposedly not allowed him prior sight of the defence Command Paper refresh when I was a Minister. Petty as this was, it was also—again—wholly untrue.

This is not acceptable; Ministers must tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. I said that I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it. I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am a little bit worried about using the language of “truth” and “facts”. In fairness, both the Minister in question and myself were told that the Secretary of State was down at Windsor last Monday. We did not know what time he was coming back; we were not told—none of us. I want us to be careful when talking about “truth” and “facts”, because I really do worry about how we attack each other in this House. In all the cases that the hon. Member has highlighted so far, the record has been corrected. This debate is about defence spending, and I am not quite sure how going back in history fits into that. Hopefully, we will get to the topic of the debate soon.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I informed your office about this issue earlier, because we feel it is very important.

[Mr Speaker]

Telling my office is one thing; unfortunately, my office has not had time to tell me.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have made the point and I hope Ministers are listening.

It is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To finish off our discussion, what I was offended by on the day in question was the calling of a Member who served in the armed forces—a gallant officer of this House—a coward. I did not think that was appropriate and I am sure that all of us will regret such comments against each other.

[James Cartlidge]

Noted, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, it is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today, to their families and to our veterans.

The last time I spoke in an Opposition day debate on defence was in March, on the subject of the long-delayed defence investment plan. Since then, we have still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we have had chaos: the resignation of the Secretary of State for Defence; the resignation of the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and yesterday, the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit, those resignations from the Ministry of Defence were fatal for his career, and they have a common thread—namely, Labour’s massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence, despite war in Europe and the middle east. As the previous Defence Secretary said, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that “falls well short” and would

“make the country less safe”.