Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. If he looks at the founders’ relief in the scorecard and puts it against the reduction in business asset disposal relief, he will see that effectively there has been a straight transfer of value from family businesses, high street shops and smaller businesses to the tech bros who are going to benefit from founders’ relief. We have yet to see the detail on that relief, but the scorecard shows a net cost to the Government of about £200 million. That is negligible in the face of an economy the size of ours.

That is a real problem, because we are standing at the bottom of the ellipse of human achievement, the like of which we have not seen since the industrial revolution. This country has got its capitalism wrong in the past. We missed the IT revolution of the ’80s and ’90s because we were too busy worrying about house prices. British capital has kind of stultified and failed to take advantage of these massive advances in technology, much to our detriment in terms of national wealth.

We still live off, to a certain extent, the wealth that was created during the Victorian era. Many of our largest companies came about because of British capitalism—naked capitalism—during that era. The palaces we live in, the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, King’s College, Cambridge, and the NHS—all of that built from the profits of British capitalism. We have neglected it over the last 20 years or so, particularly by attacking the return on risk. The rise in taxation on dividends, the rises in capital gains tax, the reduction in any kind of relief for entrepreneurs, and the complexity of the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme—all that is a massive deterrent to anybody who wants to start a business and take a risk. Until we realise that we will not get growth until we set capital free, we will continue to be trapped in this vortex of a demographic pyramid inversion and ever-mounting debts as the public sector consumes the private sector.

The last thing I want to raise is the new powers that are being granted to the Revenue. All Members should beware of what is hidden in the detail of those new powers. We are getting to a situation where our economy is existing to support the Revenue rather than the other way around.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Evans.

Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits.

I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate.

The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility?

We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent.

Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member had two minutes—he is now on three. I think the Minister will have grasped what the right hon. Member needs.

[Mr Bailey]

It is indeed a great privilege to respond to my friend, the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), especially today, the first day of remembrance. I know there are differences in when we think it is right to put on the poppy. I just acknowledge that, and I was selling them this morning. I am not making a political point; we both recognise that remembrance is important, and it is something that we both care about. It is important to set that out. Similarly, he has been a doughty champion for the people and the Government of Yemen. He has spoken about this matter many times. I have sat in the Chamber and listened to him, and I recognise that all the questions he is asking come from a good place. He is deeply impassioned and well informed on this matter.

With regard to the situation on which I am here to answer questions, the Prime Minister clearly set out the strategic parameters and the arrangements for any military operation. That should answer the preponderance of the questions that the right hon. Member asked at the beginning. When adjusting that military contribution, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to do so in a written ministerial statement. I am grateful to be in front of the House today, wearing my Royal Air Force tie, speaking about the brave soldiers and service personnel who have deployed on our behalf to provide support to allies across the region. It is in our national interest to ensure that our allies in the region receive support when they ask. We have set out that support, of which we should be rightly proud.

[Mr Bailey]

There are ongoing arrangements with our allies within the region. I am grateful to be joined by a Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been engaging closely and actively with our allies in the region. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith) wish to receive additional detail, we can provide that in writing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The spiralling conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia is deeply concerning. Further escalation risks intensifying regional instability when the wider middle east is already facing the devastating consequences of the US, Israel and Iran wars. While defensive assistance from the RAF is the correct response to Houthi attacks, the Government must be clear about the limits of British involvement. Can the Minister inform the House of how long it is expected to continue? What safeguards are in place to prevent the UK becoming embroiled in a prolonged regional conflict?

Diplomatic efforts must remain the priority. Britain should be working alongside its allies and regional partners to reduce tensions and prevent this crisis from widening further. We must also protect vital shipping routes through the Bab al-Mandab strait, which is threatened by Houthi attacks. The disruption to the strait of Hormuz has shown us just how far reaching the consequences of threats to international shipping can be, affecting British households and businesses. What discussions are taking place with international partners to prepare for any future escalation and to ensure that freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandab strait is maintained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for our brave soldiers and Royal Air Force aviators who are operating the Typhoons in the region. He is right to highlight the significant investment—half a billion pounds—in upgrades to the Typhoon aircraft that the Government agreed to earlier in the year. That is essential for ensuring that when our people are deployed in such circumstances, they have world-leading capabilities, which have been invested in by the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I think you also meant a new order for aircraft, but we will put that to one side.

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

I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly.

Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I did not really want to be dragged into this, but obviously I am going to be. Previous Governments have stated that a convention has developed whereby, before troops are committed, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter. Personally, I think that an oral ministerial statement on this would have been helpful, but ultimately it is a decision for the Government. I will leave it at that and do not want to be dragged any further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we co-operate across a number of measures via the EU, through NATO, and through bilateral agreements such as Lunna House with Norway and Trinity House with Germany. As well as that, we have the security and defence partnership, and we will continue to work through that on the opportunities that she described.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is clear from the lifting of US sanctions on Russia, reports of Starlink being slowed down and restricted, and President Trump’s recent Russia diesel deal that we, alongside our European allies, must step up to fill the void being left by the US. The path to peace on our continent will not be forged by sidelining Ukraine and rewarding Russian imperialism. What capabilities will now be given to Ukraine as a European alternative to ensure that President Zelensky is not further isolated?

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

May I commend the Government’s decision to stay out of the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme? It was going to be horrendously expensive, we would have got less money out than we would have put in, it was going to take the intellectual property of any participating company who offered a programme to it, and it was going to take far too long to build up any capability. Can we concentrate on NATO? Will the Minister advise the Liberal Democrats that defence in the EU is a reserved matter to the member states? Therefore, we are much better off co-operating through NATO, which is also much quicker than trying to do something with some European—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Bernard, in fairness, I think you got in your first three questions.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will not intrude in relations among those on the Opposition Benches, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats have heard the hon. Member’s point. As he knows, we are big believers in NATO first, not NATO only; I take his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

There is no doubt that Russia presents a threat and is an adversary of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom. We see that with the company that Russia chooses to keep and with the risk that Russia poses to US interests and US personnel as well as our own in the way that it conducts itself. The United States has not been alone in buying fuel from Russia. We have had similar challenges here on the European continent in relation to Russian gas. The more that Putin’s war machine is funded, the longer this war goes on and the higher the price for everyone. That price is being paid most of all by the Ukrainians, who did not start this war and who lack the means to end it. Only Putin can do that. He could stop the war tomorrow; he chooses not to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Part of the growing threat from Russia—and it is growing —includes increased maritime activity, both in the English channel and in the surveillance of critically important undersea cables, including by specialist Russian submarines. Part of our response should surely be to increase our own submarine patrols around our shores. However, for many months, not a single one of our Astute class attack submarines has been on patrol. I know that it is not the Government’s policy to comment on submarine movements, but I am asking about the absence of submarine movements. Why, on Labour’s watch, have our attack submarines been embarrassingly tied up alongside for months at a time, while the Russians are roving in the North sea and the Atlantic?

[Wes Streeting]

However the shadow Minister phrases his question, he is not going to tempt me to comment on operational deployments. He understands perfectly well why we choose not to do that. Secondly, I point him to recent exercises we have conducted in the North sea and to our leadership of the joint expeditionary force. To go to the heart of his question about our armed forces and their readiness, perhaps the next time he or his party want to get to their feet to lecture us about the state of our armed forces, they might begin with an apology for underfunding them for more than a decade.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I welcome the question. Wales has a proud history of serving our country, and that results in an extension of the armed forces covenant in our schools. There is something there that we need to recognise in supporting our veterans and their children in schools in the Welsh system, so I will take a look at it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have proposed expanding our cadet and reserve forces to include a voluntary civilian resilience strand, equipping British people with skills in cyber-defence, emergency response and protecting critical national infrastructure. Last week, the director general of MI5 warned of escalating Russian hybrid warfare and the need to strengthen our national resilience. The Defence Secretary will be aware that Britain once had a civil defence corps, with tens of thousands of volunteers during the cold war. Will he back our proposals to establish a new civilian volunteer reserve co-ordinated by a new, dedicated civil defence office, harnessing the enthusiasm of Britain’s young people who want to serve their communities and strengthen our national resilience?

[Mr Speaker]

That was shoehorned—I call the Minister.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman spent some time with our Royal Air Force cadets, he would see the amazing cyber-programme that they are rolling out, which will be expanded across the Army Cadets and the Sea and Royal Marine Cadets as part of the cadets action plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that work. She will know that we have stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is a dedicated front door for small businesses to access and navigate the defence procurement process and speed up security clearances and cyber essentials. She will also know that many companies that could benefit from it may not classify themselves as defence businesses; they may be a provider of a service or component that could make a big difference to defence as well. I look forward to making the case to her businesses that there is an easier way now to contract with defence which I hope will create more opportunities for those in the west midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister. Welcome.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Boxer is vital to defence procurement across the west midlands, including for those constituents in Dudley who work at Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. The MOD has now confirmed that earlier this year it cut nearly £2 billion from the £7 billion allocated to the mechanised infantry programme—a cut that included three new variants for the Army, including the critical repair and recovery variant. What will the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments be equipped with, given that there is no longer a plan to procure those vehicles, and how will the Army repair and recover damaged Boxer vehicles without a repair and recovery variant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of our icebreaking capability. Project Shackleton is looking at the longer-term options for the capability.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I was pleased to see the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister welcoming HMS Protector home to Devonport, although judging by the three tugboats, I suspect she was rather less enthusiastic about the reunion than he was. With growing Russian activity in the High North and renewed chest beating from Argentina over the Falklands, Britain’s only naval ice patrol ship faces an uncertain future. How can a single replacement sustain a credible presence at both poles, while allowing for maintenance and refits, and how will the Minister prevent a gap in capability?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to improve defence preparedness and resilience.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 13—unlucky for some!

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

This Government have ended the underfunding and hollowing out of our armed forces that we inherited from the last Government. We are getting ready for warfighting readiness by 2030. That is why we are directing more of a growing defence budget at British companies, retiring old equipment, and giving our brilliant men and women in the armed forces the latest kit. Defence spending is up, morale is up and recruitment is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

We are rapidly improving defence housing; we have already upgraded 1,250 homes, with a further 1,000 brought back into use this year. We have introduced customer commitments for service families, including clear pledges on housing standards, customer service and listening to families’ experiences. I will find the time to meet those people who live in service housing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

As it is the first time we have debated, may I begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position? On 26 July, he appeared on the Camilla Tominey show on GB News and was asked, “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stump up enough defence spending, will he resign?” The Secretary of State replied, “Absolutely.” Is that still the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on that. I can also reassure him that over the weekend, I was in contact with both the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, in the United States and Defence Minister Yevhenii Khmara in Ukraine to try to improve the coverage and the capability of that intelligence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For all intents and purposes, Diego Garcia is an American military base, but the Government claim that to protect it, we must basically sell it to Mauritius at vast cost. There is one country in the world that does not acknowledge the International Court of Justice: the United States. Why do we not create a virtuous circle and sell the base to President Trump for £6 billion, and use that £6 billion to start the process of raising our defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

As a proud east Londoner, I learned as a child about the Woolwich Canaries, and the difficult conditions to which they were exposed in support of our war effort and to keep our armed forces equipped. The contribution of the Canary Girls, along with that of all civilian and military women, is recognised on the “Women of World War II” memorial in Whitehall. Because the responsibility for matters involving civilian wartime workers sits outside the Ministry of Defence, I direct my hon. Friend to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, but as an east London MP who knows very well of the great sacrifices of the Canaries, I would like to meet her and support her campaign.

[Mr Speaker]

Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in Chorley. I call Sir Roger Gale.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr. Trump’s disgraceful show of support for Putin has clearly raised the stakes, not only in Ukraine but in the Baltic states and Poland. Given the perfidious nature of the current incumbent of the White House, will the Secretary of State reaffirm our commitment to NATO, and indicate very clearly that an attack on one NATO state is an attack on all of us, and that this country stands by its friends?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; the threat that he has outlined is completely unacceptable. It is reckless, and I commend all those serving on the carrier strike group for the decisive action that they took in responding to it. The Ankara summit, which begins tomorrow, provides another important opportunity to restate our commitment, as an alliance, to standing against the threat that Russia undoubtedly poses, and we will ensure that we do not miss that opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My heartfelt congratulations to the England football team on reaching the quarter finals. I also share your condolences, Mr Speaker, with regard to my good friend, Sir George Howarth.

With the defence investment plan finally being published, I had hoped that as we head to the NATO summit in Ankara this week, the Government would have set out a clear path to 3.5%, but unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be arriving empty-handed, because we have not even set out a clear path to 3%. Given the widely reported Russian potential plot to launch an attack on Polish soil, targeting its critical infrastructure, and given that the US President has warned that NATO members must increase investment or face the consequences, can my right hon. Friend tell us that at the Ankara summit, the Prime Minister will reassure allies by setting out a clear pathway to 3.5%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, what I accept is that in two and a half weeks, we sorted the defence investment plan. That is a good base to build on. That is £15 billion of additional resource, which sits alongside a commitment to spend £298 billion over the next four years. Those are the kind of numbers that the Conservatives could only dream of.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I echo your sentiments, Mr Speaker, about Sir George Howarth, and pass on the Opposition’s condolences to his family and friends? Also, for their first oral questions, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front-Bench team.

Today’s reports of Russian provocation illustrate the scale of the threat from Putin, but they also show why Britain needed a defence investment plan that was fully funded, instead of one with a £5 billion IOU for the next Prime Minister. On that point, the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister, responsible for producing the DIP, admitted on the media round last week that he only found out about the missing £5 billion after the DIP was published. When did the Secretary of State find out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry to say that that is performative nonsense from the shadow Secretary of State, who should know better. We inherited a Defence budget that was underfunded, overcommitted and simply not fit for the threats we face. This Government have committed £298 billion over the next four years, alongside £15 billion of additional resource for the DIP. Yes, we will need to do more, and the spending review will provide the opportunity to do that, and I hope that perhaps we can establish political consensus on the importance of doing that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

As our brave Ukrainian allies have halted the advance of the Russian army, Putin has resorted to expanding his air campaign against Kyiv and other Ukrainian civilian targets. His growing barbarism is matched only by his desperation. The UK is rightly proud to have led the world in supporting Ukraine and punishing Putin for his aggression, but we must now turn the screw further. I welcome the new sanctions announced today by the Foreign Secretary, but the lifeblood of Putin’s war economy is the sale of oil, gas and coal to the world. The Liberal Democrats believe that there should be no legitimate routes to market for Russian fossil fuels, so, ahead of tomorrow’s NATO summit, will the Secretary of State and colleagues in the Foreign Office ask the Prime Minister to work with our allies to ban the provision of all maritime services for the export of Russian oil, oil products, gas and coal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

11. What progress his Department has made on Operation Valour.

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, welcome.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As it might be in excess of 47 years since the last Labour RAF veteran stood at this Dispatch Box, I would like to acknowledge those who served in a squadron.

Valour will improve the co-ordination of services at national, regional and local level, ensuring that veterans from across the UK have easier access to the support that they deserve. We are making good progress. I opened the first Valour centre on Thursday, and round 2 of funding is now open for applications. The first Valour field officers are already in post, with more to follow in the Valour HQ, now fully resourced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. and gallant Friend raises an important point, and I know that he speaks with operational experience on these matters. I hope that he sees and understands the importance that we attach to these matters. I know he understands the importance of working closely with our allies, both in NATO and in the joint expeditionary force—he and I have discussed that on many occasions. He will also understand that the NATO summit tomorrow in Ankara provides another important opportunity for us as an alliance to state our opposition to the threat we face from Russia. We are making sure that we have the resources we need to equip our armed forces for the kind of threat that he knows all about.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Earlier this year, when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), assured us that funding for service housing was “ringfenced” and:

“Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job”.

However, the defence investment plan cuts £300 million from the funding due to be spent in this Parliament, pushing that investment into the next. Can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly how many service family homes will now have their refurbishments or rebuild delayed into the 2030s because the Government have failed to honour that commitment? Can he confirm that that figure is 14,000 homes?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have a lot of time for the hon. and gallant Member, but I will take no lessons from Opposition Members on the state of defence housing. He will have heard the commitment I made earlier about the £9 billion of investment that was reiterated in the DIP. I can also tell him that we will be refurbishing another 2,000 homes across the UK in the next 12 months alone. I understand why he raises the point in the way that he does, but I hope he will accept the importance that we attach to ensuring that those who serve have the best standard of accommodation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is clear that the Government’s defence investment plan is not fully funded. It adds little more than a sticking plaster to the gaping holes left in our armed forces by years of Conservative cuts. We need to rapidly regenerate our military and make it ready to deter and, if necessary, fight and win the wars of the future. That requires innovative thinking, both on the capabilities we need and the ways to raise the money to pay for them. As the Secretary of State well knows, the Liberal Democrats have proposed defence bonds. That idea has received support from Andy Haldane, the former chief economist to the Bank of England, who is now reportedly an adviser to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). Have the Secretary of State or his colleagues spoken to Mr Haldane about a defence bonds scheme? If not, will he commit to doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

May I add my welcome to the new Minister? I know that he will bring experience and dedication to the role, and I thank him for his answer.

The Minister is absolutely right that the new care centre will serve both serving personnel and the local community, and it will improve healthcare provision. May I ask that the MOD continues to liaise with the local authority as it develops its Catterick town regeneration plan, to ensure that things are joined up? May I also raise a broader point, on which I know the Minister will agree with me? As he said, this is the first collaboration of its kind between the NHS and the MOD, and I hope that it can serve as a template for other areas across the country. Will he join me in thanking all those who have been involved in the project, which has taken many years to bring to fruition?

[Mr Speaker]

It looks like you need it early.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and it is an incredible honour to respond to a question from him. The work that he has done shows just how important the work of Back Benchers is: it is truly transformative, and something from which the rest of us can all learn. I would love to visit the facility with him so that we can highlight it as an exemplar that could be transferred to other parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion the service of our Gurkhas, who I am sure the whole House holds in the very highest regard. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet her in her constituency a few days ago, when we discussed the importance of this matter in detail. I hope she will understand that we are working through the details of an engagement plan with the right stakeholders, including the G10. I am confident that my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People is on the case and providing the assurances that are sought, and I know that he would be happy to discuss the matter with her further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I endorse your tribute to the late Sir George Howarth, Mr Speaker? May I also take this opportunity to welcome the incoming Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his new position? In the two years that he has been in the House, he has already established a reputation for independence of mind and for fearlessly speaking truth to power, regardless of the consequences. I am sure that will stand him in very good stead now.

May I ask a specific question about Northern Ireland veterans? When the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned on principle, partly over the legacy issue, he famously described Labour’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill as “unfit for purpose”. What does the Secretary of State think he meant by that?

--- Later in debate ---

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

After the last Government tied up HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, never planning to send them to sea again, this Labour Government are bringing back amphibious ships. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Three Opposition Front Benchers at once is a bit much. Mark, you were a shining example earlier; do not start going wrong now.

[Luke Pollard]

Mr Speaker, if it takes three of them to take on one of me, keep it coming. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition is for the first ship to enter service in the 2030s.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the day of its publication in June 2025, the headline promise of Labour’s strategic defence review was a commitment to buy

“up to 12 attack submarines”.

At the time, the Labour Government could not answer the question of exactly how many submarines that meant in practice, but they assured us that the detail of all their SDR promises would be set out in the defence investment plan, so exactly how many attack submarines are they going to buy?

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”.

Defence Investment Plan

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are going to come to the statement, but I have a concern. There are strong rumours that the Government are going to produce their defence investment plan on Friday. That would be an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face to Members of this House. I say to Downing Street that, under the ministerial code, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that major announcements are made here. This may be speculation, and I am sure it will be corrected, but I will be appalled if it is done on a Friday, given that Members have been waiting so long.

This affects all parties who have a great interest in the defence investment plan, including Members on the Government Benches. We all have jobs, and we all have people who serve in the armed forces. We must end the speculation and treat this House with the respect that elected Members deserve. Once again, it seems to me that we are becoming second-class citizens under this Government. I do not want that to be the case, and I hope that I am going to be proved wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for his answer—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Francois, you will have two questions in a moment. I am sure you can hold on for just a minute.

[Ian Sollom]

Joining the armed forces demands a huge personal commitment from young people, but those who put their hand up to serve can wait the best part of a year or more, with little communication, no sense of progress, and real frustration that their commitment to our country is not being matched. That frustration often leads them to seek different opportunities. Does the Secretary of State agree that solving the recruitment problem is not just about improving an online portal, but about building a genuine relationship with potential recruits from day one? What is he doing to deliver that now, ahead of the new portal roll-out next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

There is a serious point behind my hon. Friend’s question. Armed forces numbers are growing. We have turned the corner on recruitment and on morale, as he says, and satisfaction, in particular with military homes, has risen 12% in the last year. This Government are on the side of our forces and their families. This is a Government delivering for defence, and delivering for our armed forces.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I begin by saying that we Conservative Members stand four-square with the Government on their response to Romania? It is a NATO ally, and it deserves our support.

While overall trends in recruitment and retention may have stabilised, there is still a serious problem of personnel leaving the special forces. We know from the personal accounts of former Special Air Service commanders that this is due in no small part to the Government’s facilitation of lawfare against their comrades who served in Northern Ireland. To aid retention, what is the Secretary of State’s personal response to the three special forces regimental associations that publicly warned him in late April that

“The egregious mistreatment of veterans and the ongoing infringement of their rights has to end”?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing more to expose the threats, and will do more still. The Russian threat against the UK is real and rising, and it is important for the public and Parliament to understand that. That is why I revealed last year that the Russian spy ship Yantar was monitoring our critical national undersea infrastructure, and that is why I exposed the month-long covert Russian submarine programme in and near UK waters. I say to Putin: we see you; we will expose you; and we will not stand for you targeting the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

This morning, France once again demonstrated that seizing sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels in international waters is both legal and achievable. In contrast, although the Prime Minister confirmed on 25 March that we have the legal basis to act in our own territorial waters, since that pledge, hundreds of vessels have passed through our waters unchallenged. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is deterrence in reverse? It is tough rhetoric, but no action. In Moscow, that gap between what Britain says and what Britain does will be read as exactly one thing: weakness.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion and his facts. With the Attorney General, I led a meeting of the 10 joint expeditionary force nations’ legal military experts, in which we set out, discussed and shared the legal basis on which, individually and together, we can interdict and seize Russian shadow ships. We are ready to do so in support of our allies, as we have just supported France. Together, we are deterring Putin, and we are disrupting his shadow fleet operations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Last night, I returned from a week in Ukraine. I visited villages in Kherson, just tens of kilometres from the frontline, and saw the total devastation wrought by Russian forces. Every morning, we woke to reports that hundreds of drones had been destroyed overnight by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine is innovating under Russian fire. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate defence co-operation with Ukraine, so that our armed forces can rapidly learn from, develop and deploy the counter-drone capabilities needed for the wars of today and tomorrow, not yesterday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, Jessica Morden has changed her mind, so I call Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the chair of the parliamentary Labour party for letting me get in. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a defence readiness Bill, as well as the record funding for the defence of this country, and the 1,200 defence procurement deals that have already been signed. As I have not yet mentioned Harlow in the House this week, will the Minister assure me that he will work with defence manufacturers such as Raytheon in Harlow to ensure that we are prepared for the terrible things going on in the world? Will he have conversations with them, as part of his preparations for the defence readiness Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I can. One of the key pillars of the strategic defence review is learning the lessons from Ukraine. When it comes to autonomous systems and drones, that is not just about the continuing investment that we are making in high-end drone capabilities—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, one-way strike and others—but about how we can deliver mass effect. Due to the rapid iteration of drone technology, it does not necessarily always make sense to have a warehouse full of millions of drones. However, having the ability to produce millions of drones while recognising the shortages in the supply chain, especially around motors, magnets and cameras, is the way that we can enhance our capabilities and our deterrents. We are actively working on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I regularly meet defence SMEs, and they all tell me the same thing: without a defence investment plan, investment decisions are being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire, and strengthen our national resilience, but continued Government delays are creating damaging uncertainty across the sector. Can the Minister tell me whether the MOD, or indeed any other Department, has conducted an economic assessment of the impact that the delayed publication of the defence investment plan is having on British businesses? If not, will he commit to publishing one?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I remember that for at least six months after the election, the hon. Lady and her party were urging us to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. We have done better than that—we are hitting 2.6% next year, three years before anyone expected, including her party. We will go further, and I will look for her support when we do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I know that, like me, those on the Government Front Bench welcome the regulating for growth Bill, which will enable the modernisation of regulations for maritime autonomy testing and the creation of regulatory sandbox powers. That is vital for the unmanned vessels that we need to protect our coastal waters, but defence firms such as those in my constituency cannot afford unnecessary delay due to the parliamentary timetable, or we will risk losing ground to international competitors. What conversations is the Department having with colleagues across Government to speed up the progress of the Bill through Parliament? I am planning to ask the Leader of the House about that in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us speed up the questions.

[Al Carns]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member; we need to do much more to deregulate the use of all types of autonomous systems—I always drone on about drones. Maritime capability is absolutely essential. We have seen a nation without a navy defeat a navy in the Black sea. We want to be at the very forefront of this, and I encourage the hon. Member to write to the Leader of the House to bring the legislation forward as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the successful Northumbria bid in the first round of the VALOUR funding, which will help cover her constituency. [Interruption.] Given that one in eight of our ex-forces personnel are female veterans, we will ensure that the veterans strategy reflects those concerns, and that any round 2 funding as a result of the new application for bids is recognised.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This Government are proud to support Typhoons. We have announced a £500 million upgrade for Typhoons, including new radar, and we have helped secure the deal to export 20 Typhoon jets to Türkiye. We are continuing to support the brilliant jobs in Typhoon production at Warton and Samlesbury and across the United Kingdom, and we are expanding into more autonomous craft as well, supporting the Typhoon for many years to come.

[Mr Speaker]

We are still looking forward to the next order, though.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

T5. What is the Minister’s assessment of the extra investment in defence and the extra kit that Ukraine will need as a consequence of our handing money to Putin through the relaxation of oil and gas sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Throughout my tenure, I have worked with many late entry officers in combat roles. I will take the issue away and look into it in detail, but I am pretty sure that that is a misrepresentation of the totality of late entry officers across our armed forces in the Navy, Army and Air Force.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Naushabah Khan. Not here. I call Adrian Ramsay.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement to select Blackpool and The Fylde College as a defence technical excellence college, which will build a skilled workforce and offer stable employment and opportunities in my constituency. But without a Typhoon jet order of our own, we risk losing the ability to build our own fast jets. This is about our national security. Germany, Italy and Spain—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Member that although I totally agree that we need this order—Lancashire MPs are fully committed to it—when we are on topicals, we need shorter questions. I am sure that the Minister will have got the drift of why we need the order.

[Luke Pollard]

We are proud to support Typhoon, and I was proud to be in my hon. Friend’s constituency to unveil the defence technical excellence college. In her constituency there are some brilliant students undertaking amazing training that will give them the skills to work in BAE Systems producing Typhoons for our allies, and potentially other craft in the future. We will continue to support Lancashire and its aerospace sector.

Defence Readiness

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment (o) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments (l) in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and (p) in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which will be moved at the end of the debate.

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Deary me, I see the armchair general is out in full force today. Let me personally place on record again my thanks to Richard Barrons, George Robertson and Fiona Hill for the superb work they did in authoring the strategic defence review. They know more than many the mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left our defence in, with hollowed-out and underfunded defences—not my words, but those of a Tory Defence Secretary from this Dispatch Box, admitting the failures they made with our armed forces.

In our first year, Labour has boosted defence spending by over £5 billion. We are now spending more on defence this year than the previous Conservative Government spent in any year. We will hit 2.6% in 2027, 3% in the next Parliament, and 3.5% in 2035. That level of spending was not seen in any of the 14 years that the right hon. Member and his colleagues were in government. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion and did long-term damage to our military. They cut the number of our warships by 25% and mine-hunting ships by half. They delayed the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. In their 14 years, they never once hit the 2.5% of GDP spending that we left them with when we were last in power. They cut troop numbers to the lowest level since Napoleon, and drove down military morale with low pay and appalling military housing.

We are working flat out to deliver the DIP, and we will publish it when it is ready. We are doing something that was never done under the Tories: we are doing a line-by-line review of defence budgets, publishing not just an equipment plan but a plan covering housing, personnel and infrastructure all in one. This is a Labour Government who are delivering for defence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The public intervention by Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General is sobering. For a man of his stature to make such an assessment shows the gravity of the situation. Indeed, he was the person tasked by the Government to head up the strategic defence review. His comments align with what the Defence Committee has been highlighting for several months now: we as a nation are ill-prepared to face the threats in this more volatile world. That is why the Government’s rhetoric must align with reality. We must ensure that we get to 3% of GDP spend on defence in this Parliament. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road to the next Parliament.

When the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, he said that the defence investment plan was on his desk and would be delivered very soon. Any further delay to the DIP would cause further damage to our defence industrial base, not to mention send the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries. Will the Minister please confirm when the defence investment plan finally be published?

Middle East

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I want to update the House on the UK military operations in the middle east, but before I do so let me express my total disgust at the antisemitic attack in north London overnight. Our thoughts are with the Jewish community today. The House will have a statement on the attack from the Security Minister after this statement.

I will start this statement by thanking every single person across defence. They are working flat out, whether they are our senior leaders, our junior ranks—military and civilians alike—our planners in Permanent Joint Headquarters, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region or our sailors in the eastern Mediterranean. I say to them, on behalf of the House: you are proving yet again that you are the best of Britain in action.

In the fast-moving events in the middle east, we are maintaining a clear, consistent approach. As I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK Government’s decisions and actions are founded on three principles. The first principle is defensive and taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That is why I have been putting vital military assets into the region since January. The second principle is co-ordination with allies, and leading and co-ordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners, including the US, the G7, the E5 and Gulf nations. The third principle is ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. UK action remains grounded in those principles and our purpose: to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.

Iran is a threat to us all. It is lashing out, and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war it has attacked 12 countries, and has fired more than 3,500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in its sights. Oil refineries have been bombed, embassies and bases have been targeted, and commercial ships have been hit. Some allies, such as France and the United States, have had service personnel killed, and the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades. In conflict it is never possible to remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.

Iran’s attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House that in the early hours of Friday morning two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base. One fell short of its target, while the other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran’s reckless attacks. Iran must stop; it must de-escalate. We want to see this war end now.

My priority as Defence Secretary is the protection of UK personnel, and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. Those measures are reviewed daily by both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. We know, however, that Iran’s aggression and intent reach beyond the middle east, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home. Over the last year we have been boosting our defence, including our cyber defences, and tightening base security. I want to thank the military police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest and then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter.

Let me turn to our UK defensive operations in the region. Since January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defences in the region. Those advanced preparations made a real difference, and meant that from day one we have been defending actively and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. When Iran started hitting out, putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship.

RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We have more jets in the region than we have had at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we are working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to co-ordinate the contributions of allies, including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and will tonight begin operational integration into Cyprus’s defence alongside allies. More widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity, and provided early warning to our armed forces and our allies operating across the region.

Our military and our industry in the UK have a shared mission: to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. Last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors, defence attachés and UK defence firms, and the Ministry of Defence has now established Taskforce Sabre with industry to support partners across the middle east with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, along with training, and we will deploy Rapid Sentry to Kuwait. Rapid Sentry is a battle-tested, ground-based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces in taking down drones in the region.

I turn to the strait of Hormuz. People and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war, and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend. Iran is holding the strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines, targeting ships—including red ensign vessels—and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support. The UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week that condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on unarmed ships, strongly backed the freedom of navigation, and expressed our readiness

“to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”

I discussed this matter with E5 Defence Ministers last week, and we have now deployed UK military planners to US Central Command to develop options. We are looking to accelerate new UK minehunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission that we have given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to missile sites and capabilities that threaten the strait of Hormuz. We are determined to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so that commercial ships can move freely and confidently again.

This House knows that the demands on defence are rising. While we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the middle east, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine, to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts, and to deal with Putin’s serious threats to the High North. This House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the middle east for their own gain. We will not let them. As a Government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.

[John Healey]

The Mother of the House speaks with long and deep experience of these matters. I would just say to her that the Prime Minister himself has said that while we are taking

“the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.”

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain.

There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position.

I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?