Defence Spending and Readiness

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend is literally on the money. That is exactly right. It was a derisory increase to 2.68%, when the 2.6% figure already includes elements such as the intelligence budget, which have been used to inflate it.

I was speaking about welfare—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will in a bit, but first I want to make an important personal point. I did not have the privilege of serving in the armed forces, but I did have the privilege of being Defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business; I employed people—and I will never forget the time when I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system that we inherited from Labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people’s aspiration, but I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping them in dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that welfare is only part of the story when it comes to where we might need to find the money? It would provide valuable revenue resource, but much of what we are talking about is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I will suggest where I might like to find the money, but I should like to know now which capital budgets the Opposition would look at in order to increase capital spending.

[James Cartlidge]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which he asked it. He is being very open and is asking the question: where are we going to get the money? We have been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important, but it is not just about the quantum; getting people into work instead of on welfare would make us a more resilient country. He asks about capital. We have said—people may disagree, but it is a clear commitment—that we would take £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund that will currently be going to net zero, and ringfence it for defence. That is our priority, given the world we are facing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights.

At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.

[Luke Akehurst]

As he comes to his conclusion, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity to express his specific regret for the role that the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition Government in slowing down the nuclear continuous at-sea deterrent programme; indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it with Biggles-type aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers, which would have put us in a very dangerous position. As it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it, and one of the reasons why there is such difficulty in the MOD budget now is that we are catching up on that essential spending on the continuous at-sea deterrent.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I in my role as spokesperson today have acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the past. Frankly, I think that those mistakes need to be shared across the House, because they are shared across this House.

Defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost overseas. Ministers must publish the defence investment plan immediately to reassure partners and provide a road map for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement.

At a time when Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. The resignations of the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister were a clarion warning from those who have scrutinised the numbers that they were left wanting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case once again for a sustained uplift in defence spending, as I have done at every opportunity in this place. I feel quite humbled to follow the gallant Members who have spoken: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

As I did yesterday in our debate on the Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—who I am disappointed has left the Chamber, so he cannot hear me saying nice things about him for the second time—for their steadfast commitment to equipping our country to deal with the emerging threats from hostile actors who wish to attack our democracy, our freedom and our way of life.

It is my firm belief, as I have said directly to the Prime Minister, that when a Defence Secretary tells us that the funding envelope on defence

“would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe”,

the Government have a duty to listen and act. I commend the new Defence Secretary; the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey); the promoted Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones); and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for stepping up to serve or continuing to serve our country in these challenging circumstances. The new Secretary of State and Veterans Minister are gallant colleagues who, before coming into politics, served our great country in the military, and I can think of no one more appropriate to be making the case within Government for increased prioritisation of defence.

We have heard some slightly confusing messages during the day—none of them definitive—about the timing of the publication of the DIP, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referenced this. I am aware that the Chancellor was still talking in Treasury questions about the DIP being published before the NATO summit in Ankara, and the Paymaster General gave an interview in which he indicated that it would be before Ankara. I think there is a very strong argument for sticking to that deadline, because we ought to be able to tell our partners at the NATO summit what we have committed. I also think there is an argument for publishing it under the current Prime Minister, because this needs to be seen as an issue of continuity: it does not matter if we have a change of party leader and national leadership, because we are still committed to this.

I urge the current Prime Minister, of whom I am a great supporter, to cement his legacy as someone who, despite what was said earlier, has consistently taken difficult political decisions because they are in the national interest, and he has paid a huge political price for some of those decisions. I would like him to secure the necessary uplift in defence spending before he leaves office, to keep this country safe. I am sure that history will be kinder to the outgoing Prime Minister than opinion polls and political commentary have been, especially if, decades from now, we can look back to the final days of his leadership as the moment that the UK faced up to the real and dangerous threats it faces and appropriately responded with the money required to counter those threats.

I know that it behoves Members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from. I understand the political point the Opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding. I know that we cannot afford an ever-growing welfare bill and that that is not good for the people who are not in work but could be. I was proud to support the proposed welfare reforms last year, which would not have cut the total benefit package but reduced the increase by about £5 billion over the course of the Parliament. That would have been a useful contribution to the revenue side of any gap in defence funding. The issue with this argument, however, is that that only covers revenue spending and does not free up capital expenditure for new equipment. Reducing the welfare bill therefore cannot be the only answer to the funding requirements of the DIP.

It is not as if the Government are not already taking politically painful decisions to ensure that we fulfil our first duty, as set out in the manifesto I was elected on: ensuring the safety of the nation. On top of the difficult decision to halve overseas aid spending to fund an uplift in defence spending, which I know was felt deeply on the Government Benches, everything that one is led to believe about the DIP negotiations indicates that every Department has already been asked to accept a 1% cut—known as a “haircut”—to its capital budget. I am fully aware that this would slow projects down that Members across the House and our constituents in the country care about, from transport infrastructure programmes to new hospitals to rebuilding schools; I can think of projects I have argued for in the House that I would have to accept will arrive slower because of that 1% change. However, if we heed the former Secretary of State’s calls and go further, as is clearly required, we must look to the Departments with the greatest capital budgets for any additional uplift.

I would argue that additional capital funding, as has already been mentioned, could still come from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Programmes that are being rolled out by that Department are important. Although we could be forgiven for forgetting during this week’s heatwave, my North Durham constituency has a cold microclimate and lots of badly insulated homes, so cutting capital programmes such as those that address home insulation would harm my constituents. Similarly, investment in carbon capture and storage means that new jobs in the North sea would come on tap later, although I am in favour of the proposed new oil and gas fields—that is as near to rebelliousness as anyone will ever see me in the House, but we are in “freedom hall” in between Administrations. However, when compared with the immediate need to keep our country safe, it is hard to see why those projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit that they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the near future.

Given the long lead times in defence procurement, any month that we go without spending the money needed on equipment could translate to a month in just a few years’ time when our brave men and women on the frontline do not have the weapons and ammunition they need to protect themselves and the country. In the final weeks of his premiership, I urge the Prime Minister to look again at whether additional funding could be found for the MOD’s capital budget from the source that I have mentioned, or from other sources.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me set out just how pressing the threats that we face really are. Developments across the Atlantic have made it abundantly clear—

[Alison Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate has sadly lacked some praise for the Prime Minister and the Government for their investment in defence, including the new submarine reactors that have been made in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North?

[Luke Akehurst]

I will come to the achievements that this Government have already made in a minute—I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to get on with that—but let me talk about the threat first.

The era when taxpayers in Missouri or Virginia paid for the defence of Europe is long gone. Europe and the UK must fund our own defence. Although we can currently be optimistic about the progress of our gallant allies in Ukraine, it remains possible that the war will end in a harsh peace treaty for Ukraine that could leave it with borders that are not realistically defensible from a third Russian invasion and constrain the size of its military, removing the largest and most battle-hardened anti-Russian force from a future conflict.

From that point, the clock starts to tick on Russia’s ability to launch a new war of aggression against another of its western neighbours, perhaps this time a NATO ally, like Finland or the Baltic states. Within two years of peace, Russia could rearm to exactly the same level of defensive capability it had when it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this time having learned lessons from that experience. It could choose to engineer a scenario to test whether NATO will hold, perhaps taking Narva on the Estonian border, which is largely Russian speaking, in an attempt to break the alliance politically. The only way that we can stop this is by developing an effective deterrence, conventional as well as our existing nuclear deterrent.

While we possess a strategic nuclear deterrent, we lack almost every rung on the escalatory level below a global thermonuclear war, which would end humanity and civilisation as we know it. The F-35A programme, which I believe will be in the DIP, is an important additional nuclear rung, but we also need many more rungs of conventional capability. I have consistently argued, including in my 2024 Westminster Hall debate, that we need additional air and missile defence to counter the threat of Russian missile and drone attacks coming at us from the High North, as well as defences against grey zone conflict. That is especially urgent when the last Government reduced spending on ground-based air defence by 70% in their final years in office. And we need to deter by investing in long-range strike missiles, which I know is part of the SDR and will be in the DIP as well. The only way we can avoid a conflict is by ensuring our enemies—in this case, the proximate threat is Russia—know that we are prepared for one.

This is not just about hard power through military personnel and equipment. It also involves the political resolve of the British people and the politicians that they elect. Without a strong military, our way of life could be ripped away from us in an instant. Without a fair and good society worth defending, there will not be the public and political will to fight. Russia will know these weaknesses and will prey on them. Russia could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility.

I appreciate that I have taken quite a lot of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see you indicating that I should wind up. Let us compare and contrast the Labour and Tory record. Under the Tories, armed forces personnel saw a real-terms pay cut in nine out of 14 years, but under Labour, they have received a third consecutive above-inflation pay rise, bringing the cumulative increase since 2024 above 10%. Under the Tories, armed forces housing was left in disarray, with a record 13,000 complaints a year, but Labour is setting up a defence housing service, and bringing homes into public ownership to address the unacceptable state that they are in. Under the Tories, the armed forces fell in size by 25,000 people to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, but under Labour, recruitment is up, and over 100 outdated recruitment policies have been scrapped.

As a result of 14 years of underfunding, and the previous Government’s dereliction of their duty to protect our nation and make the necessary tough political choices, our armed forces’ presence in Estonia is down to fewer than 10 Challenger 2 tanks. We know about the shortage of ships, because we struggled to find even one Type 45 at a moment of extreme crisis. My message to the Opposition is: let us have more of the thoughtful contributions of their Back Benchers, rather than some of the rhetoric that we have heard from their Front Benchers. I recognise the progress that the Labour Government have already made, and I urge them to get to the 3% spending target. I can say that as a Back Bencher, but I know that Ministers cannot talk about percentages of GDP with such freedom. However, they should know that there is Back-Bench support for getting to 3% by the end of this Parliament.