Defence Investment Plan
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.
Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.
Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.
After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?
You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?
There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?
Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that
“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]
That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.
The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.
The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week.
The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, 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 enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions, and for the condolences on behalf of his party. It was polite of him to promote me in his question; I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he had to say.
It is important to set out that we have not waited for the defence investment plan to deliver the new capabilities, the new contracts and the new investment. The hon. Member mentioned small businesses, and earlier this year we stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to create a single doorway for small businesses to access defence. We have supported more small businesses, and we have increased the target for direct spend by the Ministry of Defence by 50%, which is an extra £2.5 billion of direct spend going into small businesses.
We will continue to support SMEs. The 1,400 major contracts I mentioned in my response to the initial question support not only companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales—the very large defence primes—but the entire supply chain, with many of those contracts going to small businesses. We want to see the innovation, job creation, energy and dynamism of small businesses have a bigger role in defence, and that is especially true in areas such as autonomy, in which many of the companies from which we are buying capabilities are small businesses with huge growth potential. When the defence investment plan is published, the hon. Member will see that we are backing those innovative companies and SMEs.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difficult decision made to move 0.2% of GNI spent on international aid to defence spending was an important one. It showed that, in this new era of hard power, we need to increase spending on defence and to increase capabilities, which is precisely the decision taken in the past. We are very proud to be increasing defence funding. Compared with the Conservatives, who cut defence spending in their first Budget, we increased defence spending in the first Labour Budget.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House.
That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I think everybody will know—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee—that the Defence Committee has been calling for the DIP to be delivered for quite some time. The businesses in our patches, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need urgent clarity on where they go and where they invest. That is vital.
I say kindly to those on the Opposition Benches who have been yelling from sedentary positions that they should not be proud of what they delivered in 14 years. I gently say that what the Government inherited on defence was an absolute bin fire, and the Opposition should be ashamed of the mess they left us. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely right the DIP is presented accurately and for the situation in which we find ourselves today, not three years ago when the world was a different place?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.
We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have seen for myself the skill and experience of the workers at Samlesbury and Warton in supporting our Typhoon operations and building parts for the F-35 programme. One lesson we can take from the war in Ukraine—a key learning recommended in the strategic defence review—is that we look at the growth of autonomy in particular. We can see that already in how drones have massively changed the frontline, the fighting doctrine and the force structure required to deter and fight in the 21st century. That is true on land, in the maritime domain and in the air domain. A key part of the DIP will be to provide the latest technology for our forces, and to support our industrial base to not only build more of those capabilities in Britain, but ensure we can export them to our allies, too.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?
Luke Pollard
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is suggesting we delay the DIP further, but I understand his argument. We will publish the DIP before the NATO summit. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and we will do that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.8 million Bournemouth University has received to develop cyber-defence, intelligence and autonomous system courses. They are due to start in September and will equip the next generation with the technical skills they need to contribute to the UK’s defence capabilities, and ensure that we lead on the development of new technologies. In that context, can the Minister confirm that an increase in defence spending will be spent not just on kit, but on skills, and that universities such as mine will continue to be part of our strategy to address the challenges the nation faces?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for defence businesses in and around Bournemouth. I am really pleased that we were able to announce yesterday the universities and colleges across the country that will receive the uplift in student places, with the supplementary places grant that will enhance the skills provision. We have already enhanced the provision of skills for further education, with the announcement of five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland if the Scottish Government will support a second one, and one in Wales. We need to go further with more higher education places in defence and defence-adjacent courses. The money announced yesterday, not just for Bournemouth but for universities and colleges nationwide, will help to support the next generation of talent to work in defence—good, well-paid, decent jobs.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.
Luke Pollard
I equally have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, which is why I will say politely that I disagree with her characterisation. I will also politely say to her, as someone who reads the media speculation on what is in the DIP and what discussions have taken place, to not always believe what is written down online.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham.
My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is certainly right that recruitment matters, and that this Government inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the Conservatives. I am pleased to report to the House that inflow to our armed forces is now up 11.6% in the last year, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up three points in the last year alone. My hon. Friend make a good point about recruitment, and I would be pleased to arrange a meeting between him and the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after recruitment.
My hon. Friend is also right about disposals. We work closely with our friends in Ukraine to provide them with kit and equipment direct from British industry, supporting procurement with our allies as well. Also, when we retire UK kit, we look at whether there is a Ukrainian need for it, so I assure him that that is a process that is under way. I continue to speak to my Ukrainian counterpart about the additional support we can provide not just for the fight tonight, but for the deterrence that Ukraine will need in the future, when peace has hopefully arrived, to prevent Putin from ever invading again.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We have had some huge wins for defence firms in Yeovil, such as Leonardo and Honeywell, but lots of other small and medium-sized enterprises doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that they cannot properly plan without the DIP. What reassurance can the Minister give Yeovil’s defence SMEs that the limbo will end so that they can plan investment and provide quality jobs? Will he meet with them to discuss that further?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?
Luke Pollard
As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.
Luke Pollard
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?
Luke Pollard
I sit in his chair now, so that explains what happened with the previous Minister and the voters. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was one of the few Defence Ministers re-elected as an MP at the last election, with many others not returned to the House. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of long-term security, which is why we are setting out the investment in our kit and capabilities, effectively replacing the equipment plans that were published previously, and looking at our personnel, skills and infrastructure. One of the areas that was hollowed out and consistently underfunded as capital was taken from those budgets was our defence estate. We know the scandal of the armed forces housing that many of our constituents were asked to live in, which is something we are addressing with a £9 billion programme. We have to look at lessons to improve our personnel and experience.
We are in regular dialogue with our friends in Ukraine, learning lessons on kit and capability, how Russia fights, how we deter Russian aggression against NATO allies, and how we invest in the capabilities that Ukraine needs. Programmes such as Brakestop, as a low-cost cruise missile informed by the work of our friends in Ukraine, deliver that. The lesson I take from Ukraine and Iran is that we will need more autonomy, drones and understanding about mass as well as exquisite high-end capabilities. Expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan when it is published.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.
Luke Pollard
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate the way in which he asked the question. Scotland is an integral part of our national security apparatus. From the aviators who fly from RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, to the submariners who serve from Faslane, as well as the extraordinary number of defence companies, large and small, across Scotland—not just in the central belt—there are huge opportunities.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to pass on to the Scottish Government the importance of signing up for the second defence technical excellence college. I am still waiting for a reply to the letter that the Scottish Secretary and I wrote to the Scottish Government. We will fund one DTEC in Scotland, and if the Scottish Government can support the initiative with a second, we can have one in both the east and the west of Scotland, supporting the hugely important defence industry there. I hope that is a point on which we can find consistent cross-party support. If we are looking for more cross-party support, I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to back the brilliant submariners who support our independent nuclear deterrent, which sails from Faslane. The independent nuclear deterrent is the foundation of our national security, and something that we will continue to support in the defence investment plan.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside airport is benefiting from a £173 million MOD contract for Draken. Looking at that contract and at the others the Minister has set out, I think it is fair to say that the Department is not waiting for the defence investment plan to get moving, although we do, of course, need to see it very soon. The elephant in the room is what we are seeing in Ukraine, where capabilities are advancing and becoming obsolete in a matter of weeks—it is happening extremely quickly. What assurance can the Minister give that the DIP, when it arrives, will be flexible enough to deal with the changing nature of warfare in the months and years to come?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?
Luke Pollard
I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
First of all, I would like to say what a great honour it was to attend Windsor castle on Friday to see the presentation of the new colours to the Royal Marines. It was an absolutely superb event and carried out to extreme precision.
It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence is considering delaying or scrapping plans for the Type 83 destroyer, the long-term replacement for the Type 45, due in the 2030s. If that is the case, will the Minister confirm what alternative the Government will review to ensure the future of the Royal Marines’ anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People are suffering due to the cost of living crisis, and taxes are at an all-time high. The delayed investment decisions are paralysing planning for defence businesses, which are stuck in limbo. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to use innovative mechanisms such as defence bonds and the rearmament bank to support the defence sector without placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her continued interest in defence, even with her new role in the Liberal Democrats. We are continuing to place contracts with British industry—1,400 since the general election, announcing a number of those in just the past few weeks—which is seeing jobs growth and both capital investment in infrastructure and investment in people and the skills that are required. The hon. Lady refers to innovative finance. We will set out the spending in the defence investment plan. As the hon. Lady will know, we are increasing defence spending, and I welcome a debate about innovation and how we can get more value out of the pounds we spend. Under the Labour Government, fewer contracts will be sent abroad—something that was commonplace under the Conservatives. I want to see the activation of more private capital to look at how we can support not just the supply chain, but, potentially, defence capabilities. We have committed to doing that with the development of a defence finance and investment strategy, which we are working on currently.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?
Luke Pollard
For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.
Richard Tice
Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?
Luke Pollard
No, but I understand entirely the Conservatives’ partisan attack line on this one—and it is good to see the hon. Gentleman joining in. Let me be very clear: we have increased defence spending. We did so from the very first Budget that the Chancellor delivered at this Dispatch Box, and we are continuing to do that. Defence spending is £11 billion more per year today than under the last year of the Conservative Government, and we are directing more of that money at British-based firms.
We are fixing military accommodation, which is in such a state. The first 1,200 of the worst military homes have now been refurbished, and we will continue that work until nine in 10 military homes are refurbished. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years—a 14.1% cumulative pay rise under this Labour Government compared with the pay freezes that many of them endured under the Conservative Government. We are rearming and backing Britain, and when the defence investment plan is published very shortly, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Following the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), I want to welcome the Gripen contract, which benefits my constituency. Others have mentioned the fast-paced development of uncrewed weapons, but I am concerned about the domestic attacks the UK might see on our cyber, energy and food security. Can the Minister assure the House that the DIP will address that risk and fund public awareness of the threats to our home security and the role we must all play in the defence of the realm?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for championing the defence firms that she has around her constituency. They are a really important in making the case that defence is an engine for growth.
The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face as a nation are more complex than they have been for a very long time. They are not just military threats. The United Kingdom is under constant cyber-attack from our adversaries; that is one of the reasons why we have invested so much in our cyber defences and will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady also hits on the really important point that defending our nation is not just a job for the Ministry of Defence: it is part of a cross-Government effort that must include securing our food—because food security is national security—and our energy supply. That is one of the reasons why we are investing so much in our clean power mission to generate more of our energy in the United Kingdom. By investing in renewables, we can have good clean green jobs for the UK while also reducing our reliance on energy from further afield. Iran’s reckless actions in the middle east have shown to everyone in the House why investing in our energy security is so important. It is about home-grown energy, not relying on imports from abroad.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about military housing, which is not just for our armed forces personnel but, importantly, for their families. As someone who represents a military area in Plymouth, I know that when our forces are deployed abroad, if their families back home are living with black mould in their kids’ bedrooms, leaky roofs or broken boilers, it affects their ability to do the job we have asked them to do—on the frontline or wherever it may be. That is why in opposition we committed to making defence housing a priority.
In government, we have announced the defence housing strategy to improve, rebuild or refurbish nine in 10 military homes—along with our substantial commitment of £9 billion—and we have already made substantial progress on the 1,200 worst family homes. We are looking at what we can do not only with service family accommodation, but single living accommodation, because those who live on bases should also be reassured that we value their service and want them to live in decent accommodation, whichever service they may be in and wherever they may be deployed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. Every single nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the defence investment plan. Wales is already the recipient of one of the five defence growth deals that we announced, with new capabilities and new investment in skills. We look forward to speaking with the new Welsh Government in due course about how we operationalise that. The MOD’s main objection to the development of wind farms predominantly relates to the impact on air defence radars. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me some details in advance of us meeting.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As somebody who represents Devon as well as Somerset, may I share the Minister’s sentiments about the very tragic loss of lives in west Devon last week?
I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the Ankara summit is imminent, but is he not deeply concerned that the Government’s dither and delay in publishing the defence investment plan is seriously undermining our credibility with our friends in the world and sending a signal of immense weakness to our foes, and furthermore that at a time when we should be showing leadership the Government are showing lethargy?
Luke Pollard
I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.
Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.
Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Luke Pollard
indicated dissent.
Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Lead, like other critical minerals and the broader range of chemicals that go into producing energetics and ammunition, has seen constrained supply over the past five years. That is why we are taking a strategic approach to our munitions management, including rebuilding depleted stockpiles, investment in always-on facilities and munitions, and building new energetics factories in the UK.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the ammunitions industry, the upcoming ban on lead in commercial bullets is going to cause significant problems for the police and armed forces, in terms of cost and supply. Viking Arms, in my constituency, which supplies the military and the police, is deeply worried about this issue. Will he meet it and any other suppliers to hear their concerns about the problem?
Luke Pollard
I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. We inherited stockpiles that were much lower than we would have liked, and this Government are determined to refill those stockpiles; anything that goes into rebuilding those is important to me. I am happy to meet and discuss this further.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Yes, we have accepted the strategic defence review recommendation that we introduce a defence readiness Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, readiness measures are already included in the Armed Forces Bill, which will be before the House again tomorrow. Engagement across Government and with industry is under way on the defence readiness Bill. I am proud that a Labour Government are planning to introduce such a Bill; when his party was in power, the Conservatives neither introduced such a Bill nor thought of it. That shows that in these changing times, Labour is on the side of our armed forces and a stronger Britain.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Government’s constant refrain is that they are “working at pace”, but the reality is that our adversaries are doing exactly that. In an increasingly unstable world, the lack of a defence readiness Bill is a significant disadvantage. Will the Minister set out when the Bill will be published, and the specific date on which it will come before the House?
Luke Pollard
It is so disappointing that all the hon. Gentleman wants is a timetable; he does not say what measures he wants to see in the defence readiness Bill. He does not care what is in it. [Interruption.] We care about the content of the defence readiness Bill: we will get it right, and we will bring it before this House. When it comes before the House, I hope he will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
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?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for Harlow. As we are increasing defence spending, we are directing more of the increased defence budget at British companies, including British small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as larger companies. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can support the SMEs in his constituency, so that they receive a greater share of this Government’s increased defence budget.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a broken procurement system of red tape, delays and high costs. Some 47 of 49 major defence programmes were delayed or not on budget when we came to office. We are speeding up procurement, buying British and aiming to increase direct SME spend by 50%, which represents an extra £2.5 billion that we will spend with UK SMEs.
Edward Morello
In the south-west, the defence sector and associated supply chains provide more than 40,000 jobs and contribute more than £3 billion to the economy. In West Dorset, firms provide skilled employment and apprenticeships, but they are frustrated by repeated delays to the defence investment plan and a slow and uncertain procurement process. Companies in my constituency tell me that, at this rate, they will be headquartered in Europe or the US by this time next year. We risk losing jobs, sovereign capability and billions of pounds of investment. I welcome the Secretary of State announcing that the DIP will be released before the NATO summit, although I am sure the House will note that with a degree of scepticism, but how will the release of the DIP and the procurement process benefit businesses in the south-west, especially small and medium-sized enterprises?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow south-west MP, I know how important defence is for businesses large and small in our part of the world. That is why we have signed 1,200 major defence deals since the general election, and analysis of just 500 of them shows that they are delivering benefit for 8,000 SMEs and micro-SMEs. We will continue to increase the amount of direct spend with small businesses, just as we are speeding up procurement. We inherited a system that was broken and did not work, and we are speeding it up to ensure that we can get more contracts to those brilliant innovators in our economy as soon as we can.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Those of us interested in subsea cables will have been delighted to hear the news announced over the weekend about the AUKUS arrangement, which the Government spoke about, and the development of new technologies with unmanned drone vehicles for subsea capability. Beyond that, will the Minister look at drone capability in this country, specifically at companies such as Skycutter and our other sovereign capabilities, to ensure that we get the right investment with the investment plans into those companies and ensure that they stay here in the United Kingdom?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After many years of much talk under the last Government about AUKUS pillar II, this Government have delivered a project and a capability that, in the hands of our British, Australian and American warfighters, will make a real difference.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about autonomy and drones, for which the Government are committed to increasing funding. We have invested in more capabilities in the United Kingdom, and we are actively exporting those capabilities to our friends and allies abroad. He should expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan, which will be published soon.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
FalconWorks, which is part of the BAE Systems family and the enterprise zone at Warton, has been at the cutting edge of learning the lessons from rapid deployment and redesign of unmanned aircraft in Ukraine. A key part of that is including the pre-investment in research and development as part of the procurement of defence systems. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with companies such as FalconWorks that support huge numbers of jobs in Fylde and across Lancashire?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in commending FalconWorks and BAE Systems for their innovation. The Government have established UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million annual budget to support innovation. That is making a difference in bringing more innovation to the market as well as dual-use potential. We will continue to invest in that, just as we set out that 10% of our equipment budget will be spent on novel technologies, helping to drive the latest kit and equipment for our troops.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I note with interest that the Minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is gaining more and more ground, but are we anywhere near understanding in the Ministry of Defence the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter-drones that will need to be produced now and in the future, and on a mass scale, should any conflict break out? Can he assure the House that that is understood in the MOD?
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.
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?
Luke Pollard
I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the 1,200 contracts we have signed since the general election, because we are not waiting for a defence investment plan to sign contracts with companies large and small. Those companies are producing new jobs and apprenticeships, more demand for skills, and new technologies that are being used by our frontline forces and exported to our allies. All the work that the hon. Gentleman refers to is part of our bigger picture for the defence investment plan. We know that increased defence spending will produce more UK jobs. We are spending more with British companies, and will continue to do so. I will stand up for our armed forces and our defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to talk our defence industry up, rather than talk it down as he has today.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
SMEs are crucial to our success. Through the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, we are cutting red tape and proceeding towards our ambitious SME spend target of an additional £2.5 billon by summer 2028. Last week we announced, with Sweden, the Gripen contract for £500 million of benefits to be shared not just by large companies but by small businesses across the United Kingdom, reinforcing the fact that defence is an engine for growth.
Alex McIntyre
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Romania? Last week I visited Romania through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and met armed forces personnel who are part of the NATO air policing mission. The Russian drone incident showed how important that mission is, and demonstrated the good work that our armed forces personnel are doing in Romania as we speak.
I recently visited Permali and Cherry & White in my constituency, two local SMEs that are working in the defence industry and doing an excellent job. Both are important local employers, and are keen to expand their businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to support such British SMEs through defence procurement, and will he agree to visit Gloucester and meet representatives of those brilliant businesses?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his words about our armed forces and the Typhoons that we have in Romania, which are doing essential air policing roles. With a NATO-first approach, we will continue to do that. I would be very happy to meet him to talk about Cherry & White and Permali, two outstanding companies that provide communication systems and composite materials to defence. Other SMEs wanting to supply to defence should look at the success of such companies, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss their interest.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Defence SMEs are key supporters and indeed organisers of Somerset Armed Forces Day, but the day will not be a success if the glitches in the application software are not resolved, and volunteer veterans have to shoulder tens of thousands of pounds of debt, given the way the funding works. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the organisers to resolve those challenges so that Somerset Armed Forces Day can go ahead?
Luke Pollard
I am not the Minister responsible, but that Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman’s pleas and would be very happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
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.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Luke Pollard
As the hon. Member will know, we are increasing sanctions on Russian oil. [Interruption.] We are increasing sanctions. I entirely appreciate that the Opposition have decided to depart from the principle of cross-party support to play party political games, but that does not stop it being true. We are increasing sanctions on Russia.
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?
Luke Pollard
Yes, we do agree. We know that climate change is driving a number of increasing threats. We also know that as a Department we are cutting our carbon emissions and supporting nature recovery. We do that not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it increases our warfighting readiness. We know from Ukraine that a diesel generator can be seen by an ISR drone many, many kilometres away. We know that if we continue with the use of fossil fuels, we are at a strategic disadvantage on the battlefield. That is why we continue to invest in new technology in that regard.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
There were concerning reports at the weekend about the global combat air programme’s being delayed. We know the funding for Edgewing, agreed in April, is due to run out this month. Can the Minister guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place before the end of June?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The Government support GCAP and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
We have set out our intention to increase the amount of sustainable aviation fuel that the RAF uses. Far from being a sign of weakness, that is a sign of increasing security and sovereignty over our fuel supply, recognising the changing world that we live in and ensuring that the RAF will continue to fly, whatever the constraints on fuel in the future.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Having recently visited Wiltshire cadets in Old Sarum, I very much welcome what the Minister said about National Cadet Week. Will she ensure that all schools, particularly those in Pride in Place areas, such as the one in Salisbury, are made aware of the transformational opportunities of attending the cadets? That will be a great way of expanding the uptake, which I am sure she is aiming for.
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.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Thursday I was on the water with King’s Lynn Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets. As the Minister will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are wholly funded by the Ministry of Defence. What provision will the Royal Navy make to fund vital equipment, such as the new boats that those cadets need?
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
As my ministerial Friends will know, MBDA, which makes the Storm Shadow missiles used in Ukraine, has doubled its workforce in my constituency since 2010 and is investing £4.8 million annually in training. What more can the Secretary of State do to support businesses in the training and resilience of their workforces?
Luke Pollard
In the defence industrial strategy, we set out a £182 million package to invest in skills not only to support people entering defence for the very first time, creating a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them, but to support people retraining their skills. The companies in Stevenage are great examples of how to use that training money well. I am very happy talking to my hon. Friend about how we can go further with that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
RAF Benson primary school in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction in its rolls as a result of the scrapping of the Puma fleet. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium helicopter coming online?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This Government’s plan for defence technical excellence colleges in the east and west of Scotland will give the young people of my constituency training opportunities. Have the Scottish Government responded or agreed to match our ambition with their share of funding for our colleges?
Luke Pollard
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I wrote to the Scottish Government a number of months ago now, but we have still had no reply to our offer of two DTECs in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish National party MPs present will be able to hurry on their Scottish Government to give young people in Scotland the DTECs they deserve.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work in the NHS and that, if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given that defence medical services and the NHS have to work together, will the Government set out what plans they are putting in place for this?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who asks so many parliamentary questions, has not kept up with those two planes. I will be sure to write to him to give him the full details—or perhaps he will get another PQ in which he will be able to inform himself of the information.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Bovington camp in South Dorset has a long list of outstanding repairs—pothole-ridden streets, persistent fly-tipping and no working street lights on King George V Road, to name just a few. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation carries out much-needed repairs and fulfils its most basic maintenance responsibilities?
Luke Pollard
Bovington is an important base for me, and I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend mentions. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can resolve them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the date on which the very first documents relating to the Chinook air disaster were closed and why it is that Ministers seem to have absolutely no oversight, responsibility or accountability over when decisions are made to close documents to the public.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing SMEs. At the start of the year we established the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is supporting dozens of SMEs already. We are also increasing direct spend with SMEs and reducing contracting time to enable SMEs to bid for more defence contracts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Chinook disaster, when we lost so many of our high-ranking anti-terror and security experts. Yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. We had a saga, with the Department claiming for years that it was pilot error, only to have then to reverse that decision, and we still do not have the truth. There are still documents locked away for 100 years, and families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour, but why are the Government continuing to cover up on this issue, particularly on the question of mechanical unfitness?
Defence Readiness
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard
While I welcome the Type 26 global combat ship, as I am sure my hon. Friend does—that is an important naval deal with Norway—will the timeline of its delivery not give the first ships to Norway rather than to the United Kingdom? If I am wrong, that is great, but if that is the case, there must be a discussion in the MOD about extending the life of the existing—
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
indicated dissent.
Mark Pritchard
If I am wrong, great—I am used to being wrong on many occasions, but I am happy to be wrong on something we need to get right.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I know Members across the House will join me and the Prime Minister, who did so earlier, in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, a gifted soldier and horsewoman who died on Friday—a young leader, a young life taken too soon.
His Majesty opened his Gracious Speech with a warning:
“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.
As we debate our response in this Chamber, our armed forces are on missions across the world, facing down those threats, strengthening our alliances, defending our overseas bases and overseas territories, and preparing for missions to the High North, the strait of Hormuz and a post-ceasefire Ukraine. Our armed forces are working around the clock, protecting our homeland, our allies and our interests, equipped with some of the most advanced capabilities in the world.
The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz is hurting all our constituents right across this country. They see it in their newsfeeds, feel it at the petrol pumps and pay for it through rising bills. This Government are determined to do all we can to end that pain as soon as we can. We have stepped up to lead a multinational response. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have built and co-chair a new 40-nation coalition, united in our mission to secure the strait of Hormuz as soon as a lasting ceasefire is in place. The UK’s armed forces are leading the way, deploying advanced autonomous minehunting equipment and new uncrewed boats and drones, and working alongside the heavy metal of HMS Dragon deploying to the middle east with its cutting-edge Sea Viper counter-drone system. That is because innovation, hard power and the ability to sustain it are the currency of our more dangerous and unpredictable age. Hard power is the essential building block of effective deterrence, and our deterrence is our insurance policy against the growing threats we face as a nation. That is why this Government are investing in hard power—investing over £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. Defence innovation is working twice: once for national security and once for British industry. That is the Labour way.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister makes a strong case for hard power, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the investment in British defence. However, he also knows that generals on both sides of the Atlantic have made the case that investment in development is necessary to prevent conflict. In fact, they say that prevention is better than military intervention. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no further cuts to the international development budget in the forthcoming period?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member knows as well as I do that we have a commitment to get back to 0.7% of GDP on international aid when we can, but I remember his party in government cutting defence spending as well. I appreciate what he is trying to say, but let us unite now in understanding that the threats we face today require investment in defence and an increasing defence budget, and that is what this Government are delivering.
Investing more in our armed forces and those who wield the hard power is this Government’s approach; investing more in our defence industry that develops and sustains it is this Labour Government’s approach; and investing more in our alliances which multiply that hard power is this Labour Government’s approach.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for how investing in our armed forces and defence, after 14 years of Tory neglect, is imperative to get Britain growing and for our defence preparedness, but does he agree that these capabilities must always be exercised in the right way? Thirty UK arms licences to Israel were suspended in September 2024, but in the light of the Iran war that he mentioned and the fact that 72,000 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza, could Ministers revisit this? I know that this worsening situation means many constituents want to end all arms sales with the Netanyahu regime.
Luke Pollard
This Government have called for a ceasefire. We have called for increased aid to get to the people who need it. We have introduced arms export controls against those weapon systems that could be used in Gaza. We of course keep all export licences under review, but I think the whole House, whichever party we are in, wants to see a lasting peace and a two-state solution, so that the people of Gaza and Palestine can live side by side with a secure Israel. That is the effort that this Government are making in that respect.
The Conservative equipment plan that we inherited in July 2024 was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces and ending the Tory hollowing out and underfunding that we inherited. Our strategic defence review and our defence investment plan will put that right. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was listening to the Defence Secretary’s speech last night, he would have heard him say that it is getting close.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
When is the plan going to happen? I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of veterans in the UK. They take a keen interest in what goes on in our armed forces. We look across Portsmouth harbour to ships that are sat stationary, not going anywhere, and see a defence industry that is being undermined at every step. When will the Government actually put their words into action?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member, like me, represents an area with a lot of military personnel and a lot of veterans. That is why I know that she will welcome the fact that veterans spending is at a record high under this Labour Government. We are working to deliver the defence investment plan, but that has not stopped us from investing in new capabilities, which I will come to in a moment.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I follow the Minister’s words, as always, with much interest. Has he had a conversation with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who last Thursday spoke of dither and delay, and does he relate that to the extraordinary delay in the defence investment plan?
Luke Pollard
I always welcome recruits to our armed forces and defence debates, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is absolutely welcome in our defence debate today. I say politely to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that I focus a lot of attention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who left an unfunded and hollowed-out armed forces, but he too was a Minister in that Government that hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. While I welcome his intervention and expertise, he cannot escape his record of underfunding our armed forces. We are now working to deliver that funding to our armed forces.
We are on a path to warfighting readiness by 2030. We must be mission ready by 2030 against a peer adversary. That means investing in our armed forces. That mission is backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, backed by our ambitious programme of defence reform—the most ambitious in 50 years—and by the defence industrial strategy, a funded strategy. That is unlike the document worked on by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, which was unfunded and left on a shelf to gather dust.
We are fuelling defence as an engine for growth, creating good jobs up and down the country. Because we are still getting on with the job of defending our country, this Government have signed more than 1,200 defence contracts since the election, nearly nine in 10 of which have gone to UK-based firms.
Dr Luke Evans
I posed this question to the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he was last at the Dispatch Box: where is the DIP stuck? He seemed to point the finger at the Treasury, but can I get an update on where the DIP is actually stuck?
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of Lukes—even Lukes with new beards, as the hon. Gentleman now is—but I am not going to give a running commentary on the DIP. We are working flat out to deliver it and it will be published when it is ready.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.
Jim Shannon
I welcome everything that the Government are putting forward with the spend in Northern Ireland. The Minister has committed himself to that and there have been lots of visits to Northern Ireland to make it better, but the UK spend per head on the mainland is £400 and the UK spend per head in Northern Ireland is £80, which means there is a big difference in what has to be done. What steps will be taken to improve procurement and defence contracts for businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can have equality?
Luke Pollard
We have a brilliant defence industry in Northern Ireland. That is why this Labour Government backed it with a £50 million defence growth deal that I announced only a few weeks ago in Belfast. We will continue to support businesses large and small in Northern Ireland.
In the past week alone, this Labour Government have deployed advanced autonomous minehunting equipment, backed by £115 million of new investment for minehunting drones and counter-drone systems for the strait of Hormuz, and signed a £1 billion contract to equip the British Army with new remote controlled artillery. We have equipped our Typhoon jets with the advanced precision kill weapon system, which will make shooting down Iranian drones cheaper and easier for our RAF, and we have announced funding for 13 new defence unicorns. We are a Government that are backing UK jobs as we rebuild our armed forces, and we are also delivering for our people.
Rebecca Smith
I have a simple question for the Minister. He keeps stating that 1,000 or so contracts have been signed, nearly all with companies based in the UK, but what percentage of those companies are small or medium-sized enterprises compared with the primes?
Luke Pollard
I will get the hon. Lady the full details, but we are backing an increase in defence spending for SMEs, with a target of increasing it by 50% in the next two years. It is our mission to do so and that is why we have stood up the new Defence Office for Small Business Growth. I will get the percentages that she asks for, based on the latest figures.
We are backing our people. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years, we have extended free childcare and we have introduced the first ever independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life. We have ended the Tory privatisation of defence housing, and we have made a £9 billion investment to tackle the scourge of the dreadful military homes that we inherited by refitting or rebuilding nine in 10 military homes. We have turned around the Tory retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited: outflow is now down 8% and inflow is up 13%. That is what a Labour Government are delivering.
As the geopolitics shift, it is important that we, across this House, renew our support for Ukraine. It is important that we all stand together. That is why the Defence Secretary now chairs the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and why the United Kingdom now chairs, with our French allies, the coalition of the willing. Just as it is important to call out those parties that seek to take down Ukrainian flags, it is more important that we challenge them on what they would do to support Ukraine. I ask Reform Members, what will their party do to support Ukraine? Taking down the flags is a backward step, but I am interested in hearing what are the positive steps.
I say to Conservative Members, I am interested in restoring the cross-party unity on Ukraine that we used to have, which seems to be fraying because of the party politics they are playing, so will they say when was the last time the Leader of the Opposition backed the UK’s leadership on the coalition of the willing? I cannot recall one occasion, but I am interested to know when that was. We need to ensure that the message goes out clearly from this House that we back Ukraine and we will continue to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Luke Pollard
No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest.
We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver.
I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough.
This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed.
In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities.
There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations
Luke Pollard Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The defence industrial strategy published in September made it clear that we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. As we move to warfighting readiness, it is essential to ensure that our defence programmes are delivered on time. The House will be aware that we inherited forces that were hollowed out and underfunded—47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed when we took office. The measures that I am introducing today will increase our readiness by incentivising on-time delivery or projects that support our frontline forces and defence operations.
Our defence industry is crucial to ensure the resilience of our supply chains, the strength to resist threats or disruptive events, and the ability to scale-up and surge capacity as needed. We are committing to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and with a promise to invest more comes a responsibility to invest better. For too long, defence procurement has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity. Yet today we know that whoever gets new technology to the frontline first wins. Business as usual is not an option.
The defence industrial strategy set out the requirement for a dynamic and innovation-focused industrial base that assures UK sovereignty, operational advantage and freedom of action. It went on to say that, to achieve this, we must ensure that the commercial tools we deploy incentivise investment and efficiency. This included a review of the Single Source Contract Regulations, which govern some of the nation’s largest and most strategically important defence procurements and account for around half of defence spending on equipment.
I am today announcing the first tranche of legislation that we will make as part of that review. The focus of these changes is to increase the incentives on our single-source suppliers to meet the pressing need to innovate, get more equipment to the frontline faster and maximise the military capability from every pound we spend. I am therefore today laying a statutory instrument to increase the amount of profit available for delivering priority outcomes, such as faster delivery or greater productivity, from 2 percentage points to 10 percentage points. Whether to include such an incentive fee in a particular contract, and its size and structure, will be at the Government’s discretion, within robust statutory constraints. In general, the Government will be expecting exceptional performance in return for the higher rate of incentive profit.
I am also announcing that we will be decreasing the starting profit on contracts that are low-risk, either because they are in lower-risk sectors or because the Government agree to meet all of the supplier’s reasonable costs. This will allow us to powerfully incentivise suppliers to become more productive or to deliver other Government priorities, in order to restore profits to current levels. It will also motivate suppliers to take on more risk- bearing contracts, which is a defence industrial strategy commitment.
I am also introducing reforms that will support our efforts to increase direct spend with UK small and medium-sized enterprises. While the regulations are critical to securing value for money on large, complicated contracts, they can deter smaller, more innovative companies from becoming defence suppliers. Small and novel products, which have gone from factory to frontline in a matter of weeks, have often delivered the greatest successes. It is vital that we continue to maximise results from our small and medium-sized enterprises. We will therefore increase the threshold for a contract coming under the regulations from £5 million to £25 million. This will remove nearly all small and medium-sized enterprises from the regime in the future lifting a recognised regulatory burden and backing small businesses.
We will also be encouraging innovation by introducing an “innovation uplift” to ensure that firms that invest in innovative technologies are properly rewarded for the risk that entails. It will be payable where suppliers invest their own money in developing products without a guaranteed contract or up-front Government funding.
These changes will be brought in through a further statutory instrument prior to the summer recess.
The reforms being established by the NAD—national armaments director—group reflect a deliberate shift in how the Government use the regulations to drive supplier behaviour.
In single-source dominated businesses, suppliers have historically been able to generate strong returns without the performance pressure that competition creates.
These changes are designed to emulate this pressure by making earning strong profits dependent on delivering the outcomes and value the Government need. They draw on feedback from industry and the Single Source Regulations Office and support the NAD group’s wider mission to accelerate procurement and ensure that critical capabilities are delivered to UK war-fighters faster.
[HCWS1564]
Afghan Resttlement Programme
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Today I am able to provide the House with a further update on the Afghan resettlement programme, as we continue to make good progress towards our intent of concluding the programme in this Parliament. This statement provides an update to the House on: the progress that the Ministry of Defence is making with eligibility decisions; the changes to how we deliver relocations for Afghans under the programme; and resettlement in the UK.
Since closing all schemes to new applicants in July 2025, we have made good progress with the application pipeline—falling from circa 25,000 outstanding applications in July to now fewer than 17,000—and are publishing quarterly key performance indicators to hold ourselves to account and ensure maximum transparency. We aim to have made all decisions in the current caseload by spring next year.
I announced last month that we have concluded the Triples review.
We have also now initiated the closure of the review of the ex-gratia medical payments scheme. The scheme was set up in 2020 to provide support to former locally employed staff in Afghanistan who were injured during their employment with the MOD. In 2020, the MOD initiated a process for reviewing the EGMP cases relating to individuals who wish to have their cases reassessed. Further detail on this is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ex-gratia-medical-payments-reviews.
Having closed ARP schemes to new applicants last year and as we work to draw ARP to a close, we estimate there are fewer than 9,000 eligible persons still to relocate to the UK. This is in part because we are finding far fewer applicants meet the eligibility criteria than in the years after the scheme opened.
As part of the commitment to relocate and resettle those found eligible under the ARP schemes, the MOD has been using a third-party organisation to support individuals moving out of Afghanistan. This support has been aimed at ensuring eligible individuals and their families can safely and legally reach a UK visa application centre in a third country to progress through their Home Office entry clearance stages.
This year, however, more eligible Afghans have self-moved to a third country. Having seen increased evidence of successful self-moves and after assessing carefully again the risks to this cohort and other factors, including the value for money for the taxpayer, we have decided to end in-country assistance for movements out of Afghanistan. This decision will have the effect of more closely aligning the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghanistan response route with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which is based on a self-move policy. We will keep the ARP support offer under review as the context evolves.
Eligible Afghans will need to make their own way to a third country when they are able to do so. We are contacting all those immediately impacted by this change.
I want to reassure eligible Afghans that once they reach a safe third country, we maintain provision of our current support until 2028.
As I previously reported to the House, we cannot sustain ARP support indefinitely. To enable us to deliver on our ambitions to conclude this programme well within this Parliament and for us to prepare sensibly for the transition of ARP resources to other defence priorities, we intend to:
Enforce the provision within the immigration rules that requires eligible individuals to attend a VAC appointment within 12 months—save for exceptional circumstances; and
Introduce a backstop of December 2028 for the MOD’S support in third countries, including submission of entry clearance applications to the Home Office. Save for exceptional circumstances, December 2028 will therefore mark the end of relocations to the UK.
As set out by the Defence Secretary in his statement to Parliament on 18 December 2024, it remains the Government’s aim to reduce the reliance on the defence estate as transitional accommodation.
The defence estate has played a vital role in providing transitional accommodation for Afghan families in recent years, enabling them to begin their new lives in the safety of the UK. But the use of the defence estate for the ARP was never intended to be a long-term solution. We have therefore ceased to run transitional sites on the defence estate, with the small number of Afghans remaining in transitional accommodation now supported by local authorities. We are also piloting an approach which empowers local authorities to make tailored decisions on where and how ARP households are accommodated, which will bring positive community outcomes. The MOD is committed to reducing the number of service family accommodation properties being used as settled accommodation and ending their use by the end of 2028.
The small number of hotels procured to help with transitional pressures also play a valuable role in providing safe and secure accommodation for Afghans as they begin their new lives in the UK. However, with a better sense of numbers yet to relocate and the strong progress made in moving those already here into settled accommodation, I can confirm we have started to reduce the use of hotels and will have closed two of six by this May.
I want to take the opportunity to thank our partners in local government and other supportive local organisations, who have, and continue to provide critical support to eligible Afghans in the resettlement process to date.
I want to restate the Government commitment to work with all those involved in ensuring that the ARP delivers on our commitment to resettle those eligible Afghans, many of whom who do so much in support of the UK and contribute to our communities and economy.
I remain confident in progress towards our goal of concluding central Government delivery of this programme well before the end of this Parliament and believe the measures we have taken and set out in this statement will help us deliver on that. I will continue to keep the House updated accordingly.
[HCWS1547]
Armoured Cavalry Programme
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am releasing this statement to the House today to provide Parliament with a further update on the armoured cavalry programme, commonly known as Ajax, following issues raised on exercise Titan Storm in November 2025.
Since my last update to this House, where I provided the findings of the ministerial review, the Army Safety Investigation Team (ASIT) investigation has now completed its investigation. ASIT’s findings indicate no single causal mechanism of the symptoms reported by our soldiers but rather a combination of multiple factors. Specifically on noise and vibration, levels were found to be below legal exposure limits. Instead, these symptoms were likely the result of a combination of factors, including technical issues related to platform conditions at the time of the exercise—such as incorrect track tension and loose or missing engine deck bolts—alongside environmental and human factors, including variability in training and experience, cold exposure, and air quality within the Ajax vehicle itself.
The independent expert panel review remains ongoing, with a final report due soon, and will focus on the less well understood human and environmental factors relevant across defence more broadly.
In January this year I updated this House on the ministerial review, which examined the quality of advice that Ministers, senior officials and military leadership across the MOD received. On receiving further advice from the MOD’s permanent secretary, we commissioned a further independent review to explore this issue. I can confirm that the terms of reference have been agreed and a lead reviewer has been identified and will be appointed shortly.
The safety of our people is non-negotiable. That is the standard our armed forces deserve, and it is the standard this Government will uphold.
I can confirm today that all personnel have now returned to normal duties following exercise Titan Storm. The majority of soldiers who felt ill during this exercise suffered from temporary symptoms and with the ASIT report concluding that there was no single causal factor for the symptoms experienced by the soldiers, I have now agreed to restart the acceptance of vehicles from General Dynamics. However, I accept that the experience for our soldiers using Ajax has not been good enough and that is not acceptable.
I have implemented strict new controls on the reintroduction of the Ajax vehicles that is focused on providing a significantly improved user experience.
Given that the issues presented on exercise Titan Storm, and to ensure the safety of our personnel, I can confirm that the 23 vehicles on the exercise will be treated separately and will not be put back in the hands of soldiers until we have confirmed that it is appropriate to do so.
We have been engaging extensively and directly with our soldiers throughout this process—their experiences matter and they are shaping much of what we do next. As a result, we are considering a phased approach to restarting the Ajax programme.
The first phase will include the restarting of trials using the current version of Ajax. A limited number of vehicles will be used and under very controlled circumstances and maintenance regimes.
The second phase will see the delivery of a number of improvements relating to the use of air filtration, crew compartment heating, and the electrical power generation system—key themes identified and prioritised following exercise Titan Storm.
In addition to these improvements, we will further bolster the safety approach to the Ajax programme. Taking lessons from the aviation industry, we will instigate an approach which will instil a common thread between design, maintenance and operation.
Included as part of that work, there will be named individuals within the Army chain of command who will hold the separate responsibilities for operating and maintaining the vehicle. This is to ensure there cannot be instances where desire to operate a vehicle within the chain of command compromises the necessity for the highest standards of safety. That is why any return to training will also be very controlled with a crawl-walk-run staged progression ensuring safety is paramount throughout.
Using the information gathered from our soldiers, we will continue to proceed safely, responsibly, and transparently to deliver an improved Ajax vehicle for our soldiers.
While we are proceeding cautiously with Ajax, we know we have more to do to rebuild confidence in the vehicle, and we do not underestimate the work still ahead. We aspire to deliver a vehicle into service that is effective on the battlefield and works for our soldiers.
We will continue to work with General Dynamics to proceed safely, responsibly, and transparently to deliver an improved Ajax user experience for our soldiers. The above commitments will be met within the existing programme scope and financial envelope.
As I have done, I will continue to keep the House closely updated on the progress of the programme.
[HCWS1545]
Ajax Programme
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The Ministry of Defence had aspired to update the House via a written ministerial statement on the armoured cavalry programme today. Political channels have requested that this written ministerial statement is delayed until next week, as a result of key meetings—both cross-Whitehall and with the defence prime in question—occurring this week. We have every intention to update the House via a written ministerial statement early next week and would welcome support in agreeing to this delay.
[HCWS1539]
MOD Arm’s Length Bodies: Reform
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I wish to update the House on changes to arm’s length bodies within the Ministry of Defence, delivered as part of defence reform and the productive and agile state programme. These changes strengthen ministerial oversight, reduce duplication, and ensure that Ministers continue to receive high-quality independent expert advice where it is required.
Defence is undertaking the most significant reforms in 50 years. The strategic defence review endorsed the defence reform programme to ensure defence can deliver the armed forces the country needs to keep it safe, maximise investment in the frontline, and support economic growth.
These reforms also support the Government plan for change and the Prime Minister’s productive and agile state initiative. ALB reform is embedded within defence reform, which is committed to delayering and simplifying the arms’ length bodies delivery landscape, reducing duplication and inefficiency, driving reduced costs, and repatriating policy oversight to ministerial control with improved accountability.
In spring 2025, the Cabinet Office undertook a review of arm’s length bodies in line with the aims of the Government plan for change. As part of the recommendations of this review and in delivering defence reform changes, defence has completed one ALB closure and has reclassified two defence ALBs previously classified as advisory non-departmental public bodies as departmental expert committees.
Two defence ALBs have been reclassified.
The independent medical expert group provides essential independent advice on medical and scientific aspects of armed forces compensation scheme and is responsible for:
investigating the issues on which advice is requested;
reaching conclusions and making recommendations based on evidence;
providing evidence comprising independent, published, peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature; and
consulting other experts and inviting interested parties to submit relevant research.
The Nuclear Research Advisory Council provides independent, external, evidence-based advice to the Chief of Defence Nuclear, MOD Defence Nuclear Organisation Director General Warhead, MOD Chief Scientific Adviser, and other senior MOD officials. The committee will also update its name from Nuclear Research Advisory Council to Nuclear Research Advisory Committee to reflect this change.
Both committees will continue to operate with their existing remit, secretariat and membership, ensuring continuity of their work and no disruption to the provision of expert advice.
The provision of independent advice to Government are vital to effective policy and decision making, and these changes ensure that Ministers continue to have access to the right expert advice at the right time, while strengthening accountability within the Department.
Following a review, Defence concluded that it no longer required advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on the medical implications of less lethal weapons, an advisory NDPB, and the committee was closed in November 2025.
[HCWS1538]
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to fund the recommendations of the strategic defence review.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We are in a new era of threat and demands on defence are rising. The strategic defence review sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. The Government have accepted all 62 of the review’s recommendations, and its implementation is being delivered through a whole of UK Government effort. The defence investment plan will deliver on the vision of the strategic defence review and put right a programme that we inherited from the Conservatives that was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we face. It is a 10-year plan and we must get it right.
We are not waiting on the DIP to deliver. We have established the defence cyber and electromagnetic command; launched the Military Intelligence Services and the defence counter-intelligence unit; announced that the UK will purchase 12 new F-35A jets; and launched UK Defence Innovation to streamline our innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget.
This Labour Government have done more. We have reasserted Britain’s place in the world with a rebooted Lancaster House treaty with France, signed the Lunna House treaty with Norway and published the defence diplomacy strategy. We have brought back defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, with 2025 being the highest year of defence exports in 40 years, including landmark deals with Norway and Türkiye. We have published the defence industrial strategy with nearly £800 million to make defence an engine for growth in every corner of the United Kingdom and we have unveiled the groundbreaking Atlantic Bastion programme to make Britain more secure from Russian undersea threats in the north Atlantic. We have also reversed the Tory privatisation that failed our armed forces, with our forces living in appalling accommodation—that is 40,000 forces families—with a £9 billion programme that can upgrade nine in 10 defence houses. This is a Labour Government delivering for Britain and delivering for defence.
Mr Francois
Labour’s strategic defence review had three co-authors. I would like to ask the Minister a question about each of them in turn. Does he agree with Dr Fiona Hill that there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning?
Does he agree with General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the SDR, that there is
“an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”?
Or does he agree with Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and distinguished former NATO Secretary-General, that the Prime Minister has shown a “corrosive complacency” towards defence?
All of those strong words have been spoken in the past 48 hours. This is no coincidence: the authors obviously understand the principles of combined arms manoeuvre. The truth is that Labour’s rhetoric on defence simply does not match the financial reality. We know that in the last financial year the Ministry of Defence was forced to make £2.6 billion of crippling in-year cuts. It has now been reported that in this financial year it will be asked to find a further £3.5 billion on top. That would be catastrophic for our armed forces. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be no in-year savings exercise this year?
Finally, Labour’s SDR, published last June, promised us a comprehensive 10-year defence investment plan, which is still nowhere to be seen. One Labour peer told me prior to Easter that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot, except that Godot finally turned up. Can the Minister now tell the House in what month and what year Labour’s much-vaunted defence investment plan is actually going to be published, or is Labour’s Chancellor, who is adamantly refusing to sign it, still going to hold our armed forces to ransom? Is that not why our Prime Minister, who resolutely refuses to overrule her, is all mouth and no trousers on defence?
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 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?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend does a superb job on the Defence Committee, and he is right to be asking questions of defence. It is precisely because I share many of his views that we commissioned the strategic defence review in the first place. We adopted all 62 recommendations, including the recommendation to move our nation’s military to warfighting readiness, ending the hollowing-out and underfunding that we inherited from the Conservative party. That is why there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year already. The shadow Minister’s Government cut defence when they had their first budget, and we increased defence funding—that is the difference between our two parties.
We are not waiting for the defence investment plan. I entirely understand the seriousness with which the Defence Committee Chair raises these issues. We are announcing defence contracts—not a day goes by without me signing off on a new one. Indeed, this morning I was in Andover announcing the £879 million contract for maintenance of our Apache and Chinook helicopters with Boeing. It is a 1,200-job contract that supports our efforts to make defence an engine for growth and give our fighting forces the very best equipment they can have.
Luke Pollard
They could have dealt with the black mould in our armed forces kids’ bedrooms. They could have dealt with the broken boilers and the leaky roofs. We have dealt with it as a Labour Government, and I am proud of that record. I am also proud that we have refitted the 1,000 worst homes, delivering those improvements so that our military families could be in a decent home by Christmas 2025. We are now starting work on the next tranche of the worst homes so that our people can live in a decent home if they serve. That is the minimum we should offer those brave men and women who serve our forces.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Following the comments by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), may I make a plea that we put this political blame game to one side? The fleet halved under the previous Labour Government. We all have our fingerprints on the current state of the UK military. It is unedifying for us, for this House and for the state that we are in as a nation.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, which I recently set up with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is longer in his place, as well as with Field Marshal Lord David Richards in the other place. Our aim is to highlight not only the scale of the threat that we face but the parlous current state of the British military. Does the Minister share that aim with us? Talking about both is necessary for the national conversation that was highlighted in the strategic defence review but has not happened. Will he join us in talking about the threat, and also give an honest depiction of the state of the UK military so that our public can be informed and can tell us what they would like us to do?
Luke Pollard
I follow the hon. Gentleman on Twitter, so I will be very keen to see the end of the political blame game of his tweets. I look forward to seeing what he tweets next. It might be the embodiment of that spirit that we have just heard here.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the munitions and stockpiles that we inherited, which were far too low for the threat that we are facing. That is the reason why we have already made announcements about increasing the amount of munitions that we are buying for our armed forces. He is also right to talk about the threat. The Defence Secretary has spoken from this Dispatch Box about the increasing threat that Russia, in particular, poses to the United Kingdom and our allies, and we will continue to do that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his new all-party group to have that conversation, which is an important one about how we address the underfunding and hollowing out of our forces that we inherited. I will also be able to help him understand the progress that we are now making under this Labour Government to restock and to rearm: a lot of work done, but a lot of work still to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister look at the sorry tale of Glenart Castle Mess in Longbridge, Birmingham? This is armed forces accommodation not from decades ago; it opened in 2017 at a cost to the taxpayer of £36 million. It was built with 95% flammable external cladding, and the fire defects within the accommodation have now been judged to be so severe that the facility will be closed for up to a year at further great cost to the taxpayer. This was hopelessly mismanaged by the previous Government. The armed forces personnel who work at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham do an essential job, and they deserve better.
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I know he has been assiduous in asking detailed parliamentary questions about the refurbishment and refit of the Longbridge mess, and I am very happy to meet him to hear directly about his and his constituents’ concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Well-placed sources are suggesting that the number of Type 26 hulls on the order book may be reduced or transferred to our Norwegian allies. I appreciate that Labour has a track record of reducing the number of frigate and destroyer hulls, but can the Minister nevertheless confirm that there are no such plans and that we will proceed with a minimum of eight Type 26 frigates, particularly given the increase in Russian submarine activity discussed by his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on Monday?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a Defence Minister in the last Government, the state of the forces that he passed over to this Government. When it comes to frigates—I could bore the House on this; it is one of my favourite subjects—he will also know that the incredible deal we have signed with Norway sustains Type 26 production on the Clyde for many years to come and involves not only the eight British Royal Navy Type 26s but five Norwegian ones. We are currently working with Norway on build slots. That will create a combined force—a truly interoperable, interchangeable force. Indeed, the only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs. That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway, and part of an agreement about how we can work more closely with our joint expeditionary force allies in northern Europe, which I hope can be expanded to other nations as we look to sell the Type 31 frigates to more of our partners.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he asked his questions. I notice that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was agreeing with every word that he said in relation to the cuts and the lack of increase in defence spending. I recommend to my hon. Friend and all colleagues in the House the report produced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when he was in charge of the Defence Committee, called “Shifting the Goalposts”. It sets out the amount of GDP spend on defence going back a number of Governments. It shows that the last Labour Government left defence spending at 2.5% of GDP in 2010, a figure sadly never matched in the following 14 years. We are getting back to 2.5% of GDP. April 2027 is when we will hit that, and we will set out how we will be spending that in the defence investment plan that will be published shortly.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Successive UK Governments have spent years cutting defence spending, reducing the size of our armed forces to record lows, dismantling our Navy, slashing Scottish regiments and hollowing out investment in essential equipment and training. There is a continued refusal to join SAFE— Security Action for Europe—even when Canada is joining. There are delays to the strategic defence review, no certainty as to when the defence investment plan will be released and no urgency from the Prime Minister to act on the recommendations that make it clear that there is a £28 billion black hole in the existing plan. What is the plan to deal with the Prime Minister’s “corrosive complacency”, and how are Scottish voters supposed to trust this Labour Government when, according to the SDR’s authors, they are failing so categorically to keep us safe and threatening the security of Scotland?
Luke Pollard
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at our record, which includes a Type 26 deal that sustains shipbuilding on the Clyde and investment in a welding school in Scotland that we had to step in and fund because the SNP Government chose not to. It is good that the SNP Government have now finally realised that the defence of the realm is important, but I would ask him to pass on to the SNP Government that I am still waiting for a proper reply to our offer to match-fund a second defence technical excellence college in Scotland. We want to have two in Scotland. We have provided the funding for one, and I hope his Government will match-fund the second. I am still waiting for a reply on that, and while this goes on, we are moving further and further away from more young Scots being able to access the courses that they could be doing from September onwards if the Scottish Government would agree to this.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a Government who are building ships in Scotland, whereas our Scottish Government colleagues are building ferries in Poland, Turkey and now China. Quite incredible.
Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I always use security guards at my surgeries, and a young chap who attended my surgery last year in Oxgangs library had just left 3 Rifles. He said he had left because he had joined some years ago on the promise of travel and excitement but spent a lot of time in barracks because of the lack of funding in our armed services. The last time I visited 3 Rifles, they had just come back from Finland, and some were about to go back there to serve alongside our allies. Some were due to go to Iraq, but I understand that that trip might not have happened. They are all now better paid. Outside the barracks site, people can see their homes getting renovated, and I have to say that there is a bit of jealousy about the quality of the kitchens.
Recently, just before the recess, I was able to give a tour to a young apprentice from one of our defence primes who lives in Balerno in Edinburgh South West. She was very clear that this was not an apprenticeship or a job; it was a whole career that she had before her, because of the scale of what is happening in the sector. When the Minister goes around our defence establishments and our defence contractors, what is the mood? Do they trust us to deliver against this budget commitment?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and the armed forces personnel he spoke to and about in his question. We have a British Army that is currently globally deployed. I am incredibly proud, as I imagine the whole House is, of our forces that are deployed in Estonia as part of our forward land force and in Cyprus and across the middle east in support of our allies, and those that are training and have been in support of our High North allies on various exercises. I do not ask our forces to comment on party political matters because they are there to serve the Government of the day, but I do know that having them and their families living in homes without damp, mould, leaky roofs or broken boilers greatly improves their mood. That is precisely why this Government are delivering an upgrade to nine in 10 service family accommodation units in the next 10 years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the challenges of tying defence expenditure to GDP is that the economy fluctuates. When Labour crashed the economy in 2008, defence spending in GDP terms went up. The reality is that as the economy fluctuates over the course of this Parliament and the next, there could be a challenge for actual defence spending. As the Minister looks at the defence investment plan, can he ensure that the level of expenditure continues to rise so that we actually get the investment in defence that we need?
Luke Pollard
It is a Liz Truss klaxon moment, isn’t it? The hon. Member’s memory is so brief that he has forgotten about what Liz Truss and the Conservatives did to our economy only a few years ago. I agree that we need to increase defence spending. Let me say to him clearly: not a single person in uniform today—not an admiral, general or anyone of any rank who has served in the UK armed forces—has had a decade ahead of increasing defence spending. It is such a sizeable change when it comes to our armed forces spending. [Interruption.] I notice more chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Members are grumpy that it is a Labour Government who are increasing defence spending when their Government cut it, but I will continue happily working cross-party in support of our armed forces.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When this Government took office, they inherited an armed forces on its knees and responded to that challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and a bold 10-year strategic defence review to ensure that we have an armed forces that once again is able to protect our nation. That is why it is so important that we get a defence investment plan as quickly as possible. I have heard today from my hon. Friend that he is keen to get that out as quickly as possible and also that it should be the right plan. May I simply take this opportunity to urge him to keep going so we can get that plan as soon we can?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for not only his question, but the work he does. He is a quiet and determined champion for Sandhurst and people who train in his constituency. There is a real opportunity with the increasing defence investment that we are making to renew the facilities not just in Sandhurst, but in military accommodation and bases across the United Kingdom and further afield. It is not just infrastructure that we are increasing. I am especially proud to be part of a Government, and a ministerial team with the Defence Secretary, that are increasing support for childcare for those who serve, because it is our people, not just our equipment, that we should focus on, and that is what the defence investment plan will do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Minister accept and agree with the mood of the majority of the British people, and I think the mood of this House, which is to accelerate defence spending to 3% of GDP in this Parliament, not the next Parliament? Can the Minister confirm that the year-long delayed defence investment plan will arrive before the summer holidays?
Luke Pollard
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would like to give some of the money that his former Reform leader in Wales got from Russia to the defence budget, we would have a wee bit more than we have today.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Thales employs over 800 people, including 66 apprentices, on its site in Templecombe in my constituency. There it develops world-leading sonar systems for the Royal Navy’s Astute and Dreadnought submarines, as well as delivering critical systems to enhance UK security and defence. Given the training capability gap identified in the strategic defence review, how will the Secretary of State increase funding for apprenticeships to ensure that we address skills shortages?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her question and for calling out and celebrating the work of Thales in her constituency. I have visited a number of Thales sites recently and have been impressed not just by the management, but in particular by the apprentices, who feel that there is a bright future ahead of them. She will know that we have announced that Yeovil will be one of five new defence technical excellence colleges, which is not too far from her constituency. That is a £10 million investment in each DTEC, designed to increase the number of places available for young people to take defence and defence-adjacent courses supporting not just defence primes, but, importantly, the wider ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprises. By increasing defence spending, we do not want only to bolster those large defence companies; there is a huge opportunity to grow smaller defence SMEs as well, and addressing the skills challenges they have is a key part of that.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have served on operations under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and I can tell horror stories of how I was treated, which led to 15-plus years of complex PTSD. When I finally rebuilt my life, I wanted to ensure that nobody ever had to go through what I went through. As soon as I got here six years ago, I worked cross-party to say that anything under 3% on defence spending—this was in the last Parliament, when my Government were in charge—was unacceptable. There is not a serious professional in the defence industry who thinks the current level of spending is adequate to meet the world’s needs. Does the Minister think that it is a serious investment that we are making at the moment?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for being honest about the consequences of his time in service. It is so important that when any veteran who has served in our forces needs to access help, they know that it is available. It is platforming those experiences and being honest about them that enables more people to come forward, so I thank him for that.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to increase defence spending. I want to increase defence spending, we have already increased defence spending, and we will be spending 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. However, I entirely appreciate how he made his remarks, and the Minister for Veterans and I are happy to talk to him about his experiences to see if we can learn from them and help others in a similar situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
National security depends on more than conventional defence spend, because our democracies can be brought down by methods other than weapons. There are concerns that the public are not yet sufficiently aware of the risk and reality of foreign information manipulation and interference. How does tackling this aspect of hybrid warfare feature in a cross-departmental way within the Government?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to go beyond conventional defence. That is why we have conventional and nuclear deterrence as part of our armed forces posture. She will also have heard in my opening remarks about the investment we are making in cyber. This is not just a Ministry of Defence effort; increasingly, if we are to deliver the national security we need, we need a whole-of-Government approach. That means the MOD working with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and the devolved Governments to be able to tackle the deliberate misinformation that we see our adversaries trying to pump into our newsfeeds. Let me be very clear that we do not accept in any way Russian interference or any interference in our democracy or our way of life, but across Government we are having a national conversation that enables people to be better equipped to identify and challenge it, as well as putting more pressure on social media companies to remove it and not have it on their platforms in the first place.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My question follows on perfectly from that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Lord Robertson said that we are ill prepared for the threats of today, never mind tomorrow. While Britain may not be under daily attack from missiles and tanks—not yet, anyway—we are under daily assault by misinformation and disinformation from hostile actors who are targeting our institutions, democracy and social cohesion. The Minister has referred to the investments and operational changes that have been put into cyber and electromagnetic security. Given the foundational nature of the challenge to our democracy, is he convinced that the Chancellor is convinced of the urgent need to make huge investments in this area? This is a challenge we have never experienced before—a challenge that collapses the traditional idea of the frontline with the home front.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for the way that he posed his question. There was much in it that I agree with him on. He is certainly right that we are not at war but nor are we at peace. We can look at a number of domains where we see UK forces and infrastructure being attacked, the cyber domain being the most obvious. The Defence Secretary revealed only last week the threats to our undersea infrastructure from covert Russian activity, and we must be able to call it out and say to Putin, “We see what you are doing. You will not have deniability.” In fact, the military call it “denying deniability”, which is a typical military phrase, but I think we all know what that means. There is more to be done here, including the national conversation about the threats that we face and how all of us can, in our own way, take actions—just updating the operating system on our phones makes us and the country safer. There is lots more that we can do, especially in this House, to further support that, and I am happy to have a conversation with him about how we do that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the key recommendation of a national conversation to build support and understanding among the population, it is all very well having debates here or in Whitehall, but what conversations are the Government having with the Departments for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport, the BBC and social media providers about the issues that are faced and about communication with the public to build support for funding and increase understanding of the challenges we face?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very fair question. My colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Coaker, is the Minister leading on the national conversation. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that Lord Coaker recently published the defence diplomacy strategy. Although it deals with more traditional diplomacy, it also deals with the necessity of speaking to our own people and to the wider population about how to respond to the threats we face. We are still in the early stages of forming the proposal for that formal national conversation, but, again, it must be a cross-Government effort that includes the Cabinet Office and Departments beyond the Ministry of Defence. The way we defend our nation in the 21st century is not just about the brilliant men and women in uniform; it is a whole-of-Government and whole-of-nation effort. That is why we are trying to kick-start that conversation. A debate about defence spending certainly contributes to that.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Have the Government considered issuing defence bonds, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, to ringfence capital for defence spending? If not, why not?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Lib Dem proposal. I would be interested to see the detail on who ultimately pays for it. He will know we have made a commitment that, following the publication of the defence investment plan, we will publish the defence finance and investment strategy, which will set out how we can support businesses large and small and bring further investment into the sector. It will deal with everything from preventing small defence businesses from being debanked—a real scandal and problem for small businesses as they seek to grow—to leveraging patient and venture capital with a potential interest in defence, in order to expand UK businesses and support the development of capabilities. That will renew our own capabilities and provide export opportunities. We are doing more work in that regard.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Often, most of the focus is on munition and defence systems, but what are the Government doing to boost defence numbers and ensure that our military personnel are properly paid for their vital role? For too long, our junior non-commissioned officer ranks have been poorly paid and had poor living and working conditions. A defence network with adequate numbers and good morale is a necessary complement to a well-equipped military.
Luke Pollard
I look forward to being in Northern Ireland next week for the announcement of the Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is the fifth of our five defence growth deals. I am not allowed to say the total amount of investment, but we have announced £200 million of a £250 million pot, so the maths will hopefully give some reassurance that a big announcement for the hon. Lady’s part of the world is coming shortly. She is absolutely right to talk about the numbers. We have not only addressed the problems in the recruitment system—especially the time of flight between someone applying and getting to a training establishment, which took far too long—but introduced novel forms of entry. The direct cyber entry, through which we recruit people for their cyber skills, not for their skill in running around a muddy field with a heavy backpack on, is a good example. It is one new way in which we are getting the skills and talent that we need into our armed forces.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced. I would recommend a little caution in blaming previous Governments for their defence inadequacies; I do not think that any of the parties that have been in government in recent years have clean hands when it comes to the scrutiny of those decisions.
I want to ask about defence financing. The Minister has announced a £5 billion uplift for this year. Why, then, is there an exercise to excise £3.5 billion through in-year savings? How much of that is carried forward from last year’s exercise to excise £2.6 billion through in-year savings?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Defence spending is rising rapidly in China, Russia, the UK, the US and all over Europe. In every country in the world, there is pressure on welfare budgets and there are increasing levels of human and social inequality. A global environmental disaster is on the horizon. At the same time, the agencies for peace—such as the UN and its agencies—and overseas aid budgets are being cut. Global inequality is getting worse, and the conditions for future wars are being created. What plans do the Government have to put some energy into a UN-led peace process to bring a cessation to the dreadful conflicts going on around the world? Where is the investment for peace in the future, or are we going to continue down the road of spending more on arms and less on people’s human needs?
Luke Pollard
I might spend more of my time in secure rooms at the Ministry of Defence without my mobile phone, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time in this Chamber hearing from Foreign Office Ministers about our work to call for a lasting peace, not just in Gaza but in the wider middle east. We continue to do that; we continue to invest in that. The world is a more dangerous place every single day. That is why we are increasing defence spending to deter aggression. The point of our armed forces is to deter aggression, and then—and only then—to defeat it if necessary. He is right to say that the consequences of conflict are frequently felt by the most vulnerable. That is precisely why we are continuing to call for peace, not just to end Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine—a free and independent sovereign nation—but to bring a lasting peace, with a two-state solution, for Gaza and Israel in the middle east.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Thanks to the tireless work by many in Leonardo in Yeovil, in the Government and beyond, the new medium helicopter contract was awarded and there is more investment in Yeovil, so thank you. However, without the defence investment plan, investment across the country is still being held up. I know that the Minister is working hard to get the plan right, and I thank him for that, but will he set out what lessons have been learned from the delays to the new medium helicopter and the DIP, to ensure that we fund defence procurement more effectively?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed not just the signing of the new medium helicopter contract, but the improvements that we secured to it. It was shocking, frankly, that the Conservative deal that we inherited had only 8% UK content in the exports—we have increased that. He will also know that we have awarded Yeovil a defence technical excellence college to support the skills needs not just of Leonardo, but of the wider ecosystem. He will also know, because I texted him yesterday, that the Boeing deal we have announced today—£149 million for Chinook and Apache helicopters—also includes investment in, and support for, jobs in his Yeovil constituency. We are continuing to invest in defence and in Yeovil.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, said that we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget, so will the Minister explain to my constituents why this Government can set out their welfare spending plans until 2031, but cannot publish their defence investment plan for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I do not think Britain gets stronger by pushing kids into poverty. That is the fundamental difference, as I see it, between the welfare policies of our two parties. I am absolutely clear that we should address the high levels of child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—that is exactly the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have said it a number of times, that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will be published when it is ready. I think he would, in hindsight, much prefer a plan that is ready to be published over one that is not. That is why we are working to deliver our defence investment plan, which will set out spending for the next 10 years, up to 2036 or so.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I entered this House months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and I was struck at the time that the debates on Ukraine were solemn, dutiful and not party political. The contrast with the debate over defence spending is stark. The Leader of the Opposition has decided to use it as a foil for her party, while the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was on the radio last night saying that the Labour party will not be helped electorally by an increase in defence spending. With Trump making threats about US commitment to NATO, does the Minister share my view that we need to link armed forces capabilities to the external threat, rather than indulge in this party political navel gazing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to the nation. He is absolutely right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. It benefits not just the United Kingdom but every NATO member state, including the United States, and we are stronger when we stand together. That is why we are delivering against the NATO target and delivering new NATO regional plans, and it is why a debate that looks at how we can develop the latest capabilities, and bring forward more skills into the sector and more private sector investment into our defence companies, is good for us. We do this because it is in the national interest to support our national security. I stand at the Dispatch Box not for party politics but for our national security. In darker times, I hope that is what we would all be doing.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?
Luke Pollard
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for most of this urgent question. I have been very clear, but he is trying to put words in my mouth; I appreciate him giving it a good go, but I am afraid he is not going to get away with that. We live in a new era of threat—I think he knows that too—and we are dealing with hollowed out and underfunded forces. He might not be able to put that in a soundbite, but privately I think he can concede, with hindsight, that the state of the forces the Conservative Government passed to this Labour Government was perhaps not as he would have liked. We have to invest in our forces, and in new stockpiles and technologies; we have to retire old kit and equipment that would not work in Ukraine and is unsuited to modern combat; and we have to do all that at the same time as addressing the defence housing crisis, the recruitment crisis and ever-falling morale. We have now stabilised morale in the armed forces. We have a plan to increase defence spending, with an extra £5 billion, moving to 2.5%, 3% and 3.5%, as I have set out. We also plan to invest in the latest technologies. I hope that with hindsight the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment, but I entirely understand why he has to have an attack-y soundbite for his socials in the meantime.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Nothing is more important to our national security than our nuclear deterrent, and we in Westmorland and Furness are not only massively proud to provide the home for the Trident submarine programme; we also recognise it is a grave responsibility, just as it is in the constituency of my neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), where it is built.
Our ability to build those submarines and defend our country depends on us being able to recruit and retain brilliant staff from around the country and beyond, and the role of the local authority in providing housing and services is crucial. Does the Minister agree that there has been a complete disconnect, given that the local government settlement leaves Westmorland and Furness council with a 31% cut, massively hampering the ability of Barrow, Kendal and Penrith to do the things that it needs to do to attract the people to keep our country safe? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and put that right?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for our independent nuclear deterrent. It was a shame that when the Liberal Democrats were in power, the decision to renew the deterrent was delayed—I know he had strong views on that at the time. As the MP for Devonport, where our Vanguard-class submarines are refitted, I am also really proud of the people I represent who make a material difference to the defence of our nation every day through their hard work in Devonport dockyard.
I met representatives of Team Barrow on Monday, when I was in Blackpool talking about the new defence technical excellence college that we have announced. That will support not only Blackpool and the Fylde, but Barrow, Blackburn, Lancashire and a number of colleges, including Wirral Met college. I recognise that defence is making the argument for skills and putting money where our policy is by investing in them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, his question about local government funding is for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I reassure him that the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to Team Barrow is strong, and I am happy to brief him further on that if it would be useful.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have listened carefully. The Minister knows full well that committing to spend 3% or 3.5% tomorrow does not mean that the Government cannot commit to commissioning that expenditure now. He is aware that the delivery pipeline can often take five to 10 years in any case, and therefore the defence investment plan becomes vitally important. He has evaded answering the question of when, but surely he can put to us a deadline date by which the defence investment plan can be delivered. In doing so, can he commit to ensuring that RNAS Culdrose and the national drone hub in my constituency will see growth as a result?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is a wily Member, trying to ask the same question from a different angle; I appreciate his effort. He will know that we are working flat-out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. As a fellow south-west MP, let me say how important it is that we support not just the capabilities we have, but new capabilities: the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth and the incredible aerial drone facilities across the peninsula, including in Cornwall. There is real opportunity to deliver that. The defence growth deal for Plymouth certainly includes wider knock-on effects for the entire peninsula, and the local innovation partnerships fund bid that was secured from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology for our part of the world provides support for the entire peninsula in the development of new autonomous and drone technologies, which I hope will be accelerated even further in the years ahead.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As I said earlier in the week, Northern Ireland’s geographical position means that it increasingly occupies a key geo-security location, particularly in the light of the threat to our transatlantic underground cables. In that context, will the strategic review deal with the situation that was revealed in a parliamentary answer: that there are only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland, and only 70 RAF personnel? Surely if we are to deal with threats that are increasingly evident, we need a proper distribution and balance of personnel across the United Kingdom. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, maybe he will bring news in that regard.
Luke Pollard
I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the numbers for the Army, which are considerably higher than those he suggested for the Navy and the Air Force. It is right that we distribute and allocate our forces personnel against the mission taskings they are given, but he is also right to talk about the key importance of protecting our undersea cables, including in his part of the world. It is precisely for that reason that we are seeing more investment in technologies that enable us to defend, monitor and protect those undersea cables. As he will know—we have met a number of times to talk about this—I want to see more investment in every part of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and I hope to bring him good news on that next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am looking forward to the good news. I thank the Minister for his answers today and for his positive TV interview this morning, which encouraged us all, but will he also announce the next stage of the defence growth fund? No one doubts his commitment or interest, and he has made regular visits to the defence sector in Northern Ireland. It is so important that Northern Ireland can gain from the defence growth fund incentive and that it completes its own specific growth deal. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, can we expect the balance of the defence growth fund to be announced officially? I think we all know what figure is. It would do no harm to announce it today, Minister.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman tempts me. The opportunity for our defence industries in Northern Ireland is considerable, not just in supporting large defence businesses like Thales, which produces the lightweight multi-role missile in Belfast, but particularly in supporting the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are based in Northern Ireland. I was with Boeing this morning, announcing the new helicopter maintenance contract, and indeed Boeing has made a large investment in Northern Ireland.
There is a huge opportunity to make the case that a career in defence—whether in uniform or in a civilian role backing our forces—is not just a good job, but a good, well-paid, decent job that can provide an entire career of opportunities. The more that we can make a positive case for investment in the core defence industries and in the industries that sit alongside defence—such as digital technologies, which could have defence applications—the more that we will be able to keep us all safe and provide young people with good opportunities. I look forward to speaking to the hon. Gentleman and Northern Ireland colleagues further about that opportunity very soon.
Bills presented
Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) (Payment of Fines) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Freddie van Mierlo, supported by Layla Moran, Charlie Maynard, Calum Miller, Olly Glover, Dr Danny Chambers, Pippa Heylings, Mr Will Forster, Vikki Slade, Martin Wrigley, Manuela Perteghella and Rachel Gilmour, presented a Bill to omit from the Water Industry Act 1991 provision enabling water companies to make an application for a change to the date by which a penalty or portion of a penalty must be paid or to appeal to the High Court in respect of such a date; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 420).
Food Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke, supported by Tim Farron, presented a Bill to make provision about a national food strategy; to make provision about certain duties relating to the implementation of that strategy; to make provision about procurement of British fruit and vegetable produce by certain public bodies; to make provision about resilience of UK-farmed food supply; to place a duty on certain public authorities to promote access to healthy and affordable food; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 421).
Gurkha Veterans
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for the way he introduced this debate. In particular, I think the whole House is grateful for the detailed description he gave of the very gallant service of Ghanendra Limbu and his experiences serving in the Falklands. The contribution of the Gurkhas to the Falklands is a story not told as frequently or as loudly as it should be, and I am grateful to him for putting that on the record.
I am standing in today for my colleagues the Minister for Veterans and People, who leads on Gurkha issues in the Ministry of Defence, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, who looks after the composition of the United Kingdom’s armed forces. I will pass on a number of the requests for meetings made by my hon. Friends to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is very happy to continue her discussions with Members of Parliament and, indeed, representatives of the Gurkha community. I know the hon. Member for Tewkesbury did not have time to ask his questions—luckily, his office sent me a copy of his questions in advance—so I am pleased to confirm that the Minister for Veterans and People would be happy to meet him to talk in detail through the issues he wanted to raise.
I join Members across the House in honouring the extraordinary service of Gurkhas and their families, who, for more than 200 years, have stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain, serving the Crown with unwavering dedication and courage. The Gurkhas’ legacy is woven into the very fabric of our armed forces, and successive Governments have recognised not only their unique history and contribution, but the responsibilities that the UK Government share as a result.
In that spirit, we have in place a range of measures to support Gurkha veterans and families, implemented by this Government and previous ones. As we would expect, eligible Gurkha veterans in the UK are entitled to the same welfare support as all UK veterans, in terms of access to Ministry of Defence-funded services and to the vital work of third sector organisations. We have collaborated closely with Gurkha veteran representatives, and continue to listen to their priorities and concerns. The Minister for Veterans and People met the Gurkha G10 representatives last week, and will do so again shortly.
As a result of this engagement, a range of cross-Government opportunities have been identified, and work is being done between a number of Departments to take those opportunities forwards, shaped by what Gurkha veteran representatives have told us matters most to them. This includes clearer immigration guidance, targeted outreach to improve access to benefits, and stronger support for health and social care, which was raised by a number of colleagues.
For those who have returned home to Nepal, our commitment does not end at the border. Welfare provision in Nepal is shaped to local needs, with the Gurkha Welfare Trust providing tailored support and delivering essential welfare and medical care with community programmes in Nepal, as it has in the United Kingdom. UK Government funding of nearly £10 million a year helps to sustain that work, recognising that many Gurkha veterans choose to return to Nepal and continue their lives there. In addition to the £40 million committed by the previous Government in 2019, we have provided a £24 million uplift to the medical and healthcare grant in aid already in place. The UK Government have agreed in principle to extend that support beyond 2029, and in addition we have committed to uplift support for the Gurkha welfare advice centres.
Gurkha veterans also benefit equally from the provisions of the armed forces covenant, which we are seeking to extend into law in the Armed Forces Bill, as mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I would like to recognise the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in leading the charge through our new veterans’ support service, Valour, which brings Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector together, so that every veteran, including those who have served in the Gurkhas, can access the healthcare, employment, housing and mental health support that they deserve. It is about ensuring that no one falls through the cracks, and that the support is joined up across government.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have Gurkha communities in their constituencies, and I join the praise for those communities. Although the Gurkha community in my Plymouth constituency is much smaller than those of some of my colleagues, it is none the less strongly supported across Plymouth.
Before I turn to pensions, I want to respond to two points that were raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) mentioned direct flights; I recommend that he speaks to the Aviation Minister about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked about the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. He will know that that decision sits with the Government of Nepal rather than with the Government of the United Kingdom.
I cannot let the opportunity go by without echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) that Gurkha curries are absolutely delicious. The kindness and generosity that I have received from serving Gurkhas when visiting our deployed troops underlines what an important contribution they make to our military service and, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, to morale as well.
Peter Swallow
I thank the Minister for all that he has said so far. We have had an incredibly harmonious debate, with views shared by Members from across the House on this important issue. I note that a Member of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has now entered the Chamber, but does the Minister share my concern that Reform Members did not contribute to the debate? This is not the first time that we have had an important debate on defence from which Reform Members have been absent. Does he agree that if that party wants to present itself as being serious about defence, perhaps it should involve itself when we are debating important issues such as this?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a strong point and has placed it on the record.
The matter of pensions was raised by a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. As has been discussed, this is a challenging area. We have honoured the historical terms under which each Gurkha served. At the time of the 1948 GPS, Gurkhas were eligible for an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, typically at a much younger age than their British counterparts. Indeed, they were eligible from the age of 33. That resulted in pensions being paid for a significantly longer period than would have been available to UK service personnel at the time. I entirely understand the calls for parity, but it is important to compare like with like at the time, and I will come to what that would mean in due course.
Although the monthly pension payments under the Gurkha pension scheme may be smaller than those of their British counterparts, the Gurkha pension scheme was paid for a significantly longer period. Indeed, based on the Government Actuary’s Department report, this longer payment period means that the vast majority of Gurkha pension scheme recipients receive pensions at least as good as—and, in many cases, better than—the comparable pension for a British soldier.
It is worth noting that until 1975, British personnel who left at the point of 15 years’ service had no right to a pension at all, not even a deferred one. After the introduction of preserved pensions, soldiers who left before 22 years of service and officers who left before 16 years of service were entitled to receive their pension only from the age of 60. The Gurkha pension scheme also makes generous provision for dependants, reflecting the fact that members were expected at that time to retire to Nepal after service. Over time, that changed, and since 2006 all new Gurkha recruits have joined the armed forces pension scheme alongside their British colleagues.
Gurkhas serving between July 1997 and 2007 were given an opportunity to transfer to the AFPS. Those Gurkhas who left before 1997 receive the GPS pension. These arrangements have been tested and upheld through two judicial reviews and a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights. The courts have confirmed that the existence of different pension arrangements was not unlawful discrimination, but justified and reasonable at the time.
We have taken important steps to address immigration and settlement issues. Back in 2009, the Labour Government supported Gurkha veterans to settle in the UK alongside their families—that has been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House—and introduced reforms that ensured Gurkha veterans settled here and had the same access to public services as any other resident. Some 15 years later, in our manifesto, the Labour party promised to scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years and their dependants, and that includes many Gurkhas. We are working closely with the Home Office to deliver on that commitment.
Ministers and officials maintain an ongoing dialogue with Gurkha representatives, the Government of Nepal and other partners. Last year, the then Minister for Veterans and People met the ambassador for Nepal, and his successor has met a number of the G10 Gurkha veteran groups, underscoring the determination to find solutions together. A number of points were raised in the debate, and I will ask the Minister for Veterans and People to respond in detail; I recognise the very serious, heartfelt and important contributions from colleagues across the House, and I know that she will be happy to meet them to discuss this issue further.
It is important that we have clarity on these issues and understand what is possible. Governments of all flavours—the Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats when they were in government, and the Labour Government—have maintained similar positions or the same position on pensions. However, there is still more support that can be provided to Gurkha veterans and we are happy to explore that with anyone who has an interest in these brilliant people, who have served our nation very well.