Afghan Resttlement Programme

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Written Statements

[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

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Written Statements

[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

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Written Statements

[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

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Written Statements

[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

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

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

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

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased today to be able to update the House on the review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. As this House knows, these Afghans worked alongside UK armed forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as Members on both sides of the House.

When in opposition, the Defence Secretary and I, alongside many sitting and former Members of the House, advocated for a review of decisions made on Afghan relocations and assistance policy applications from the Triples. This review was begun under the previous Government, but I am proud to have been able to drive its progression since I took office and ensure that those who we owe so much to are appropriately supported.

Last year, I announced a second and final phase of the Triples review, following the conclusion that, in some cases, evidence of certain top-up payments would also be sufficient to demonstrate a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives in Afghanistan due to the nature of the work undertaken by those individuals. This revised approach made it more likely that some individuals from these cohorts previously found ineligible could potentially secure a positive decision.

I believe this second phase was the right thing to do—to ensure we fully analysed and understood all available records that could inform eligibility decisions for the those who may have been impacted. Today I can announce that this review is complete, and over the two phases we have overturned 884 decisions.

I can assure the House that all those who have already had their applications reviewed under phase 1 and 2 of the Triples review and have had a fresh decision made have either been contacted or will be contacted in due course. All decisions made in phases 1 and 2 will still carry a right to have this decision reviewed.

This review has led to improvements in the ARAP casework function, and we have put in place additional resourcing and new processes to continue to drive those improvements. Enhanced training is now in place within the ARAP casework team to better identify organisations that may hold relevant records—and guidance has been amended to reflect this.

The Ministry of Defence is investing in both the systems and the people to improve our digital records management now and in the future, as well as enhancing our capability and approach to interrogating legacy data sets. In co-ordination with the recommendations made in the McIvor review into data protection compliance within the MOD, we have also been implementing a digital records management plan across defence. The journey of improvement is of course a continuous one, and the MOD will continue to build on the learning from this review.

Although I cannot change what happened in the past, I am proud of the work that we have undertaken to conclude this review and deliver on our promise to support eligible Triples who contributed to the UK mission in Afghanistan.

This Government are clear that we intend to conclude the Afghan resettlement programme by the end of this Parliament. The end of the Triples review is an important step towards this. However, there is more to do, and I will update the House shortly on further developments.

[HCWS1486]

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to increase the number of defence jobs in Scotland.

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

Last Thursday, I was proud to launch the Scotland defence growth deal, which will increase the number of defence jobs in Scotland, invest in skills and make it easier for businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—to do business in defence. Alongside our commitment to increasing naval shipbuilding in Scotland, this will increase the number of high-skilled, high-wage jobs, and make defence an engine for growth in Scotland.

[Douglas McAllister]

I very much welcome last week’s announcement of a £50 million defence growth deal for Scotland. It will make Scotland an engine for defence growth. Be it through building ships on the Clyde or new engineering and innovation facilities, it will create good, well-paid jobs for my West Dunbartonshire constituents and people right across Scotland, from the west coast to the east coast. Does the Minister agree that after two decades of SNP failure, it is time for a Scottish Labour Government who will actually back Scottish defence jobs?

[Luke Pollard]

I do indeed. It is noticeable that when the Scottish Government have had an opportunity to invest in defence skills, they have chosen not to. They chose not to when it came to the welding centre on the Clyde, but the Defence Secretary stepped in. Alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland, we have issued a challenge to the Scottish Government to match our commitment to creating two defence technical excellence colleges, one for the east coast and one for the west coast. We say: put the effort into investing in a whole new generation of young Scots, and get the benefit of a rising defence budget in Scotland.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

There was a pork-barrel stench when the first defence growth deal was awarded to the Minister’s constituency. Over six months later, he has finally got around to making an award to Scotland, but for Scotland, the £50 million has turned into £20 million—and he wants the Scottish Government to foot the bill. Can he be clear with the House today about why, while there are no strings attached to the £50 million for the Welsh defence growth deal, there are strings attached to the Scottish defence growth deal, and does he expect the Scottish Government to top up the £20 million that he has allocated, so that it becomes the £50 million that every other area has got?

[Luke Pollard]

This is just the politics of grievance from the SNP. This Labour Government have allocated £50 million to support growth in Scotland, including £5 million for the Arrol Gibb campus in Rosyth and—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You have asked the question; at least listen to the answer, even if you disagree with it.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman did not want to hear about the £5 million for the Arrol Gibb centre in Rosyth, the £5 million for the Clyde engineering campus, and the extra funding for a defence technical excellence college that will create defence skills. I hope that, on reflection, he will ask his Government in Scotland to back what Scottish Labour has backed: the funding for two Scottish DTECs.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

3. When he plans to publish the defence investment plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

8. What plans he has to increase defence skills.

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

We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding of defence that we inherited from the previous Government and spending more with British businesses. To deliver that, we are investing in skills: five defence growth deals worth £250 million; a £182 million skills package; £50 million allocated for five DTECS—defence technical excellence colleges—across England, one in Wales and two in Scotland; and £80 million in strategic priorities grants available to universities to expand the number of places in courses that will support defence.

[Ms Minns]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that my constituency was home to Europe’s largest munitions factory during the first world war, a legacy that lives on in MOD Longtown. When the Minister confirms that my constituency of Carlisle will be one of the locations for the six new munitions factories the Government are looking to build, what support will the Government provide to ensure that it is local people who will be able to take up the jobs at that new munitions factory?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her lobbying in favour of Carlisle as a location. Having visited Longtown, I have seen her constituents’ dedication and passion in supporting defence, as well as the opportunities there. We are making good progress on our commitment to allocate resources in this Parliament for six energetics and munitions factories. We hope to make a decision on the first wave of those in due course. I will be sure to keep all Members involved, including those who have made a good case in the Chamber today.

[Mr Speaker]

Including Chorley.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On that Chorley and Lancashire theme, it will not be possible to increase the defence skills in this country if the defence jobs of the future are not secure in that pipeline. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State talk earlier about British jobs, British industry and British innovation—he can probably gather where this is going, judging from the whispering on the Government Front Bench—so I was confused when there was bragging about ordering from British companies for defence as to why American F-35s were ordered, not British Typhoons. Given that we will need around 100 aircraft to maintain the workforce at Warton for Tempest in the future, I assume, whenever the defence investment plan is finally published, we will see an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF within it.

[Luke Pollard]

In the hon. Gentleman’s haste to make an attack on the Government, he forgot to welcome the multibillion-pound deal we secured with Türkiye to build Typhoons in his constituency. We have had a 15% increase in defence in the north-west of England since the first year of this Labour Government, but he is right that we need to make sure we are investing in skills to deliver the defence industrial base. That is precisely why the Government are investing in skills and why we are supporting British businesses. He will also know that the F-35, as well as the Typhoon, contributes many jobs to the north-west—I believe many of them very close to his constituency.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to increase the number of defence jobs in Wales.

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

On 19 February, the Secretary of State and the First Minister of Wales announced a £50 million Welsh defence growth deal, making Wales a launchpad for the next generation of autonomous technology. Thousands of skilled workers in Wales will be involved in the design, testing and manufacture of these innovative technologies. This proves yet again that defence is an engine for growth in Wales and shows the power of two Labour Governments working together to deliver in the interests of Wales.

[Gerald Jones]

I welcome and fully endorse the Minister’s comments about the benefits of two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales. In the 19th century, ironworks in my constituency made cannons and cannonballs for the Royal Navy; in the 21st century, skilled workers and businesses in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, such as General Dynamics, are ready to continue our area’s role in enhancing the nation’s defences. I seek an assurance from the Minister that businesses in the supply chain across the south Wales valleys will continue to play a key role in providing those skilled jobs in our communities to ensure that investment in the defence sector gives a necessary boost to the confidence of areas such as mine.

[Luke Pollard]

Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know what a champion he is, not just for large companies such as General Dynamics but for the wider supply chain. That is precisely why the Department has committed to increasing our direct spend with small businesses by 50% by 2028, ensuring that we are removing the barriers to small businesses being able to engage with the defence supply chain more and investing in the skills that those small and large businesses require to make the most of a rising defence budget. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents in relation to General Dynamics shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he posed that question. What happened on Exercise Titan Storm was of serious concern to all Members of this House. It was for that reason that we paused use of Ajax and initiated a number of safety investigations into what happened and the impact on our people, and put in place measures to ensure that we could learn lessons. We have now received those reports and are analysing them, and I hope to be able to make further announcements in due course. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the workers and not just the soldiers in uniform. That is why we are continuing a strong dialogue with General Dynamics and the local Members of Parliament on this issue.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to meet its legal obligations under articles 2(4) and 51 of the United Nations charter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

T2. Our history is as a naval power, and immediate threats to the UK include threats to undersea cables, the activities of illegal Russian shadow tankers and the closure of the strait of Hormuz. For the shipbuilding industry to thrive on our shores, it needs consistent contracts throughout the year to ensure that we have the skills and workforce in place. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we get to that position?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for shipbuilding. That is precisely why this Government have brought together all Departments with a shipbuilding interest in a cross-Government effort to refresh our shipbuilding process, and why Defence is leading that work by delivering more orders for our shipyards, which includes not only the frigates being built in Rosyth and on the Clyde, but the fleet solid support ship. Work on that has started in Appledore in north Devon as well.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

T3. Successive Governments have refused compensation to the nuclear test veterans, but now the Sunday Mirror’s investigative journalist Susie Boniface has revealed documents showing that, in fact, levels of radiation were known to be much higher than the court was led to believe in a case in 2016. Will Ministers address this matter with the seriousness it deserves, while veterans are still suffering and the widows of veterans still lack any recognition or compensation?

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

T4. Having worked with the Defence Secretary to save the semiconductor plant in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, I was proud the other week to meet Sam and Evan, two new apprentices who owe their opportunities directly to Government investment—but we want to go further. Can Ministers confirm that the MOD will continue to push hard to expand the number of jobs, apprenticeships and training opportunities, so that world-class factory delivers for local growth, as well as delivering sovereign supply for our nation?

[Luke Pollard]

Absolutely. Octric does a superb job in keeping our country safe, securing an essential supply of gear for our military. Since Octric came into MOD ownership, it has already recruited 33 additional staff, and we continue to support the company as it seeks to grow and build, in support of our national security.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T6. A Ukrainian family that we managed to reunite visited my office on Friday. During the conversation, it became clear that they are concerned for the future of Ukraine, given the war in the middle east and the US now loosening the sanctions on Russia. What representations have been made to the American Government to underline the seriousness of that step and our commitment to Ukraine?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

T5. As the ongoing conflict in the middle east is demonstrating, drone technology is an essential military capability. Businesses around Saltaire and Baildon in my constituency are at the cutting edge of both space technology and radio frequency, which I know the Minister will understand are critical to drone warfare. What support is available to young people in my constituency and across West Yorkshire to gain the skills they need for those vital industries?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the conversation that my hon. Friend and I had last week about the importance of more skills for her constituency. We are investing £182 million in a defence skills package and rolling out defence technical excellence colleges across the United Kingdom. I am very happy to meet her to talk about this further, because we want to see more British companies invest in skills.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

T8. Last week, HMS Dragon left Portsmouth bound for Cyprus, having been prepared for deployment inside six days. The Royal Navy says that preparation would normally have taken six weeks. What can the Government do to ensure that more of our surface fleet is available when urgently needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My constituent, Vijay Odedra, has been telling me how his small business, CapnoTrainer, has been working with the Royal Navy to improve the fighting capacity and resilience of our sailors. While we wait for the defence investment plan, will the Secretary of State tell us what steps he has in mind to harness the innovation in our small and medium-sized enterprise sector?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman promoting a defence SME. There are defence SMEs in every constituency that do a good job. We created the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to support more SMEs in gaining defence contracts and to increase the direct spend that the Ministry of Defence has with them. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the SME that he mentions.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that it is considering taking the veterans question off the census for 2031. Witnesses before the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill clearly thought that question provided important data about where our veterans are. Will the Secretary of State engage with the ONS to emphasise the importance of the veterans question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Following last week’s welcome announcement of defence investment in Scotland, will the Minister provide an update on the plan to take forward Programme Euston at Faslane? Does he agree that the skilled workforce at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government, will provide excellent capacity to deliver that vital contract?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy. I have met him—and will no doubt meet him again very soon—to discuss this. We will continue to invest in shipbuilding infrastructure across the UK. As we approach decisions on Programme Euston, we will be sure to keep the House informed.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

There is widespread concern about the Government sticking to the decision made in 2016 to shut Army Training Regiment Winchester, which trains 20% of our troops. Has an impact assessment been carried out, and have the Government spoken with commanders at Pirbright and Winchester to ensure that they can not only maintain training capacity but increase it if necessary?

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

A new partnership between New College Lanarkshire and Cairnhill Structures—a steel-fabricating company in Coatbridge—begins today. The Engineering Futures programme aims to give local people a start in engineering trades such as welding, fabrication and computer-aided design, which are all essential to strengthen our skills base and increase the number of defence jobs. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to promote similar schemes across Scotland?

[Luke Pollard]

I praise New College Lanarkshire for its work. That is precisely why we wanted to invest in not one but two Scottish defence technical excellence colleges. I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to match the commitment that this Labour Government have made to deliver for young people in Scotland, as my hon. Friend says.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Further to the question from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), offshore energy infrastructure needs to be protected. The strategic defence review did not specifically mention moveable assets such as platforms, floating production, storage and offloading units, or rigs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they will be considered as part of our energy security, and what will the Ministry of Defence do to ensure their security now and in the future?

Single-source Defence Contracts: Profit Rates

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Written Statements

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

The strategic defence review makes it clear that we are entering a new era of threat. This demands a new era for UK defence—one focused on warfighting readiness and the ability to scale and sustain capability at pace. A resilient, productive defence industry and strong supply chains are essential to that work.

To deliver this, we need to ensure that our suppliers receive a fair return on their defence contracts, while also protecting the interests of the taxpayer. Each year, the independent Single Source Regulations Office undertakes a rigorous analysis of the profits earned by companies that undertake comparable work to our major defence suppliers. I am therefore announcing today that the Secretary of State has accepted the SSRO’s recommendation that the baseline profit rate for single-source defence contracts in financial year 2026-27 be set at 9.10%, an increase of 0.54 percentage points from 2025-26. He has also accepted the other rates recommended by the SSRO, which will come into force on 1 April 2026. These rates, which are set out at table 1, strike the right balance: they are fair to suppliers, reflect prevailing market conditions, and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

Alongside this, the Government are progressing at pace the wider review of the Single Source Contract Regulations, as commissioned in the defence industrial strategy. We have already held workshops with industry and the SSRO, and we intend to publish the full report later this year. That review will consider how the framework can better support productivity, pace, innovation and access, while continuing to safeguard value for money.

The Government value deeply the contribution of the UK defence industry. A strong, competitive supplier base is essential to our security and growth, and that is what we are delivering through our defence industrial strategy. But that partnership must be grounded in fair returns, higher productivity and faster delivery, ensuring that defence spending translates directly into military advantage.

This approach—fair profit, strong governance, and a relentless focus on productivity and readiness—goes to the heart of ensuring that UK defence is ready to deter, fight and win.

Ministry of Defence

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Before thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), let me place on record my thanks to the brave men and women of the UK armed forces, who are at this very moment defending not only UK interests in the middle east and the Mediterranean, but those of our allies. I know that the whole House will send our support for them in the job they are doing.

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for introducing this debate and for securing it. It is an opportunity to talk about how we can improve our procurement, value our people more and make sure we are bringing to our armed forces the capabilities that they need in this more difficult time.

We know that the world is increasingly volatile and dangerous. Having just returned from Ukraine this morning, I know that when the eyes of the world are rightly on the middle east, it is important that we as a House clearly and unitedly send a message that we still stand with Ukraine and will do so for as long as it takes. That was the message I gave to the Ukrainian Ministers I met yesterday, and it is one that I know will be echoed by those from every party present for this debate.

The Prime Minister has said recently that

“hard power…is the currency of the age”,

and he is right. What we have seen since the last general election is a Government making the necessary decisions to transform our hard power and increase our warfighting readiness. The spending commitments we have made—2.5% of GDP from April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 5% on national security by 2035—represent the largest rise in defence investment since the end of the cold war.

Alongside these historic increases, we have published the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, and we are fundamentally reforming defence to finally put it on a sustainable footing. We are leading support on Ukraine, leading in NATO by bringing our allies together, and working flat out to complete the defence investment plan. The DIP will strengthen, modernise and equip our armed forces to meet the threats we face. The decisions we are taking are worth hundreds of billions of pounds, and nothing is more important than getting them right. That is our singular focus right now.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, given the time pressures. Given that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the very explicit question of when the DIP will be published, will he tell us: when will the DIP be published?

[Luke Pollard]

Well, I had to sit through the hon. Member’s drivel, so he can sit through mine until he finds out the answer to that one. I want to respond to the main points raised in today’s debate by a number of speakers; it is important that I use the time I have to respond to them.

I welcome the clarion call from the Defence Committee to go faster and further on defence spending. It is right that we have increased defence spending, with an extra £5 billion in our Budget this year and more coming next year, but the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough is a strong one, and it is one I know he will continue to make. We were, as I believe he said, the third largest percentage spender in NATO in 2021, and we remain the third largest spender in cash terms in NATO, but I recognise the argument he makes. Let me say to him clearly on Ajax that it remains one of my priorities as Minister to make sure that we can fully field equipment that is safe for our people and to make decisions based on safety. I want our industry and our forces to innovate and be bold, but they must not compromise on the safety of our people. I cannot be clearer about that.

My hon. Friend also asked about the supplementary estimates, and I am happy to provide some clarity. A large part of the increase relates to the technical accounting updates to ensure the Department’s asset values are accurately recorded. These adjustments do not provide additional spending power and have no impact on the Department’s cash budgets, so they are technical, non-cash accounting adjustments. As programmes mature and asset information improves, it is standard practice to update these valuations. This ensures that the Department’s accounts reflect the most accurate value of its equipment and estate. The adjustments do not indicate a loss of capability and have no in-year cash impact. I was asked about that by a Conservative Member, but I hope that is helpful to him, too.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) was right to raise a number of important issues. He is certainly right when he says that defence programmes are usually late and usually over-budget. When we inherited the defence programmes from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 major defence programmes were delayed and over-budget; that is a record for which he should have stood at the Dispatch Box and apologised, but the Opposition do not want to claim any responsibility for what they handed over—they only want to throw stones and blame for the future. To be a constructive Opposition, it is necessary for the shadow Secretary of State to be helpful and constructive with advice, not just to seek to forget about his responsibility for the mess he caused.

The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is also right about accommodation. It was unacceptable that our service personnel and their families were living in accommodation with black mould, leaky roofs and broken boilers. It is for that reason that this Government announced £9 billion to refit, refurbish or rebuild nine in 10 defence homes over the next decade. That will directly support our defence personnel and their families, on top of the largest pay rise in 20 years. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) described that as a cash bung. The largest pay rise in 20 years for our people, accompanied by a second above-inflation pay rise, has seen morale not fall under this Government, unlike when his party was in power, when it fell in every single service in every single year. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is also right to make the case for reforming the MOD. That is exactly what we are doing with the process of defence reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is proud to represent the home of the Royal Navy. As MP for Devonport, I am also proud to represent the heart of the Royal Navy; she and I have much in common. She is right to ask about HMS Dragon. I am pleased to give her an update about the ship and the ship’s company. The Royal Navy is working at pace to prepare HMS Dragon for deployment to the eastern Mediterranean. HMS Dragon has begun re-supplying her air defence missiles at the ammunition facility at the naval base in Portsmouth. She will then return for a logistics re-supply before sailing. For security reasons—as she will know, as a Portsmouth MP—we do not comment on precise departure dates of our Royal Navy assets. She will also know that we have two Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters armed with drone-busting missiles already deploying to the region. They will reinforce the additional RAF Typhoons, F-35B jets, ground-based counter-drone teams, radar systems and Voyager refuelling aircraft which we have already deployed to the region. Our jets are now flying continuous sorties to take out Iranian drones and missiles threatening UK people, interests and bases, and threatening our allies.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Obviously, the whole House appreciates the deployment of HMS Dragon, but it has had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment in order to fulfil the trip to Cyprus. Do we have another Type 45 that can replace it, given that HMS Duncan could not be sent because it is already committed to preparing for Operation Firecrest?

[Luke Pollard]

I will not be announcing deployments from the Dispatch Box, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is one of the reasons that we are seeking to invest more in our Royal Navy: to provide not only crewed but uncrewed capabilities.

The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about his desire for a larger Royal Navy. In 2017, when I had brown hair and sat broadly where the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is sitting now, I made the case in my maiden speech for more surface combatants for the Royal Navy. That is what our hybrid Navy will deliver—and not only crewed platforms, which are being built in Scotland at this very moment. Last week, I saw the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active—two of our new Type 31 frigates—which will be sailing alongside uncrewed and autonomous systems as part of that hybrid Navy concept. This is something that the Prime Minister announced in his speech at the Munich security conference and which we are keen to extend to many of our European partners, increasing the mass and lethality of our Royal Navy and, importantly, improving the survivability for our crewed platforms.

I will quickly rattle through some of the questions that have been asked. Are we looking at novel financing methods? Yes, we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) spoke about advanced ceramics; she is right to do so. I was happy meeting her before and I am happy continuing that discussion. I know the progress she is making. The hon. Member for Spelthorne will know that we have increased pay for our armed forces and are increasing the supply of ammunition and missiles through the munitions and energetics factories that we have already announced; I hope to provide further updates about the rapid procurement process that is under way in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) spoke passionately about the importance of Typhoon for his area. I was very pleased that the Government were able to secure the Typhoon deal with Türkiye, and I can assure him that we continue to have conversations with a number of our other allies, further promoting the Typhoon as an essential platform for air defence. He is right to praise the work they are doing. I really liked the phrase he used about the best jobs being just down the road—that is echoed by colleagues right across the House. Indeed, my fellow south-west MP, the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), gave a good shout-out to regional jobs, which I enjoyed. It is right that we increase defence spending so that it can be felt in every single nation and region, and that is exactly what we are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) made a passionate case for submarines. Her constituents build them, and mine refit them in Devonport—teams working together, with Team Plymouth and Team Barrow, as well as the work that takes place in Derby. It is an important part of bringing together our nuclear enterprise.

I welcome the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) speaking about the compelling vision in the SDR; he is right to do so. I am happy having a conversation with him about the tax credits issue, especially if he could bring small business examples.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) was right to talk about the DSRB. I know she is passionate about this, as are a number of other Members. I am happy to meet her to talk further about it.

Finally, perhaps the most important part of this is our people. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) raised recruitment in an intervention. Let me say clearly that since September 2024, we have seen an 8% decrease in outflow from our armed forces and a 13% increase in inflow into our armed forces. As the hon. Member for North Cotswolds mentioned, we do need to do recruitment differently, which is why we have a new direct entry scheme for cyber, and we will go further on that.

Let the message go out clearly to our troops in combat operations around the world: they have our support and they have a Government who are increasing defence spending, putting their welfare at the centre of our future defence plans, ensuring that we move towards warfighting readiness with new equipment and new capabilities, and putting our people at the very heart of our defence plans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to wind up very briefly.