Defence Readiness

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project.

On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increase defence spending, with confirmation that we would restore the two-child benefit cap and use the savings for our military. We have also set out plans to move £2 billion a year of research and development funds from other Government Departments to fund drones and drone tech across the board. However, if we are to become the world leader in uncrewed warfare that I still believe we can be, not least after our extraordinary support for Ukraine, we do not just need our services to have the cash to test and train; we also need to invest billions into transforming our defence industrial base.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on the industrial base.

[Mark Pritchard]

While I welcome the Type 26 global combat ship, as I am sure my hon. Friend does—that is an important naval deal with Norway—will the timeline of its delivery not give the first ships to Norway rather than to the United Kingdom? If I am wrong, that is great, but if that is the case, there must be a discussion in the MOD about extending the life of the existing—

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

indicated dissent.

[Mark Pritchard]

If I am wrong, great—I am used to being wrong on many occasions, but I am happy to be wrong on something we need to get right.

[James Cartlidge]

I am aware that timelines are an issue on a couple of dimensions in the Chamber at the moment, so I will come to my conclusion shortly. My right hon. Friend asks a fundamental question about the Royal Navy when we know we have shortages of surface ships. I hope the Minister will set out exactly how many Type 26s we will order irrespective of the Norway deal. I support the Norway export deal. How many will we be ordering in addition to that? The written answer he gave me was very ambiguous. We need to get that extra money into the industrial base, which is why our alternative King’s Speech has a sovereign defence fund Bill.

There is one other important Bill in our alternative King’s Speech: our promise to repeal Labour’s terrible Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not enough to oppose Labour’s lawfare; we would restore full legal protections for our veterans, boosting morale and sending a signal that we will always have the back of those who serve. The public know that it is madness at a time of war for the UK Government to be prioritising putting our soldiers back in the dock for serving their country. That is why our motion today calls on this House to reject Labour’s plans and scrap the troubles Bill. We will always defend those who defended us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am a big fan of Lukes—even Lukes with new beards, as the hon. Gentleman now is—but I am not going to give a running commentary on the DIP. We are working flat out to deliver it and it will be published when it is ready.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will get the hon. Lady the full details, but we are backing an increase in defence spending for SMEs, with a target of increasing it by 50% in the next two years. It is our mission to do so and that is why we have stood up the new Defence Office for Small Business Growth. I will get the percentages that she asks for, based on the latest figures.

We are backing our people. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years, we have extended free childcare and we have introduced the first ever independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life. We have ended the Tory privatisation of defence housing, and we have made a £9 billion investment to tackle the scourge of the dreadful military homes that we inherited by refitting or rebuilding nine in 10 military homes. We have turned around the Tory retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited: outflow is now down 8% and inflow is up 13%. That is what a Labour Government are delivering.

As the geopolitics shift, it is important that we, across this House, renew our support for Ukraine. It is important that we all stand together. That is why the Defence Secretary now chairs the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and why the United Kingdom now chairs, with our French allies, the coalition of the willing. Just as it is important to call out those parties that seek to take down Ukrainian flags, it is more important that we challenge them on what they would do to support Ukraine. I ask Reform Members, what will their party do to support Ukraine? Taking down the flags is a backward step, but I am interested in hearing what are the positive steps.

I say to Conservative Members, I am interested in restoring the cross-party unity on Ukraine that we used to have, which seems to be fraying because of the party politics they are playing, so will they say when was the last time the Leader of the Opposition backed the UK’s leadership on the coalition of the willing? I cannot recall one occasion, but I am interested to know when that was. We need to ensure that the message goes out clearly from this House that we back Ukraine and we will continue to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Mark Pritchard]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest.

We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver.

I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough.

This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed.

In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities.

There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I usually get cheering at the end, not the beginning, but I appreciate it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for calling me; it is a lovely surprise.

I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). He is not in his place right now, but I have notified him that I will be possibly condemning his leadership bid. In 21 years in this House, I think his was one of the best speeches I have heard. We need to hear more from both sides of the House about uniting this nation. Whether the speech unites the Labour party is a matter for Labour Back Benchers, but at a time of nationalist and extreme talk on the left and right of British politics, we certainly need more people in all parties to stand up for the common good, for common purpose and for those things that unite us as a country rather than those that seek to divide us. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Whether you are from the left or right, whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Muslim or Christian and whether you are enlightened and educated, it is about British values—or, as certain Members suggest, whether it is because you have British values that you are not enlightened or educated. It is those values that unite us, whatever our party, and we all have a responsibility to stand up and be heard on these issues.

I also pay tribute to the former health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He, too, is not in his place, but I have emailed his office. He has answered more questions more quickly and more substantively than any other Minister during the period I have spent in this House apart from one other, who went on to be Prime Minister. That is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—just to be clear, that is Richmond, Yorkshire. Richmond, Surrey—or London—has the 54 Lib Dem councillors, but that is not the case in Richmond, Yorkshire, and hopefully never will be.

I think my speech has already gone out the window, but—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know, it comes as a great relief. I want to pay tribute to all our armed forces on what is Defence day for the King’s Speech, including all those at RAF Cosford in my constituency—the second largest RAF base in the world—all those at the Royal Irish Regiment in Clive Barracks at Tern Hill and all those in MOD Donnington. All of them contribute to our national security.

As I mentioned earlier, yes, this is about defence procurement, kit and equipment, but without defence people, without personnel—we have the Minister responsible for personnel here today—the national defence falls apart. The Minister was not here earlier, but his colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, has volunteered a meeting with myself and the Minister about the important issue of the children of our armed forces personnel, in particular those with SEND needs. I have come across quite a few cases where armed forces personnel have redeployed and relocated from, say, the United States back to the UK or from Scotland to England, and yet there has been no SEND support or even SEND information when the children are redeployed with their parents. I hope that the Minister responsible for defence personnel will meet me and look at this issue because we have to look after not only our defence personnel, but their families.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that there should be a national SEND programme for armed forces children throughout the United Kingdom to support them in changing schools so often?

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. There is a patchwork of quality, if you like, and it is different depending on the local education authority, so there is an argument at least to look at whether there should be—forgive me—uniformity between Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England when looking at the particular needs of children with SEND within the armed forces.

May I go a little bit more parochial and welcome the investment of Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land into my constituency? As the Minister will know, we are currently building the Challenger 3 tank. I am grateful that the Government listened to my representations and those of many others within the Wrekin, Shropshire and the borough of Telford and Wrekin to ensure that the gun barrel factory, which is a real strategic asset, was put into Shropshire. I want to recognise all those working so well on the Boxer vehicle programme—an absolutely vital asset for this country—and pay tribute to all those defence engineers, men and women, and those apprentices, who are doing such a great job in keeping us all safe.

I will now pivot back to a more strategic comment. Some weeks ago—colleagues may or may not remember this—I completely fluffed my PMQ about the strategic missile threat to this nation, but thankfully I had my notes on the side. Of course, we do have a counter to cruise missiles and to many other types of missiles, but this country has a strategic shortfall when it comes to ballistic missile defence. Of course, the Minister might say, “Well, we have certain capabilities on certain ships,” and I know what they are, but unless the ships are in the right place at the right time, should a ballistic missile come to this country we are, quite frankly—as I have said previously to the Defence Secretary—a sitting duck. That is not acceptable. It is the first duty of any Government to keep this country safe. How can this country be kept safe when we have direct threats from Russia with ballistic missiles, which are a proven technology, as we have sadly seen in Ukraine, and yet we have no real plan, despite the strategic defence review, to implement that need?

Finally, I say thank you to all our armed forces who keep us safe and keep our interests safe all around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

We have to do this for our security, and we will do this for our security. In the meantime, we are getting on and doing what is necessary for Britain’s security.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[John Healey]

I will now turn to some of the contributions to the debate. As I said, 37 Back Benchers have spoken, and I am going to turn to some of their contributions now. I will start with the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), if I may. He urged us to reprovision our nuclear programme, and I would just say to him that, in this Parliament alone, we are putting £15 billion into the warhead programme and £6 billion into upgrading Barrow to produce the submarines that we need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) rightly talked about the impact that defence skills have across the economy. She also talked about the skills gaps that need to be filled, which is a central part of the defence technical excellence colleges, the defence growth deals and the Defence Universities Alliance that we are putting in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke passionately about the work he is doing on the Right to Food UK Commission. The testimony that he gave us from workers and parents about the pressure they are under and the problems that creates was really moving. We look forward to the commission’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) also ranged more widely than defence, and mentioned the pressure on families and the action that the Government are now taking on rising costs. She talked about the importance of the legislation in the King’s Speech on railways and on housing for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) talked about the importance of resilience that runs through every aspect of our defence programme. My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) both spoke movingly, and for the House, on the scourge of antisemitism and the need to stamp it out wherever it is, and about the threat of Iran and the edge of threat that the IRGC poses to this country, as well as to Iran’s own people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) asked for comments on Cabrit and Estonia. I shall be out there in Estonia with our forward land force tomorrow, so if he will forgive me, I will probably be able to give him a more up to date and informed comment if he would like to wait until I come back, rather than commenting from the Dispatch Box today.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the important fact that our armed forces depend on the strength of the innovators and the strength of the industry that stands behind them. This is a lesson that we can draw from Ukraine: when a country is under threat or forced to fight, it is its industry, its innovators and its wider society that must stand behind it to give it strength. She rightly paid tribute to and reminded us about the civilian workforce that supports our uniformed personnel.

[John Healey]

I rather regret giving way to the hon. Member because he has not been in the debate, and clearly was not in for the urgent question either, when it was made very clear that there are new sanctions to clamp down on Russian oil revenues and that the licensing regime is a way of bringing those new sanctions in. I urge him to consult the record.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[John Healey]

No, I will proceed.

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and Members from different parties on the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. He talked about the way that the locusts were busy on UK defence during those 14 Conservative years when it was hollowed out and underfunded, and about the extent of the legacy from which we are now recovering. He rightly reminded us that defence is not just a cost or spending for the Government; defence is an investment and an engine for growth across the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) gave us a direct example of that from his Methil shipyard, in saying that Labour defence investment and export wins have led to a transformation from the bleak future that he described when he first became an MP to the current recruitment drive. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She rightly took the Scottish nationalists to task for their repeated failure to be willing to invest in defence skills—skills that benefit our security, that benefit Scottish workers and that give opportunities to Scottish young people.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who is in his place, talked about the many military families in his area. He rightly said that we have to look after those who look after us. Just as an aside, I have been campaigning for over a decade for stronger licensing for taxi and private hire vehicles, exactly like he has, and I welcome the comments he made—entirely irrelevant to defence, but important nevertheless.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) spoke as the proud parent of a young forces member. She was right to say that at the heart of our Government commitment is the nation’s commitment to those who serve, and I am delighted to hear that she has been successful in Portsmouth in helping win part of the Valour funding—the £50 million behind the new network of veteran centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly said that election security is linked to our national security and that we are right to toughen up the rules on political funding.

Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) that where I live in Rotherham, no one is talking about the European Union. People have put Brexit behind them. Nevertheless, I welcome his welcome for the European partnership Bill, but the last thing that people want is for us to set aside the manifesto they elected us on and to plunge back into detailed institutional negotiations with the European Union.

[Mark Pritchard]

One of the defining features of this country’s support for Ukraine has been the cross-party support, but I think it is right for His Majesty’s Opposition to call out the Government where we think they have got it wrong. Over the last 24 hours, I think the Government have got it both right and wrong. I support the Government in the new sanctions regime around third countries. Where I do not support the Government is in allowing temporary licences for the import of Russian jet fuel and diesel. Today in Ukraine, the bombs and missiles are falling. This country should have no part in funding any part of Putin’s war machine.

[John Healey]

As the Minister for Trade said in response to the urgent question, and as I said earlier, these are steps to further sanctions in order to tighten sanctions and to screw down further on Putin’s ability to fund his illegal war in Ukraine.

I will turn to the question of spending on defence, which was mentioned, as always, by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), as well as by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). In the debate on the last King’s Speech in 2024, I reaffirmed this Government’s manifesto pledge to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. Throughout that debate, the figure of 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2030 was urged on me 16 times by the shadow Defence Secretary. We have done that, and we have done it three years earlier than anyone expected. We have put in place the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will spend more—we know we must. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary, the defence budget this year is more than £11 billion greater than it was in the final year of his Government.

In that same debate, I promised the strategic defence review, the first of its kind, which we published as a vision for defending Britain, making it safer and more secure at home. I told the House then that we would step up our support for Ukraine. We have provided more military assistance than ever before, we took on the leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to support the fight today, and we established and now lead the coalition of the willing for Ukraine to secure the peace tomorrow. I pledged a new UK-Germany defence agreement, and less than four months later I signed that with Defence Minister Pistorius in the Trinity House agreement. I went on to sign deals with France, Norway and Turkey.

In the same debate, I raised the scourge of dreadful military housing. Within months, we brought back into public ownership 36,000 homes that our military families live in. We upgraded the worst 1,000 before Christmas, and we have already done another 250 since then. In that debate, I said that the morale of our service personnel was at a record low. Since then, we have awarded them the biggest pay rise for nearly two decades, extended free childcare and legislated for the first ever Armed Forces Commissioner in order to improve service life.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) that I missed him at Cabinet this week. He gave us a reflective speech. He is rightly proud of the Government’s record on rebuilding and reforming the NHS, but I trust that he will agree that as with the NHS, in Defence we have certainly not been treading water.

I will close with the His Majesty the King’s opening words last week:

“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom…Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.”

Every Member of the House recognises that truth. We are a Government committed to a decade of rising defence spending, to the readiness of our armed forces, to backing Britain’s industries and its innovators, and to making Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.

Question put, That the amendment be made.