Defence Investment Plan

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?

[Luke Pollard]

I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.

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.

Middle East

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am proud to say that there are interceptors in the skies above Ukraine now that have the British hand and British production behind them, working closely with Ukraine. The Octopus interceptor that my hon. Friend talks about is a special link-up between Ukraine and the UK. We look forward to being able to produce them en masse and return them to Ukraine to help them defend their skies against Putin’s invasion.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Six days ago, the UK Government’s security group rightly launched a leak inquiry into the leaking of very sensitive information from the National Security Council. I do not expect the Defence Secretary to comment on an ongoing inquiry, but does he agree on these principles? First, the very least that our armed forces should expect when they are being sent into harm’s way is for the political leadership of this country to not leak secret and top-secret information. Secondly, whoever it is—a Cabinet Minister, a senior official or a junior official—when caught, they should be sacked.

[John Healey]

I do not think anyone can doubt the determination of the Prime Minister to prevent such actions or to take the action required when such activities are going on. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my reassurance that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right: Iran’s widespread strikes have shown a total disregard for civilian life. Because I strengthened British defences in the region ahead of this conflict with extra jets, radars and defence systems, from day one we have been co-ordinating defensive actions, with a sound legal basis, to protect British citizens and bases, and our allies in the region. I am proud of the skill and dedication that our armed forces are showing in the middle east.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I have constituents at RAF Akrotiri who have been deployed out of RAF Cosford in my constituency, and I have already had correspondence from concerned constituents and their families. The Iranian regime has a very potent chemical and biological weapons programme. I have asked the Defence Secretary this question before: will he confirm that there is CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—protective kit at Akrotiri and other UK armed forces military bases in the region? The Iranian regime also has a very potent submarine fleet—it may not be nuclear or Trident-led, as ours is, but it is nevertheless a significant threat in the region—so could he say what he is doing to address both those threats?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Does a Front Bencher wish to respond? No? I will deal with it, then.

This is totally unacceptable. A named-day question should be answered: I cannot believe that something asked in January has still not been answered. May I ask the Secretary of State to look into that and ensure that questions are answered? It is not good enough. Members are representing their constituents, including people who are serving and those who may be serving in this contract. Please, I say to the Government, take this House more seriously. Members of Parliament are having a very bad time from Government, who seem to have a total disregard for us.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it similar to the previous point of order?

[Mark Pritchard]

It is. May I thank you for your comments, Mr Speaker?

The next Defence questions will be on 10 May. We are all aware of the recess, but our armed forces personnel will be in harm’s way during that period—many of them are my constituents, and they are all represented across the House. May I look to you, Mr Speaker, to allow for urgent questions and particularly statements where necessary, as you always do, to be given by the Defence team in that period? There is a very long period of time until 10 May, given that we have armed forces personnel on duty right now.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not going to carry on the conversation. I think the right hon. Member has put his point on the record.

Middle East: Defence

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The first duty of any Government is to defend the country, pursue our national interest and support our armed forces. On this occasion, we had expected and look for better from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I have only been in the House for 21 years, but whenever we talk about defence and when our armed forces are in harm’s way, I have to say that a blame game on either side is not going to save a single life. While we all want to see de-escalation, the Government, I hope, will have learned lessons in the last few weeks and months to prepare for escalation. Is the Defence Secretary aware of the 2024 report by the US director of national intelligence that underlines the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Iran holds, and will he work with friends and allies in the region and the new Syrian Government to identify and deal with those stockpiles? Finally, on Akrotiri and other bases in the region, will he ensure that our armed forces personnel and their families are given the right protective chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear kit?

[John Healey]

I am aware of the 2024 report that the right hon. Gentleman cites, and we are aware of those risks. I say to the House that the right hon. Gentleman puts his 21 years as a Member of this House to good effect in the comments that he makes this afternoon.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Yes, I believe I can. This Government are proud of the fact that this year we have provided the highest ever level of spending on military aid directly to support Ukraine. We are also proud of the fact that we are capable of and are delivering some of the most important military equipment that Ukraine needs, such as air defence systems and missiles. I am proud also that we work especially closely with the Ukrainians to help them develop new systems, new missiles and new weapons to try to stay one step ahead of the Russians. We will continue to do that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today, but I want to press him a little on a vote in Parliament. In his statement—it is pretty much the same wording as the Prime Minister’s, as I would expect—he states that a decision on deployment will be brought to the House “for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment”. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment. There are very good strategic and military reasons for not making public an immediate, surprise or secret deployment beforehand, but this is a public, planned deployment, as set out in the Paris agreement. It could not be more public than that. Will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment, and not a debate in the House only? He will know that in 2013—he was in the House; I think he entered Parliament in 1997—the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron of somewhere in Oxfordshire —[Interruption.] Under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in beautiful Oxfordshire, there was a vote, which was lost by 13 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. It is right that the Government get the balance right, and I support what they are doing, although we have to see the detail, but will he commit to a vote before deployment, and not just a debate?

[John Healey]

I have to admit that I am struggling to follow the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. I quoted in my statement the words spoken by the Prime Minister in House earlier today, but I am happy to repeat them: “I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.” I think that that is pretty clear, and could not be clearer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the veterans strategy is a huge step forward in how we will support our veterans. The £50 million Valour commitment will rapidly improve how we meet our veterans’ needs, and I will of course visit her constituency, although probably not on the same day as I visit Liverpool.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

T3. The Defence Secretary says that this country should get on a war footing, but the UK currently has no comprehensive anti-hypersonic, anti-ballistic missile defence system. Given the threats from Russia and elsewhere and their capabilities, that means that all our constituents, whether they vote Labour or Conservative, are defenceless, and that this country, frankly, is a sitting duck.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the strategic defence review pointed out that we must do more to take seriously our homeland defence, and we are. It pointed out that we needed to do more on our integrated air and missile defence for the UK. We are, and we will.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the good-value platforms that we are exporting to Türkiye; it is really important that we have a strong relationship with Türkiye. He will know that the arms exports regime is run by the Department for Business and Trade. I have to say that the risk of diversion from some locations is real, and that is why before any arms exports licence is agreed by DBT, there is input from not just the MOD but other sources across Government to assess the risk of diversion or the equipment being lost or used in a way that does not accord with international humanitarian law. Where we think there are such risks, we do not grant those export licences. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take up the matters he has raised further with DBT colleagues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement, of course. It is interesting that the Minister comes to the House with good news, but has to be dragged here when there is less good news. Nevertheless, this is welcome news and a real boost for defence jobs in this country. The Minister mentioned that some of our Eurofighter allies had signed this off and were happy with the deal. Would he like to comment on whether the White House is happy with it? Of course, anything that weans Turkey away from the Russian defence industrial complex and supply chain is to be welcomed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) outlined. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President on Monday in Ankara, did he also discuss Turkey being weaned off Russian oil and gas and being used as a conduit for Russian oil and gas going into some parts of the European Union—up at 36% at the moment, I think—which, of course, is funding the Russian war effort in Ukraine?

[Luke Pollard]

There are a number of nations across Europe and Asia with complex energy dependencies on Russia. This Government and our partner nations have been very clear that there needs to be a fast and smooth transition away from using Russian oil and gas, and it is something we continue to work on with our allies. We encourage all those that are using Russian oil and gas for their own economies, and, in doing so, effectively supporting the coffers of the Russian regime, to move at pace to get away from that. I can confirm that all partner nations and allies that were required to sign off this deal have done so.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is the third person to speak about sanctions; it absolutely has sunk in, and we will discuss it with our cross-Government colleagues in due course. I would not underestimate the ability of the Americans to act—it is down to the American people and the American Government to decide, but I would not underestimate that ability over the short, medium or long term. One of the key points of having a US visit of such a level is that it will give us the opportunity to discuss these issues in person and to really highlight what is important to us. It speaks to the importance of being in the tent to have those discussions for us as a Government, and for everybody and every party in this wonderful place.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences?

[Al Carns]

The intelligence agencies will be able to provide the best analysis of this attack, so I will not jump to conclusions on the intentions behind it. It has, however, been clear for several years now that there has been consistent testing of NATO as a whole, whether that is 20,000 cyber-attacks from hostile states in the past two years or the use of chemical or radiological weapons on UK soil, to name just two of the litany of incidents. I fully support the Ukrainian strategy of fight and talk to keep the pressure on the Russians to ensure that they come to the table. I fully support a US-led peace process, but the Ukrainians’ view must be central, and they must lead it from their perspective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to Mark Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

That is the story of my life—I am always the reserve, but I am always happy to step in. [Laughter.]

Boxer, Challenger 3 and now the gun barrel facility are going to be based in my constituency—well, I hope the latter will be in my constituency, but certainly in Shropshire. Will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks for all the work of the men and women —the new engineers, the 100 new employees—taken on for the Boxer programme since March by Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land? Shropshire is a defence hub, and I ask the new ministerial team—some of them are here for me to welcome them today—whether the Government will continue to invest in Shropshire, recognising the link between local universities and colleges, and the defence supply chain.

[John Healey]

Far from being the reserve, the right hon. Gentleman is first up for the Opposition this afternoon, and I welcome that and the investment in Shropshire. I reassure him that the Government will continue to support that. I pay tribute, as he encouraged me to do, to the workforce in his area. When the defence industrial strategy is published, the House will see how we are looking to define not just the British industry, but investors, entrepreneurs and the workforce as an essential part of strengthening British industry and innovation, and the future for British jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

T9. Pensions forfeiture for ex-armed forces personnel is rare—it is usually reserved for cases of serious criminal activity and those with serious criminal convictions—but is it not time that the small number of ex-forces personnel from this country who are shamefully fighting for the Russian Federation, either directly in Ukraine or through proxies in north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, had their pensions cancelled?

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member raises an interesting point. Please write to me in due course with examples, and we will look into that, from a defence perspective.