Ministry of Defence

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour and a privilege to open this debate as Chair of the Defence Committee, and as a Member of this House who believes profoundly that the first duty of any Government, and indeed of any Parliament, is the safety and security of our nation and our people. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate time for this important debate.

I will begin with a simple but unavoidable truth: the world is rearming at pace, and the United Kingdom is not keeping up. We must confront the reality together that national defence requires long-term thinking, stable investment and, as far as possible, cross-party working. Our adversaries do not operate on the basis of electoral cycles, and neither can we. While unity on principles is important, it must never prevent this House from holding any Government to account where delivery falls short.

First, let me turn to the threat picture. Russia is operating a war economy, supported by China. The Defence Committee has heard that 60% of the Russian war effort in Ukraine is being bankrolled by China. Russia may not be winning the war, but it is also not losing—it is slowly gaining territory, and there is no sign that it is genuinely interested in peace. Russia now has experience of attritional combat; it is delivering new technology to the battlefield in weeks, not years; its economy is geared to warfighting; and many think that its next step will be to extend operations, not halt them.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the work he has been doing on Ukraine. A number of us were in Ukraine last week as part of a cross-party delegation, and the thing that really stood out for me—aside from the horrendous circumstances that people there face on a daily basis, and the injuries and death toll on the frontline—was that the UK and our allies are doing enough to hold off Russian aggression, but nowhere near enough to support Ukraine to win the peace. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s reflections on what the UK needs to do more of to ensure that Ukraine can win.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is very important that we stand in steadfast support of our Ukrainian friends, and his point is similar to the conclusions that our Defence Committee drew after our recent visit to Ukraine. It is important that the Government continue with their support for Ukraine, and we must do so in collaboration with our European allies to ensure that the Ukrainians win that fight. I am sure that the Government have heard that message loud and clear from across the Chamber.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has said, we may have as little as three years before we will have no option but to fight a significant confrontation with a major state. Russia is already operating in the grey zone against the UK and our allies, notably in sabotage and cyber-operations against the infrastructure that supports our prosperity. That summarises the threat, both to the east and to the north, because the High North is the focus of the Defence Committee’s latest inquiry. That is another front for both Russia and China, as melting polar ice caps open up new strategic frontiers.

Meanwhile, the middle east is in turmoil, and to the west our once dependable ally, the United States, is withdrawing from its historic role as the protector of democracy in Europe. We have grown to rely—in fact, over-rely—on the US militarily, and the dependencies are many and deep. But it is increasingly unclear how far that is sustainable or how much our interests align. We need to make sure that while we solidify our relationship with the US, we are not in a state of over-reliance.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does the Chair of the Defence Committee share my concern that our continued reduction in numbers in the armed forces potentially undermines our ability to maintain our NATO commitments? Does he also share my concern about the huge numbers of people interested in joining the armed forces and the significant time lag in their ability to join, which is leading to many of them pulling out?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent point. The Defence Committee has raised those concerns—the relationship between force size and expanding commitments—and we are pressing the Government to explain clearly how personnel levels align with strategic ambitions.

I want to move on from the context in which we must judge our defence posture and spending. The United Kingdom remains, by any measure, one of the largest contributors in NATO. We should rightly be proud of that. Historically, we have always achieved the alliance’s core benchmark of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, but that benchmark no longer meets the threat. Pride must not blind us to reality: 2%, or even 2.5%, is no longer enough. The Prime Minister said last month, and has reiterated, that Britain needs to go faster on defence spending. I agree, and cold, hard reality dictates that we must. Going faster means just that—we do not have the luxury of time. If we need to be ready for a significant confrontation with a peer adversary in as little as three years, we cannot wait until the end of this Parliament to begin moving towards just 3% of GDP. We need a profiled increase.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this debate. There was a lot of focus in the House on the percentage of GDP that we spend on defence, and it is important to meet our NATO obligations. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government will reach at least 4.1% of GDP being spent on defence in 2027, on the way to 5% by 2035. That is an indicator of our commitment to defence, but it is not the whole story. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a more nuanced debate that considers whether we are spending the defence budget on the right things, with the appropriate lead times, for those short, medium and long-term strategic defence challenges that we face? The events of the last week make it even more important that we see the defence investment plan that the Government have promised as soon as possible.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending to the agreed NATO target of 5% in total—3.5% on conventional military spend and 1.5% extra on defence and security-related matters. However, as she rightly points out—and she has made similar points in discussions before—we must ensure that we get full bang for our buck, and we must also ensure that we have sovereign capability, and not just in the medium term, but in the long term.

Everything in deterrence theory tells us that waiting makes conflict more likely, not less. Russia is running a war economy now, and China has indicated that it wants to be ready to seize Taiwan by next year. As the Defence Committee heard last month, it does not make sense to say that we think we will be ready by about 2030. We also need to be honest about how much we should abuse the debt of peacetime to allow our armed forces to become hollowed out. We need to stop pretending that we can still operate as if we were a global power with historic reach. Our Committee has heard repeatedly that the gap between political ambition and real-world capability is widening, and that that gap risks undermining operational readiness, long-term planning and industrial confidence.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is making an excellent speech, will forgive me for interrupting him. He has referred to readiness and timings. Is he, like me, concerned about the comment on—from memory—page 43 of the strategic defence review that we must be prepared to fight a peer enemy by 2035, which is nine years from now? We may not have that much time.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the shadow Minister for making that excellent point. In fact, as I said earlier, the Minister for the Armed Forces has said that we need to be ready within three years. Either way, we need to wake up and smell the coffee, and actually start taking defence investment seriously. The issue is not just the need to spend more on defence, but the need to provide confidence and predictability and show that we do what we say we are doing, so that we can achieve the outcomes that we are seeking. However, one of the most pressing issues for defence at present is the continuing uncertainty surrounding future commitments.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

In my constituency, defence investment has supported high-skilled jobs since before the first ever vertical flight took off there, and today firms such as ITP Aero in Hucknall continue that proud tradition. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing defence spending is not only vital for our security but an investment in our economy, and that when contracts are awarded UK defence contracts should support UK jobs, strengthening British industries and communities such as mine?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend, who is a strong champion for her community, has made an excellent point. Defence is about not just security but skilled employment and regional growth. That is precisely why industry needs long-term certainty, so that those jobs can expand and endure.

Let me move on to the defence investment plan, which was promised last autumn. We are still waiting. Industry and trade union leaders say that the delay has created a planning “vacuum”. Companies cannot invest in new facilities, expand supply chains, or recruit or even retain skilled workers when they lack clarity on future procurement pipelines. This uncertainty is not merely an accounting inconvenience; it has real-world consequences. It affects jobs in communities across our country, the resilience of our industrial base and the armed forces themselves, who depend on predictable equipment delivery and long-term sustainability arrangements.

To put it simply, uncertainty costs money and capability. If we are serious about strengthening defence, we must be equally serious about strengthening defence industrial capacity, and that means four things. First, it means long-term certainty in procurement pipelines so that firms can invest confidently. Secondly, it means streamlined acquisition processes to reduce delays, bureaucracy and duplication. Thirdly, it means a sustained focus on skills, workforce development and supply chain resilience, ensuring that we can retain critical sovereign capabilities in areas such as ship and aircraft building, advanced manufacturing, cyber and emerging technologies, and can build additional production capacity so that we are not just competing with our allies to spend more money to achieve the same outputs, and so that we can export at scale and contribute to UK growth. Fourthly, we need improved access to credit so that industry can invest over the required timescales. I hope that my fellow Defence Committee members will elaborate further on that element; I am sure that, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will focus on it. Industrial capacity is not just a secondary concern; it is a strategic asset, and a decisive factor in deterrence and conflict.

On the UK’s position within NATO, we have long prided ourselves on being a leading European contributor, but the international landscape is shifting rapidly. Several allies, particularly in northern and eastern Europe, are now increasing defence spending at a pace that outstrips our own. Some are moving well beyond the 2% of GDP threshold and towards 3% or more. Whereas the UK was, relative to our GDP, the third-highest spender within NATO in 2012, 11 NATO members spent proportionately more than we did in 2025. That matters for two reasons: first, it affects our credibility and leadership within the alliance; and secondly, it shapes perceptions of burden sharing at a time when transatlantic solidarity is under strain.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the reason for the difference in defence spending is that those nations’ security is at much more immediate risk than that of the UK? If we are going to maintain a leading role and ensure the security of our people moving forward, we must be honest with our constituents. The reality is that, in order for our current way of life to be maintained, sacrifices will now be needed to secure the funding necessary to guarantee our defence.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I have shown, the uncomfortable truth is that our adversaries are moving faster than our acquisition cycles. We need to bring the public on board, because that reality must serve as a burning platform for reform. Incremental change will not be enough.

It would be remiss of me to discuss defence spending without addressing the issue that often fuels Treasury scepticism: the perception that Defence wastes the money that it spends. There have been too many examples of programmes exceeding budgets, missing timelines and delivering reduced capability. The Army’s Ajax vehicle programme is perhaps the most prominent recent case. Years of delay, spiralling costs and repeated safety concerns have eroded confidence. The repeated failures undermine trust, waste taxpayer resources and, ultimately, weaken our armed forces. It is easy to say that we must never repeat that, but our ability to spend effectively has now become an urgent question of national security.

[Jim McMahon]

Overall, the Government have a pretty poor reputation for spending public money wisely. My hon. Friend mentions Ajax, but I raise him: High Speed 2. Governments of all stripes need to do better. Given that our mayors and local authorities are developing the skill base at a local level, does he agree that it is best to link defence spending to our regional growth strategy, so that we do not have the constant stop-start that we see from central Government?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, having previously served as the shadow Transport Secretary and in various roles. He is right to say that part of the solution is devolution. We must ensure that we empower local people to make decisions for the benefit of their communities.

We must also recognise a broader truth: although robust scrutiny is essential, persistent institutional scepticism towards defence investment risks becoming self-defeating. If the Treasury’s default position is one of mistrust and funding is withheld due to past failures, the armed forces will be trapped in a cycle in which they cannot modernise effectively. What we need is not permanent suspicion, but a new compact, stronger accountability within defence procurement, greater transparency in programme delivery and, in return, a willingness from the centre of Government to invest at the scale required in today’s strategic environment. Trust must be rebuilt on both sides, and we on the Defence Committee want to give the Treasury the opportunity to show that it is acting as a team with Defence, with the same goals and national interests at heart. Indeed, we have invited a Treasury Minister to appear before us and are waiting eagerly for a positive response to this invitation. I hope the Minister agrees that this is a constructive request to which the only reasonable answer is yes. 

I want briefly to address the proposed defence readiness Bill. I hope Ministers will bring that forward from the intended date of 2027, because that delay matters and drift carries very real consequences. Public understanding is another vital component to success, and we must ensure that such a national conversation happens at pace, because at the present point in time we are not taking the public along with us.

I also want to address the issue of personnel reductions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that many Members want to speak in this very important debate, and I am sure he will be bringing his remarks to a close shortly.

[Mr Dhesi]

I shall, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your kind reminder.

I would like to get a response from the Minister about the supplementary estimate that includes a request for an additional £9 billion to cover:

“Depreciation and impairment arising from non-routine accounting adjustments”.

The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I have been at pains to convey that to the Ministry of Defence, and I hope we can get a response about it.

The world is becoming more dangerous, more contested and more uncertain, and at this point we cannot let complacency and inaction be the driving force. We must match national unity with national urgency. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this urgently needed debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

Along with extending my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee, I thank hon. Members across the Chamber for the range and quality of the speeches they have made. They have underlined why these estimates day debates are so important; we have not just scrutinised the numbers, but explained the kind of defence posture that our armed forces should be adopting.

Given the increased security threats, I hope the Minister will take away why the House feels the urgency with which we must act. I thank him for addressing some of my concerns, but there are certain things on which I think the House still needs an answer, predominantly the defence investment plan—we need a publication date to give a clear demand signal to industry, our allies and our adversaries—and a clear, hopefully incremental, path to chart towards 3% of GDP spending. We also need better vehicles to attract private investment. There is also the need to fix the perennial procurement problems that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and I have been trying to outline with respect to the MOD. Of course, we also need to rebuild trust with Treasury.

Thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all hon. Members for enabling such an excellent debate.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

In this evolving security environment, it is clear that developments in artificial intelligence and tech are changing the world at a rate of knots. Those things are integral to defence, but that must not come at the cost of transparency, trust and British businesses. Hon. Members who have served in this House for quite some time will know that dealings with Palantir have been the subject of intense scrutiny and speculation for several years. The key question is: why was this particular contract not subject to the usual competitive procurement processes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend and his Committee know a great deal more about this than The Times does. He will know that a competitive contract process is under way for the new medium-lift helicopter. He will also know that we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan. And he will know that, as part of that plan, we are dealing with a programme of record—a previous commitment to equipment—that was hugely overcommitted, underfunded and, in some cases, unsuited to the threats we face. For the first time in nearly 18 years, the Ministry of Defence is taking a line-by-line approach to building up our plans for the future.

Armed Forces Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

First, on behalf of our House of Commons Defence Committee, I thank the Secretary of State for the memorandum his Department provided to us and for last week’s briefing, organised by the Ministry of Defence Bill team. I also put on record our deep gratitude to the British armed forces for keeping us safe and secure—it is a sad fact that our world is becoming a more dangerous place, and I cannot praise enough the brave men and women who face down that danger every day to protect our nation. This is a wide-ranging Bill, and unfortunately, time does not allow me to address all its aspects in detail. I draw the House’s attention to my Committee’s letter to the Minister for the Armed Forces last week, in which we give more detailed observations on the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill expands the armed forces covenant, following the Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant “fully into law”. The Defence Committee held an inquiry into the covenant last spring, in which we recommended that the covenant be extended to all Government Departments and to the devolved Administrations and that its scope be extended beyond housing, education and health into other areas of life where service personnel can experience disadvantage, such as employment and social care.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the armed forces covenant is so important across all our local authority services? If so, does he share my surprise that no colleagues from the turquoise brigade on the Opposition Benches can even be bothered to come into the Chamber and listen to this evening’s debate?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. At such times, it is to be expected that all parties attend the debate—that point has been eloquently made by my hon. Friend. If Reform Members are serious about defence, they should attend defence debates and questions on a regular basis.

Clause 2’s strengthening of the covenant is welcome.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, there are rumours that Reform is going to announce a shadow Cabinet. Constitutionally, there is only one shadow Cabinet, which belongs to the Opposition—even the Lib Dems do not have one. Instead, we are going to call it the drinks cabinet, because Nigel likes a drink, and so does Lee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that drinks cabinet should have a defence spokesman in it?

[Mr Dhesi]

The shadow Defence Minister is right on both counts. There is only one Opposition, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—obviously, that is the Conservative party at present—and while I certainly would not use the term “drinks cabinet”, the shadow Defence Minister makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State will remember that in our report, we cautioned that those who are expected to deliver the covenant must be involved in co-designing the new duty, and must be appropriately resourced to deliver it; otherwise, there is a real risk of diluting their existing commitments. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or Ministers reassured the House on that point. The Secretary of State will also be aware that our inquiry concluded that updating the covenant in law is

“only part of the change that needs to occur.”

During the course of our work, we found that adherence to the existing covenant legal duty is very patchy. Too often, organisations that are subject to that duty do not understand it or, worse yet, disregard it. Understandably, this leads to disillusionment among the forces community, so in his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces please update the House on the Ministry of Defence’s plans to improve implementation?

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which I commend to the wider public beyond this House. In my own area, the local council and many voluntary sector organisations have done a very impressive job of adhering to the armed forces covenant, and are willing to do more. I thank Reading borough council and organisations such as The Forgotten British Gurkha charity. Does my hon. Friend believe there is a role for the organisations that are leading on this issue to share best practice, in order to help raise the equality of adoption of the new measures?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I am very pleased to hear that his Reading Central constituents, the council and other organisations are stepping up to the plate. Best practice should indeed be shared more widely to ensure better implementation across our country.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

On that point, I declare my support for Horsham district council’s work. It confirmed to me last year that it is examining the cost of exempting military compensation payments from all locally means-tested benefits. Does the hon. Member agree that in the spirit of the armed forces covenant, military compensation payments should be exempted from means-tested benefits nationally?

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Member for Horsham makes a strong point. It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and I, along with other Members, have discussed in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. I hope that Ministers are listening and will take remedial action. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces also commit to sharing the draft guidance with the House as soon as possible? It will be issued to organisations subject to the updated duty.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The Chair of the Select Committee is making a powerful speech. Part of the challenge with the provisions on the armed forces covenant is that delivery requires other Departments to engage and to deliver their responsibilities. Does he agree that this work needs to be loaded on to those other Secretaries of State by all those Members present today?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Indeed, he raises a point that we have forcefully made within our Defence Committee deliberations. I am sure that Ministers will be aware and will take appropriate action.

Turning to the service justice system measures, it is welcome to see that the Government have used the Bill to focus on better protection for victims of serious offences. Ministers know full well how much of a priority that is for our Committee. Victims of appalling crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual offences, have been continually failed by the system, and the measures in this Bill can make a positive difference for them. However, we would have liked to see the Government go further and implement our predecessor Committee’s recommendation that cases of rape and sexual assault are automatically heard in civilian courts. That was also the recommendation of the Lyons review in 2018, so will the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he responds to the debate, explain why the Government have decided not to take that approach?

Some of the most significant measures in the Bill relate to the role of the reserves. As the strategic defence review recognises, huge talent is available in our reserves, and defence does not make as much use of that talent as it could. We are pleased that the Bill attempts to change that. However, while the intentions of its measures are clear, their effect is less so. It is not clear how many additional reservists the Government expect those measures to generate, so it is difficult to know whether the Bill will make a meaningful improvement to our defence readiness, which we all know is extremely important, given the geopolitics we face.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is talking positively about the amazing contribution of our reservists, and I add to that the amazing contribution of our cadets in the Shipley constituency. We have air cadets and Army cadets in Shipley and Bingley. Will he join me in welcoming the proposals to bring together and unify the reserve forces and cadets associations into a single non-departmental public body? Will he also join me in urging the Minister to ensure that that new body continues to value the role of volunteer input from cadets?

[Mr Dhesi]

I am sure Ministers will have heard the excellent point that my hon. Friend makes forcefully. The Government need to properly model the impact of these changes and share their findings with the House. We also need to know the fitness criteria. I know the Minister for the Armed Forces is very fit, given his recent endeavours, including on Mount Everest, but how will the fitness criteria be applied to individuals subject to the new higher recall age of 65?

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

As it stands, if someone transitions from the regular forces and goes into the reserves, they have to have a separate medical test, even if they are already serving. Does the hon. Member agree that that area perhaps needs some work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. and gallant Member makes an excellent point, and I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will respond to that in his winding-up speech.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

On the proposal to extend the age limit under which reservists can be called back, a small number of them might have attained the extremely high levels of physical fitness of the Minister for the Armed Forces and be suitable for a wide range of roles, but some could be called back for back-office tasks such as analysing intelligence or training people, where the levels of fitness required are far lower than for any kind of combat role. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would release younger people who are currently in those roles to take up roles nearer the frontline?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Some individuals, especially in the media and on social media, have facetiously referred to it as “Dad’s Army”, but there is a role, especially behind the scenes, that older reserves can undertake for the defence of our country.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Dhesi]

I must make progress, but I have to give way to my fellow member of the Defence Committee. I hope that the intervention will be brief.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend will recognise Warrant Officer Bally Flora who, at the age of 66 and with 45 years of service behind him, was not ready to take to the back room. He has taken great affront at the remarks of those calling it “Dad’s Army”.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend has forcefully made that point, which reinforces what I just said. Some individuals may seek to be facetious about this, but our reserves are our pride. Regardless of their age, their talents need to be included as we defend our nation in future.

I am pleased to see the Government taking action in clause 3 to address the state of service accommodation. The Defence Committee was pleased that the Government accepted the conclusions of our hard-hitting report on service accommodation, and we hope that the new Defence Housing Service will be able to lead the renewal that is needed. It will be important that the new body can act independently in the interests of the forces community and that it is subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny in this House.

Furthermore, I must draw the House’s attention to clauses 38 and 39, which will remove the existing statutory requirements for Parliament to approve the size of the armed forces. Parliamentary control of the size of the armed forces is a vital and long-standing constitutional principle that dates back to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century. I feel that we must be extremely cautious before proceeding with measures that would diminish that control. The Government say that these changes are necessary to allow more flexibility in how the regular and reserve forces are used. Indeed, my Committee is sympathetic to that aim. However, it is not clear why it requires the removal of the statutory guarantee of parliamentary control. The Government need to justify why the measure is necessary and consider whether there are other ways of achieving their goals that would uphold the rights of our Parliament.

In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear that I am drawing to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is much to welcome in this Bill that will improve service life. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issues that the Defence Committee has raised and, by doing so, build strong cross-party support for the Bill as it continues its passage through the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I welcome the advance sight of the statement from the Defence Secretary, and I thank the Defence Minister for the operational briefing this morning. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s progress on the coalition of the willing. Of course, it does nothing to change the reality on the ground faced by our Ukrainian friends, nor the growing threats that we face. We await precise details, with respect to numbers. It is rumoured that approximately 7,500 British troops will be sent. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can allay my concerns about how our already overstretched armed forces will be able to meet their existing commitments, especially in Estonia.

The UK’s support today for our US allies enforcing sanctions in the Atlantic demonstrates the strength and value of alliances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and Denmark to determine, and that any attempts by a NATO ally to seize NATO territory would not be in our collective interests, and least of all in America’s interests?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

It is clear that the previous solution, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It was found to be unlawful by our courts, and therefore it needed to be replaced. It is also clear that the solution to this complex issue must provide justice, be legal, and ensure that our veterans feel that they have been protected and their service has been celebrated. Can the Minister confirm that nobody who perpetrated terrorist atrocities during the troubles will be given immunity? How exactly will the Government protect veterans from repeated investigations?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The reality is that the last Act was opposed by every part of the Northern Ireland system, groups across the military and civilians in Northern Ireland. It left our veterans in a legal wild west. The honest answer is that our military will always adhere to the law, and to the highest levels of the law. The new Bill allows us to protect this cohort, so that the legal process does not become a punishment, and importantly ensures that individuals cannot rewrite history. For the first time, we will have protections in place to support our veterans, and we will protect them from repeated investigations. There will be a legal duty to consider our veterans’ welfare, and we will ensure that no veteran has to attend proceedings or go to Northern Ireland; they can give evidence from home. These protections for our veterans have been designed by veterans, through discussions with me and various people across the Ministry of Defence.

Ukraine

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The final letter from the late Lance Corporal George Hooley is moving, poignant and inspirational. We will remember him.

The Defence Committee wholeheartedly supports the Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, their approach to a just and lasting peace, and the robust security guarantees for our Ukrainian friends. Putin and Russia have illegally invaded a sovereign European nation and should pay the cost, rather than the lion’s share of the burden falling on my Slough constituents and the British taxpayer. Rather than prevaricating, when will the Government and their European allies finally use the frozen Russian assets to punish Putin and properly support our Ukrainian friends?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the work that they have done over the past 12 months in support of our service personnel and our allies, not just in Ukraine but across the world. We continue to work alongside our European partners to look at how we can use the immobilised sovereign Russian assets; indeed, we are undertaking discussions on that very topic today. There is strong support from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary for progress on this issue, and we are seeing more progress from our European allies.

I hope that we will continue to make progress, because the case that my hon. Friend makes about Russia paying for the damage that it has caused, and about the cost that it has inflicted on the Ukrainian people, is absolutely right. We need to continue to make that case, especially as we get towards what I hope will be a peace deal that brings a just and lasting peace. It needs to be a fair peace, in which the voices of the Ukrainian people are heard very clearly.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

What an absolute shambles. The Minister should be livid at how things have transpired, given the billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money that has been spent over the years on the Ajax programme and the injuries sustained by our brave service personnel. In addition to problems with Ajax, the Boxer mechanised infantry vehicle is years late into service, and the 6,000 or so MAN support vehicles are currently grounded due to broken parts. Is there a wider systemic problem with land vehicle procurement and sustainment? Where exactly does this leave us with the British Army’s readiness at a time of such increased international tensions?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as well as for the questions he asked me in front of his Select Committee last week, which gave me the opportunity to provide an update to his Committee and the public on the investigations.

The MAN SV fleet is a system that is working properly, in the sense that problems have been identified with a vehicle that is nearly 20 years old. When problems are identified, it is right that fixes are then identified and rectifications are put in place. That is what is happening with the MAN SV fleet, which should return to full capabilities early in the new year. In the meantime, duty holders have the ability to operate those vehicles within strict parameters, to make sure Army tasks can continue to be carried out. However, my hon. Friend will know that the defence procurement system we inherited is in need of quite significant reform. We have started that process already, but there is more work to be done, because we need to move to warfighting readiness—for all our forces to be able to deter aggression, and defeat it if necessary. To do that, we have to get on top of what could be quite significant issues with a number of platforms, and that is what we intend to do.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As Chair of the Defence Committee and on behalf of the whole Committee, I want to express our deepest gratitude to all those who have served our country to keep us safe. On this day, we remember and honour those whose bravery and sacrifice secured for us the freedoms that we value so dearly, and pay tribute to those who continue to protect our way of life today. It is our great privilege as members of the Defence Committee that we are able to see their work at first hand.

This year we have visited the British battlegroup stationed in Tapa in Estonia, whose presence deters Russian aggression against our NATO allies in eastern Europe. We have also met serving personnel during our many visits to military sites across the UK, including RAF Lossiemouth, HMNB Portsmouth and the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where we met the impressive young people who will be the soldiers of the future. Meeting those remarkable individuals reminds us that the work of our armed forces never stops: they are always vigilant, and always prepared to do what is necessary to keep us safe—and that lifesaving work goes beyond defence. Earlier this month, HMS Trent was deployed to support disaster relief efforts in Jamaica following the devastating impact of Hurricane Melissa. I am immensely proud that the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces are out there representing the best of British every single day.

One of our Committee’s missions is to speak up on behalf of these exceptional people, and to raise the issues that matter to them. When the Committee was appointed by the House last year, one of our first priorities was to complete the previous Committee’s work on service accommodation because of the importance of that issue to serving personnel and their families. The standard of the housing in which we expect personnel to live has been unacceptable for some time, and that must be addressed. We are encouraged to see that the Government are focused on the overhaul of defence housing, and we will be scrutinising the new defence housing strategy as it is rolled out to ensure that it delivers what has been promised.

Another area that we continue to scrutinise is the treatment of women in the armed forces. More than 16,000 women serve our country in the military, but there are still unfair biases and barriers to their participation, and, sadly, many examples of bullying and harassment. That must change. We have agreed to hold an annual public hearing with the Ministry of Defence and the single services to drive them to improve, and to stamp out discrimination for good.

We want to ensure that all members of the armed forces community are treated fairly, which is why this year we held an inquiry on the Government’s plans to update the armed forces covenant. As Members know, the covenant is a solemn commitment from Government and society to the armed forces community that serving personnel, their families and veterans should not be disadvantaged in civilian life. Our inquiry asked veterans and serving personnel whether they felt that that promise was being fulfilled. While some of the feedback was positive, we still heard of too many examples in which the covenant is not understood or, worse still, is ignored. That means, for example, individuals having to wait for years for NHS treatment because they fall to the bottom of the waiting list each time they are deployed to a new area.

There are also gaps in the covenant, which means that the forces community still face disadvantages in social care, employment and the tax system. That is why we recommended that when the Government legislate in the next armed forces Bill, they should extend the covenant duty to every single Department. We look forward to that legislation, and hope that it will properly embed the covenant in our institutions and in wider society, so that those who have served can be in no doubt that it is there to support them. We also look forward to seeing the delivery of the new veterans strategy. The “Veterans Strategy” policy paper was published yesterday, and the strategy will be another important part of fulfilling our nation’s promise to the armed forces community.

In my constituency, I am pleased that the covenant has also been adopted by Slough borough council, but its implementation must of course be robust. Slough has a proud and enduring history of supporting our troops. In fact, the very roots of our iconic Slough Trading Estate lie in its establishment as a military repair depot in the first world war, and Langley airfield was the proud producer of thousands of Hawker Hurricanes in the second world war. Slough’s history is interwoven with defence. Just last week I had the honour of hosting an event to celebrate, in Parliament, two local heroes. Both those veterans, Havildar-Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt and Daffadar Mohammed Hussain, served in world war two, and sadly passed away earlier this year. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of brave troops from across the globe for our freedom, must never be forgotten. We must do more than just be thankful; we must actively celebrate and honour the service given by all, especially in these febrile times, including those from across the world who ensured that our freedoms could be preserved. Remembrance should never be exclusive.

Today’s remembrance services honour the past, but they also remind us of the duty performed by those who defend us today in an increasingly dangerous world. Our Committee’s visit to Ukraine last month was a sobering reminder that war in Europe is no longer a thing of the past. We must never forget our debt to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, and we must never neglect our obligations to those who make sacrifices today. Our Committee will continue to honour the fallen, while also putting the welfare of the of the servicemen and women of our armed forces at the heart of our work throughout this Parliament. We will remember them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

Given the multitude of security threats that we face, especially in the grey zone of cyber-attacks, it is abundantly clear that we need to accelerate investment in defence, but the Government are just not able to move fast enough. Our German friends, renowned for their fiscal prudence, have relaxed their fiscal rules just for their Defence Department. In the run-up to the Budget, what discussions has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary had with the Chancellor on relaxing fiscal rules for the Ministry of Defence in order to meet the moment?

[John Healey]

We have the increase in the budget this year; we have the increase in the budget over the Parliament. Our job now is to ensure that we can deliver value for money for that increased investment, and use that increased investment to drive economic growth across the UK. It is thanks to that increased investment that we have been able to announce and launch our defence housing strategy today.