Defence Investment Plan

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.

The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.

Armed Forces Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee.

The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The measures on the armed forces covenant are one of the most impressive things about this Bill, not just UK-wide, but for the 115,000 veterans in Wales and their families who will now benefit from the legal duty on public services to take into consideration their specific circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in wishing a very happy Armed Forces Day to Prestatyn Royal British Legion branch, as I will when I celebrate and commemorate this special day with them later this month?

[Mr Dhesi]

I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community.

The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may.

The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views.

The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system.

The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system.

The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later.

While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do.

In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Some hon. Members have advocated for defence bonds. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Defence Committee has examined in detail various defence financing options, including a defence, security and resilience bank—the Canadians have stolen a march on us, even though the idea was developed by a former British Army officer. There are multilateral defence mechanisms, and other nations have opted for a loosening of the fiscal rules just for defence. Obviously, these are not either/or options, but given the increased threats and the level of volatility, we must accelerate investment in defence to 3% GDP spend in this Parliament. Given that context, what options and course of action are the Government pursuing? We cannot keep plodding along at the current pace; we must meet the moment.

[John Healey]

With all due respect—and I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend—the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war is hardly the plodding path he describes. I welcome his Committee’s inquiry into defence investment and its report. I know that Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister who has been commissioned by the Prime Minister to look at multinational financing of security, will use that report as an important part of his work, which I welcome. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech in February that

“We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age.”

We know that we must spend more faster, and we will.

Defence Readiness

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

His Majesty the King opened his Speech by noting:

“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.

We have seen unprecedented military action and instability internationally, with the conflict in the middle east being only the most recent example. Closer to home, we have continued concerns about the security of Ukraine, deterring further Russian action on the European continent and creating a resilient society that is ready to support our Government and armed forces if we have to respond.

As I have previously noted in this House, the United States—our once dependable ally—is withdrawing from its historical role as the protector of democracy in Europe. It has become increasingly clear to us on the Defence Committee that there is an overreliance on the USA, both militarily and for access to its defence industrial base. When we see the US delaying deliveries and increasing the cost of Patriot missiles already sold to Switzerland as a result of the Iran war, we must examine our own dependencies, as it is becoming increasingly unclear how far they are sustainable.

In March, I warned that Russia is already operating in the grey zone against the UK, notably in sabotage and cyber-operations against the infrastructure that supports our prosperity. Furthermore, we know that Russia, China and others are arming at pace and increasing their readiness for war, yet many UK capability targets are measured in years and decades, rather than months. Neither the Government, our military, nor our society are yet prepared or resilient enough to cope with a large-scale conflict. As His Majesty warned us a week ago,

“Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.”

The UK’s armed forces need to both improve their current readiness and adopt new technologies at pace and at scale. The Government have consistently recognised that our armed forces are hollowed out, and both the strategic defence review and the national security strategy committed the Government to improving the UK’s warfighting readiness. However, our credibility has been harmed in recent months. The lack of available frigates and destroyers to carry out the tasks that we have set ourselves and, often, that we have agreed with NATO, is merely one example of the difficulties faced. The US is carrying out a NATO audit, and it is looking hard at us. Our European partners are questioning whether we can deliver on the commitments we have made to NATO as part of the defence planning process, and whether we continue to deserve our leadership role in NATO.

In the Defence Committee’s report, “The UK contribution to European Security”, we warned that

“Time is short, given the urgency of the threat and the work required to respond appropriately.”

We raised questions about both the sufficiency of the capabilities we provide to NATO and those with which we could protect our homeland. We questioned the Government’s progress on engaging the population about both the threat and how we respond to it. We have also looked at long-term procurement programmes, completing the previous Committee’s work on the global combat air programme and undertaking a new inquiry into AUKUS.

We are well aware that decisions taken today, particularly those that delay programmes or lead to the loss of sovereign capability, have a huge impact on our future ability to defend our nation and deter adversaries, so we await the defence investment plan. We know that the delay is damaging both our domestic industry and our international credibility. We do not have empty factories, spare components or a surplus of welders sitting around, waiting to jump into action once the Government decide what they want. Companies do not have warehouses full of supplies waiting for the Government to put their order in. The defence industry needs to increase capacity, which means building production lines and training people so that they can build the products. That is particularly relevant if allies and partners are buying the same things at the same time, which we have seen as a result of the war in Ukraine.

Most importantly, we do not know at what rate the Government intend to reach the target of 3% of GDP being spent on defence—hopefully in this Parliament—or the NATO target of 3.5% by 2035. All the various defence financing options need to be rapidly considered, with some implemented as soon as possible. I have asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a timeline, so that industry can plan based on when that additional funding will arrive. He refused to give certainty beyond 2027, and we need that certainty. The US and the EU are looking at our defence industrial base and working out how best they can tempt our companies to move to their countries, so that they can benefit from British innovation, while we fail to provide a reason to stay here. In our European security report, the Defence Committee warned that establishing capacity takes time, and if the Government decide to just turn on the tap at the last minute, a lot of taxpayers’ money will be lost to defence inflation, leaving the MOD with very little to show for it.

Let me now move on to the defence readiness Bill, which should have featured prominently in the King’s Speech, but alas, the Government have not included it. The purpose of the defence readiness Bill is to give the Government

“powers in reserve to respond effectively in the event of escalation towards a war involving the UK or its allies”,

and to “facilitate external scrutiny” of the UK’s ability to defend itself. The Government are determining which additional legal powers they need and looking at

“measures to…better protect our Critical National Infrastructure, provide for the mobilisation of wider Defence capability in crisis, and ensure Parliament’s ability to scrutinise warfighting readiness.”

We were told that this work would include engagement with key stakeholders—including other Government Departments and the Committee—during 2026 as specific measures are developed. Drafting will then

“take place following robust evidence-gathering and policy development.”

All of that is welcome, but we need a timeline.

It has now been more than two years since the end of the last Parliament. The Government have demonstrated again and again that they understand the problems; what they have failed to do is implement a transformative solution. We need to fund defence properly, with a timetable showing precisely how and when we will reach the agreed 3.5% NATO target. We urgently need a defence investment plan, published before the summer recess, that shows what is being invested where and, crucially, where the disinvestments are, and what the subsequent changes to the structure of the UK’s armed forces will be. We need a defence readiness Bill to be published in this Session, and we need a commitment that it will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. As the Prime Minister has talked about, we need to engage the public in a national conversation about spending more on defence and what the public’s role in our nation’s security is. The Government are rightly wary of panicking the public, but the best way to avoid that is to ensure that the public understand what is required of them as individuals and communities, and to ensure that our brave armed forces have the necessary capabilities to defend us.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend does a superb job on the Defence Committee, and he is right to be asking questions of defence. It is precisely because I share many of his views that we commissioned the strategic defence review in the first place. We adopted all 62 recommendations, including the recommendation to move our nation’s military to warfighting readiness, ending the hollowing-out and underfunding that we inherited from the Conservative party. That is why there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year already. The shadow Minister’s Government cut defence when they had their first budget, and we increased defence funding—that is the difference between our two parties.

We are not waiting for the defence investment plan. I entirely understand the seriousness with which the Defence Committee Chair raises these issues. We are announcing defence contracts—not a day goes by without me signing off on a new one. Indeed, this morning I was in Andover announcing the £879 million contract for maintenance of our Apache and Chinook helicopters with Boeing. It is a 1,200-job contract that supports our efforts to make defence an engine for growth and give our fighting forces the very best equipment they can have.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and the Defence Secretary for his public statement, which have increased public awareness about the growing threats that our nation faces. On behalf of the Defence Committee, I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in disrupting the Russian activity around our critical undersea infrastructure. This incident underscores the growing threat that Russia poses, and the need to increase defence investment now and finally to publish the defence investment plan.

Turning to the incident itself, I take on board the Minister’s words, but it has been widely reported, including publicly at the London defence conference, that Putin had explosives planted on our undersea cables. For the record, can he confirm whether Russians were involved in either sabotage or precursors to sabotage on or around our undersea cables?

[Al Carns]

The reality is that Russia failed on this occasion, and it failed because we exposed its activity, which meant that there was no way, shape or form that it could deny its activity in the first place. I was at the London defence conference and I heard certain discussions about undersea cables. I can confirm that no sabotage took place this time, but the Russians put a lot of effort into mapping and understanding our undersea critical national infrastructure, and we will do everything to map, track and expose it, should it take place.

Gurkha Veterans

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.

I rise to speak on the subject of support for Gurkha veterans and their dependants. As I speak, Ghanendra Limbu is in hospital, where for two weeks, he has helped me put together this story in a manner that I hope will be befitting. I hope the House will join me in wishing him a swift and full recovery.

Nepal is a country smaller than the UK, bordered by global giants China to its north and India to its south. Its highest point is Mount Everest, and it is from Nepal that for over 200 years, the UK has drawn some of its most resilient, courageous and loyal soldiers. Ghanendra was born in the mountainous village of Khamalung, which has a population of 900, on 27 January 1960. Like many across Nepal, he grew up in poverty, despite both parents working long hours as farmers. His ambition was to one day join the Gurkhas and serve alongside the British Army, as some of his uncles and cousins did—it would be a route out of poverty and into a life of expedition—but it was an ambition shared by hundreds of thousands of young Nepalese.

At school, Ghanendra excelled in football and basketball, but his English was also exceptional, which would soon prove pivotal to his future. In 1977, he travelled to the recruiting centre near Kathmandu and applied to join the Gurkhas. The recruitment process was robust and highly contested; there were tens of thousands of applicants to join a brigade only 8,000 strong. Ghanendra was the only person from his village to pass selection. His parents were immensely proud of their son, but his success meant that he would soon leave his family behind to travel to Hong Kong and begin 11 months of training. In Hong Kong, Ghanendra—with his rural background—learned how to survive in conflict and operate various weapon systems; that included learning how to wield the Nepali kukri in hand-to-hand combat. His field engineer training then took him to Kitchener barracks in Kent, where he trained as a driver and a field engineer.

Throughout this period of training, Ghanendra and his fellow Gurkhas were vaguely aware of the increasing tensions between Argentina and the UK over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. On completion of his training, he was assigned to the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, which provided the British Army with builders, plumbers and electricians. Ghanendra was selected to train as an electrician, but before he could begin his specialist training, on 2 April 1982, Argentina seized the Falkland Islands, 10,000 miles from Nepal. As Ghanendra recalls, he could barely identify the islands on a map. Britain declared war, and Ghanendra’s platoon commander immediately reassigned him to pre-deployment training.

On 12 May 1982, eight days after HMS Sheffield was sunk with the loss of 20 personnel, the British ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 embarked for the south Atlantic, carrying Gurkhas, Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Later, at Ascension Island, 21162121 Sapper Limbu and his fellow engineers boarded, and he recalls being ordered to prepare to fight immediately on arrival into theatre. Most of them had never travelled by sea, and were constantly sick over the next 11 days. Until 14 June, over the course of the war, during which Britain lost six ships, Ghanendra and his engineers remained aboard the QE2, knowing day and night that they too could be attacked. They remained aboard long after the war ended, to clear ordnance, which littered battlefields across the islands, but Ghanendra states that he was never trained in minefield clearance.

On 1 December 1982, Ghanendra was attached to 49 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers, and was deployed by helicopter to Two Sisters hill. Members of 49 EOD located an unexploded Russian anti-aircraft rocket and began to initiate a cordon. Ghanendra was closest to that rocket when it detonated. He regained consciousness at Port Stanley hospital, several hours after evacuation, where he was told by a doctor that he would lose his eye, and that his hands and legs were badly injured. He was told, before he passed out, that he would be returned to the UK for treatment.

Ghanendra was first moved to Ascension Island on 4 December, where he received further treatment, and he remembers being unable to pass urine. He remembers being given another injection, before regaining consciousness at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich. He was blind in both eyes for two weeks, during which he was operated on by Colonel Youngson, who told him he was lucky to have survived at all. Following six months of treatment, Ghanendra lost one of his eyes, but retained sight in the other, and he kept limited use of his hands and legs.

Throughout those six months, Ghanendra cried day and night. His hopes of a long Army career as an electrician were over at 22. “The Magician”, as he was described by his team-mates on the battalion basketball team, would never play basketball again, and his days on the right wing of a football pitch were over, too. After his discharge from hospital, Ghanendra returned to Kitchener barracks, wanting to seek legal advice, but he was ordered not to leave camp. In 1983, he was told he was no longer fit for the Army and was flown back to Hong Kong. He was physically and psychologically broken, and would have nothing to offer back in Nepal. He was offered a partial pension by the UK Government, amounting to 40%. It was worth 500 rupees—less than £2.50 in today’s money. The UK sent this man, who travelled 10,000 miles to serve the UK in the Falkland Islands, back to Nepal with one eye, a walking stick and £2.50 a month. Shame on us.

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

The hon. and gallant Member is making an excellent speech, and the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans must never be understated or sidelined. The treatment of Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans in regard to their pensions has been deplorable. The UK Government have rightly recognised veterans’ bravery and their achievements, but that must be translated into respect for their pensions. Does he agree that the UK Government must work at pace and collaboratively with the new Prime Minister of Nepal to resolve these long-standing issues of long-suffering veterans?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

After having insulted Great Britain for our response in not joining his war and then claiming that he did not need British help after having “already won” the war, President Donald Trump has now sent an SOS to the world, including to the UK and other NATO allies, to help him protect the strait of Hormuz. I think it is in our national interests to stop the disruption to global shipping, because otherwise that will drive up the cost of goods and the cost of living for my Slough constituents and others across the country. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government’s response will be to the US President’s request? How will my right hon. Friend ensure the safety of British armed forces personnel if they are to engage in any such operations?

[John Healey]

As the Prime Minister said this morning, in fact—my hon. Friend is right—the strait of Hormuz is vital. It is vital to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and the US. These questions are complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations taking part as possible. Without going into detailed operational options or discussions, I have already said that we have prepositioned in the region autonomous minehunting capabilities. We have counter-drone systems in action in the region, pulling down drones. Looking ahead, alongside industry, we are looking at additional innovative options, including interceptor drones for the middle east.

Middle East: Defence

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for his operational briefing beforehand. I also want to pay tribute to and praise our armed forces for their bravery, dedication and professionalism in defending our citizens and our allies in the region.

I agree with the Defence Secretary that we must urge de-escalation and a return to the negotiation process. I am glad that the Government pre-positioned Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone units and other air defence assets in the region. However, the lack of a naval presence should be a cause of huge concern for all of us. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments that our armed forces are significantly overstretched from the High North to further beyond, and that the hollowing out in recent years has meant that we do not have enough assets, but what is being done urgently to rectify the situation and increase the investment in defence in the near future, so that we can be in several places at once?

[John Healey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action we have taken—the deployments I have decided to commit to the region. He asks what we are doing to make good 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under the previous Government. The first step is to increase defence spending: this year, it is more than £8 billion greater than in the last year under the previous Government, totalling £270 billion in this Parliament alone, which is the single biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The defence investment plan that will follow up the strategic defence review is a vision and a plan for rebuilding our forces, strengthening our deterrent, integrating our armed forces for the future and harnessing the accelerating power of new technology. I am grateful to him and his Defence Committee members for supporting and recognising that.

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).