Backbench Business

Noted that Mr Speaker has set an expectation for opening speeches to be kept to a maximum of 15 minutes.

Mr. Francois emphasised the committee's careful consideration in reporting candidly about the weaknesses in UK armed forces, noting that any such information was likely already known to adversaries.

Mr. Shelbrooke agreed with Mr. Quin on the importance of accommodation for operational capability, highlighting its role alongside hardware in maintaining defence readiness.

Welcomes the debate on UK defence procurement, highlights concerns about the Ministry of Defence's inability to deliver projects on time and within budget. Criticises the ongoing 'optimism bias' in MOD planning, noting a £16.9 billion gap between required capability and affordable funding over ten years. Emphasises the need for better project management, timely decision-making regarding programme cancellations or repurposing, transparency in procurement processes, and robust defence industrial strategy to support economic growth.

Announced a 13-minute limit for speeches to ensure all Members can contribute.

The current defence posture of the UK is insufficient to deter potential aggressors like Russia, China, or Iran. The MOD lacks urgency in its response despite significant spending. Key frontline systems are being retired without adequate replacements, leading to a critical gap in war readiness. The Ministry's procurement system and personnel management are dysfunctional, with outdated equipment and insufficient skilled personnel. The defence budget is decreasing by £2.5 billion next year, playing 'smoke and mirrors' with Ukraine donations and Treasury reserve funds. It is imperative to prepare for potential conflicts to prevent them.

The frequent reviews on defence are not resulting in the necessary step change needed to ensure we deliver the capability our country needs. There is a sense of déjà vu with repeated discussions on defence without substantial progress.

While there is concern about equipment balance, effective deterrence also depends on allies and others fighting for the same cause. It is essential to ensure American allies remain involved in the deterrence process and that Ukrainians succeed against Russia to contain Russian aggression in the future.

The debate focuses on the industrial capacity needed for defence, including manufacturing plants and their supply chains. John Spellar emphasises the need for a whole-of-Government approach to maintain workforce training and production capabilities. He questions whether the establishment understands that there is now a possibility of war, not just an oscillation between peace and conflict. The debate also touches on the Defence Production Act in the US, which gives extensive powers to ramp up production capacity, suggesting UK should consider similar mechanisms. Spellar highlights the fragility of supply chains due to recent crises like covid and conflicts in Ukraine, advocating for reshoring and near-shoring strategies. He mentions increasing tensions in the Gulf region and the importance of AUKUS and deepening relations with Japan. The MP also criticises delays in placing orders for new munitions during the conflict in Ukraine and raises concerns about cuts to British domestic defence spending while supporting Ukraine. Spellar calls for investment in defence capacity from finance houses as a patriotic duty, highlighting the need for a whole-of-Government approach beyond the Ministry of Defence.

Intervenes to clarify that the £2.5 billion given to Ukraine is not part of the UK defence budget, emphasising it cannot be spent twice on both Ukrainian support and domestic military needs.

We face a world of unprecedented complexity and threat. Threats are emerging or already in place, necessitating collaboration with allies. The report from the Select Committee, which I was part of, is exemplary and highlights foundational assumptions that need testing. Democracies can fight wars intensely but require time to mobilise; we must prepare now due to evolving threats. Historical context shows concerns about martial virtue yielding to luxury during peace times. AI and rapid growth are accelerating strategic thinking challenges. We need a more intelligent deployment of state-market relationships and talent development in political parties. The civil service's preoccupation with process is inadequate for war preparation, requiring an intellectual shift towards readiness.

Stresses the need to be realistic about defence capabilities and contributions. Proposes a mindset change that focuses on what Britain can realistically achieve within its means, rather than maintaining an imperialist vision of global power. He calls for hard decisions regarding NATO commitments, skills investment in domestic industries, and immediate action post-election.

Intervened to correct historical inaccuracies about Winston Churchill's role as Chancellor of the Exchequer during defence cuts.

Responded to Mark Francois, pointing out that the 10-year rule was indeed rescinded in the mid-1930s, a few years after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

Pays tribute to the Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee for their reports. Discusses national security, military reforms from the English Civil War era as a parallel to today's need for innovation and agility in the armed forces. Highlights the urgency of being prepared for warfare with high morale, well-equipped and trained troops, stressing that current investments are insufficient. Emphasises the importance of spending more than 2% or 2.5% of GDP on defence and improving procurement reform. Raises concerns about the nuclear budget potentially cannibalising conventional weapons budgets. Urges focus on recruitment issues, housing conditions, and training to address morale crises. Calls for significant investment in all five domains including sea power, submarines, and a reformed Army with better readiness. Advocates for a medium-sized Army capable of defending islands and acting as part of joint expeditionary forces.

Echoed the positive words from the Public Accounts and Defence Committees reports, questioned the Government about indications of when economic conditions might allow defence spending to rise to 2.5%. Criticised inconsistencies in budget reporting among services, particularly between the Royal Navy and the Army. Highlighted the need for transparency regarding defence planning assumptions and criticised the current Secretary of State for Defence's strategy as being out of step with the Chancellor and Prime Minister. Emphasised the importance of restoring the Army to 83,000 soldiers.

Emphasises the need for increased defence spending due to global security challenges, especially in light of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine. Notes that politicians often overestimate their ability to predict geopolitical events accurately and underestimates the likelihood of conflicts arising from areas like supply chain disruptions or naval disputes. Highlights the importance of NATO's Article 3, which requires member states to defend their own borders first before expecting assistance under Article 5. Discusses China’s potential response to Russian nuclear use, suggesting that it reduces the likelihood of nuclear conflict but does not eliminate the need for a strong conventional military and nuclear deterrent. Advocates for more efficient spending within defence budgets and calls for an honest conversation about reallocating resources without compromising essential services such as healthcare and welfare.

Criticises the fantasy talk in the debate and highlights the weaknesses in defence capabilities. He quotes Rudyard Kipling and emphasises that the Government is concealing their weaknesses.

Raises a point of order, clarifying his previous comments and disputing George Galloway's interpretation of them.

Returns the debate to George Galloway after Mark Francois' point of order. Also manages the time for remaining speakers in the debate.

Details extensive issues within UK armed forces including personnel shortages, equipment delays and industrial capacity challenges. Cites numerous reports indicating a lack of readiness across all services for potential conflicts.

Emphasised the importance of resilience and readiness in the armed forces. Critiqued the recruitment and retention issues faced by women, black and ethnic minority communities, and young men due to poor terms and conditions. Advocated for fundamental rights for members of the armed forces, including representation through a body like the Police Federation. Highlighted the need for utilising existing skills flexibly, as seen in NATO allies. Criticised the privatisation of NHS procurement processes during the pandemic, which forced the Army into non-military roles such as building Nightingale hospitals. Emphasised partnerships and infrastructure readiness for military operations, including logistical challenges post-cold war era. Highlighted the importance of peacekeeping roles and the UN's work in maintaining international order.

He criticises the current defence budget cuts of £2.5 billion and highlights that only two out of 46 MOD equipment programmes are on track. He calls for greater transparency in MOD operations, including publishing a full equipment plan, and warns about increasing threats from autocrats while UK forces face underfunding and capability shortfalls.

The Minister addressed several points raised in the debate, including support for Ukraine, discussions on historical defence spending, and the importance of technology in future warfare. He also mentioned reforms to procurement models and partnerships with industry.

The right hon. Member clarified his statement about the UK's contribution being a gnat on the backside of an elephant in the context of a South China Sea crisis, suggesting that this was different from what the Minister interpreted.

The right hon. Member emphasised the importance of continued aid to Ukraine and discussed the potential impact on NATO should Donald Trump be re-elected as President, noting a recent change in his tone towards Europe's defence responsibilities.

The hon. Member accused the government of imperialism in deploying armed forces and criticised the support for Ukraine while condemning Zelensky, referring to earlier statements made during the debate.

The hon. Member questioned why key information on readiness was no longer published and highlighted concerns about transparency regarding defence preparedness.

The right hon. Member stressed the importance of a strong domestic defence industry, referencing historical examples like Spitfires and Hurricanes during World War II to argue for continued investment in defence manufacturing.

Endorsed the quality and richness of facts presented during the debate. Acknowledged the universal view that the armed forces are overextended due to the current war on the continent and the pre-war phase as stated by the Defence Secretary. Emphasised the role of Select Committees in highlighting difficult issues, including sensitive defence programmes. Welcomed the Minister's comments on AUKUS but noted the need for further work on addressing questions raised in reports.