← Back to House of Commons Debates
National Armaments Director 2025-06-25
25 June 2025
Lead MP
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Defence
Other Contributors: 24
At a Glance
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown raised concerns about national armaments director 2025-06-25 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Welcomed the debate on Armed Forces Week, acknowledged increased defence spending from 2% to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and further commitments towards 3% in the next Parliament. Criticised the lack of a detailed defence investment plan alongside the strategic defence review and highlighted budget shortfalls for equipment procurement.
Lincoln Jopp
Con
Spelthorne
Expressed frustration over delays in scrutinising defence equipment spending, highlighting that the last scrutiny was in 2022.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Highlighted concerns about inflationary pressures on defence costs and questioned whether these were properly accounted for by Ministers.
Murrison
Con
not specified
Asks about the Government's stance on the Haythornthwaite review, which was previously carried out under the last Government to improve careers in the armed forces. Emphasises the importance of this review for retaining servicemen and women.
Graeme Downie
Lab
Dunfermline and Dollar
Welcomes the debate on the national armaments director's remit, highlighting its strategic importance. Discusses the need to focus on Scotland’s position in NATO and improving NATO’s deterrence in Northern Europe and the High North. Emphasises the role of Type 31 frigates being built at Rosyth dockyard in his constituency. Requests an update on future air dominance system and Britain’s next-generation Type 83 programme. Highlights the need for a defence growth fund to boost prosperity, jobs, and skills training.
MP
Con
not specified
The SNP Scottish Government has failed on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending. The SNP's position on military equipment is considered preposterous, putting Scotland’s security at risk and reducing opportunities for young people in my constituency. I urge the Minister to provide an update on discussions with the Department for Business and Trade regarding the defence growth fund and how it will benefit people in Scotland.
Solihull West and Shirley
The case for strengthening our armed forces is compelling and essential. The national armaments director's role has grown substantially, becoming the principal architect of our defence industrial strategy. We must accelerate procurement cycles, build in modularity and adaptability, strengthen domestic supply chains, and drive long-term collaboration between government, industry, and academia to ensure operational readiness and sovereign capability. Funding for defence should not come at the expense of international development commitments.
Derby North
Our armed forces are the best in the world, and they need the necessary kit, arms, and technology to serve our national security. The Government's announcement for a large sustained increase in defence spending is essential, boosting prosperity, jobs, and growth across the UK. Derby plays a significant role in this strategy with Rolls-Royce Submarines building nuclear reactors for the at-sea deterrent, emphasising the importance of submarines in underwriting our security.
John Cooper
Con
Dumfries and Galloway
There is a need to mobilise British industry as we ramp up for possible conflict. The Scottish Government's stance on military equipment funding and the hostile environment it creates for defence firms are concerning. Scotland already produces critical components such as Royal Navy warships, radars, optronic masts, smart missiles, and helmets vital to fighter bombers.
Tom Hayes
Lab
Bournemouth East
Hayes emphasised the changing nature of American foreign policy and highlighted the increasing competition between democracies and autocracies. He argued for a significant increase in defence spending, noting that the UK is committed to spending 4.1% of GDP by 2027 and 5% by 2035. Hayes stressed the importance of vigilance against threats and investment in new technologies.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Con
Huntingdon
Obese-Jecty briefly interjected, asking to give way, but was not given a chance to speak. No position or statistics were provided in the transcript for this speaker.
Lincoln Jopp
Con
Spelthorne
Jopp critiqued the strategic defence review process and questioned the readiness of military equipment, citing the example of working tanks. He emphasised the need to reconsider procurement practices and suggested that there should be alternatives beyond nuclear deterrence.
John Slinger
Lab
Rugby
Agreed that the new national armaments director should prioritise giving SMEs a fair share of defence contracts.
Epsom and Ewell
Welcomed increased defence spending but criticised the Government for not reversing earlier troop cuts quickly enough. Called for new bonus schemes to recruit more personnel to reach a target of 76,000 troops.
Mike Martin
LD
Tunbridge Wells
Suggested that with increased defence spending, the Government could accelerate expansion of Army numbers for better deterrence.
Peter Swallow
Lab
Bracknell
Asked about funding proposals from the Liberal Democrats to increase troop numbers.
North Cotswolds
The threats to our security mean that the Government cannot afford to delay. With President Trump casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO, the UK must lead in Europe. That means moving much faster to reach the new 5% NATO target than the currently proposed 2035 timeline.
We are currently sitting on £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. Across the G7, that figure rises to $300 billion. I recently visited Estonia, and I cannot emphasise enough how strongly the Estonians urge the UK and His Majesty’s Government to develop plans on how best to support Belgium in unlocking those assets.
Adam Dance
LD
Yeovil
Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to award the New Medium Helicopter contract to Leonardo UK in Yeovil, and to reassure us that a “defence dividend” will include supporting jobs, apprenticeships and the resilience of domestic defence firms across the south-west?
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Given the threats we face from Russia and the instability in the middle east and elsewhere, it is welcome in principle that NATO states have agreed at this week’s summit to increase spending. Nevertheless, when we consider what the Government’s announcement means for UK defence expenditure, we must be clear that talk of 5% on national security and 3.5% on defence is nothing but a con.
Maria Eagle
Lab
Rotherham
The Government will work closely with the National Audit Office and the Defence Committee to ensure proper transparency. The UK has committed an extra £5 billion this year for defence, aiming to reach 2.5% of GDP in the core defence budget by 2027. The government has a manifesto commitment to get to 3% overall spending in the next Parliament and towards 5% eventually, with clear funding announced. NATO will monitor progress yearly. Defence reform includes shorter acquisition timescales for equipment delivery, direct accountability through the National Armaments Director, and innovation budgets to speed up lethality into warfighters' hands.
Adam Dance
Con
Luton North
Asked about the new medium-lift helicopter contract awarding timeline. The Minister indicated that an announcement will be made in due course but did not specify a timescale.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Asked for clarification on the quantum of money being added to the MOD budget beyond core defence spending, specifically regarding intelligence and Foreign Office items outside Chagos. The Minister stated she would discuss this further but could not give an answer immediately.
The Cotswolds
Inquired about the timeline for ramping up recruitment efforts in light of tensions between equipment budget and recruitment needs. The Minister acknowledged ongoing efforts but noted that significant changes take time to show results.
I thank the Minister for that positive contribution. Twenty-five years ago, when we sat next to each other in the Public Accounts Committee, passing each other notes and holding the civil service to account, who would have thought that we would be in our respective positions now? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for his contribution. In fact, I thank all Members for a very positive debate. We look forward to seeing positive results from all the requests that have been made today, and to working with the Government, while strictly holding them to account for all the promises that they have made.
Government Response
The Government aims to reform defence procurement to deliver equipment faster and more effectively, with shorter acquisition timescales for various programmes. The National Armaments Director will be responsible for delivering capabilities in much shorter timescales, improving accountability and budgeting processes.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
Given the threats we face from Russia and the instability in the middle east and elsewhere, it is welcome in principle that NATO states have agreed at this week’s summit to increase spending. Nevertheless, when we consider what the Government’s announcement means for UK defence expenditure, we must be clear that talk of 5% on national security and 3.5% on defence is nothing but a con.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.