← Back to House of Commons Debates
Defence Spending
24 April 2024
Lead MP
Grant Shapps
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
UkraineDefenceEconomyEmployment
Other Contributors: 50
At a Glance
Grant Shapps raised concerns about defence spending 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:
Government Statement
In a statement updating the House, Grant Shapps announced that the UK Government is committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Since January, tensions have escalated worldwide, with Putin stepping up attacks on Ukraine and Iran conducting an unprecedented attack against Israel. The world has become more dangerous, and the UK's armed forces are increasingly needed. An additional £75 billion will be invested in defence over the next six years without increasing borrowing or debt. This represents a significant boost for UK defence science, manufacturing, and resilience. The investment also enables increased support for Ukraine, including an extra £500 million of military aid this year, bringing total support to £3 billion since Putin's invasion. This funding will strengthen the UK’s defence industry with over £10 billion allocated for munitions production over a decade. Additionally, there is a commitment to upgrade accommodation and living quarters for personnel. Shapps emphasised that deterrence remains key to keeping the country safe.
David Linden
Lab
Aberdeen South
Question
In response to the minister's statement about prioritising domestic defence production over international contracts, David Linden inquired whether there are any specific plans to review and adjust existing contracts that have been awarded but may not be in the national interest.
Minister reply
Grant Shapps responded by emphasising the importance of balancing both domestic needs and international commitments. He noted that while there is a clear need for robust defence production within the UK, the Government remains committed to honouring international agreements and maintaining strong alliances.
Penny Mordaunt
Con
Hemel Hempstead
Question
Penny Mordaunt, praising the minister's statement on increased investment in munitions production, asked how the Government plans to ensure that such investments lead to sustainable and long-term economic benefits for communities dependent on defence industries.
Minister reply
Grant Shapps highlighted the comprehensive approach being taken by the Ministry of Defence to support both immediate and long-term needs. He noted that the additional investment will help secure jobs, boost technological innovation, and enhance export opportunities across various regions in the UK.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Question
Inquiring about the impact of increased defence spending on other public services, Chris Bryant asked whether there are any plans to conduct a full strategic review to ensure that such expenditure does not come at the expense of essential social programmes.
Minister reply
Grant Shapps acknowledged the importance of balancing various aspects of government spending but emphasised that national security is paramount. He stated that the Government remains committed to supporting all critical areas and will work closely with relevant departments to manage any potential impacts.
John Healey
Lab
Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Question
Welcomed the US Congress passing military aid for Ukraine but criticised the lack of detailed plans in recent budgets. Raised concerns over the baseline defence spending growth, questioning where additional funding would come from.
Minister reply
Acknowledged Labour's welcome to the US Congress move. Criticised Labour for not backing a 2.5% increase in defence spending and highlighted inconsistencies among Labour MPs on nuclear deterrent support. Emphasised that the £75 billion figure is based on removing 72,000 civil servants from the system.
Question
Welcomed increased investment and asked how to ensure this leads to industrial partners investing heavily in capital equipment and R&D while also galvanising NATO allies.
Minister reply
Confirmed plans to set out a new baseline for 2.5% defence spending by 2030, which will help galvanise NATO allies to meet higher investment levels.
Martin Docherty
Lab
Cambridge
Question
Asked for clarity on the £75 billion figure and expressed concerns about deep cuts in other public services. Also questioned assurances regarding the nuclear deterrent not cannibalising the Ministry of Defence budget.
Minister reply
Clarified that the £75 billion figure is based on detailed figures listed in annexes, emphasised plans to remove 72,000 civil servants and invest £4 billion into armed forces accommodation and conditions.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
The main reason why this welcome uplift has come when it has is Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that if Russia and Putin are seen to fail in Ukraine, the threat to NATO will be put back for at least a generation? Conversely, if they succeed, the threat to NATO will intensify.
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although this is £75 billion and although it takes our budget to 2.5% of GDP, that is a fraction—a fraction—of what it would cost if Putin were successful in Ukraine.
Question
May I first of all congratulate the Secretary of State on his stellar used-car salesman act, which we have become used to? On 26 March, he appeared, along with officials, before the Defence Committee. His strategic finance director confirmed that next year, when we take Ukraine funding out of the budget, the defence budget falls. Can he tell the House how he reconciles that fact, which was confirmed by his own officials, with his claim today and the Prime Minister’s yesterday to be putting the country on a war footing?
Minister reply
I am really sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cheapens what is a very important discussion about the defence of the realm with such a ridiculous remark.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Question
I commend the Secretary of State for obtaining this massive £75 billion increase in defence, which theoretically would allow us to buy 20 new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. At the risk of upsetting our excellent First Sea Lord, we are not likely to do that, but we are putting our defence industry on a war footing. Can we do the concomitant thing and create a war reserve of equipment with older Typhoons, older warships and older armoured vehicles, so that if we had to fight at short notice we would have enough equipment to do it?
Minister reply
I thank my right hon. Friend not just for his words, but for his constant campaigning on this subject.
Derek Twigg
Lab
Widnes and Halewood
Question
Can I ask the Secretary of State what he believes a war footing is?
Minister reply
Very simply, Ukraine has taught the world a great deal about this. When it comes to, for instance, producing sufficient munitions to restock the Ukrainians’ supply, it is very difficult—in fact, impossible—to do that instantaneously.
Question
I commend my right hon. Friend for his stalwart stubbornness in securing this important increase in defence spending. He and I both know that much more money is needed, but this is a step in the right direction.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments.
Richard Foord
Lib Dem
Honiton and Sidmouth
Question
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement about increased defence spending, although it relates to a time six years hence rather than being specific about funding in the intervening years.
Minister reply
First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it starts this year—the half a billion pounds is in this year’s budget.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Question
May I, in passing, pay tribute to the late Frank Field? He voted for the renewal of Trident, unlike many on the Labour Front Bench, and he would have understood that deepening our defence capability in the conventional forces is a vital part of the deterrence that NATO provides for the security of Europe.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend and add my condolences to those already conveyed by others.
Nia Griffith
Lab
Llanelli
Question
Labour is absolutely committed to reaching 2.5%, and we welcome the additional £500 million for Ukraine, but time is of the essence.
Minister reply
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s comments.
David Mundell
Con
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Question
I welcome the announcement, and indeed the decision that has finally been made in the United States.
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend can certainly have that reassurance.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
Question
In every year since 2010, the Government—along with their Liberal Democrat partners—have missed recruitment targets. What is the Defence Secretary doing to ensure that those who wish to serve and defend our country are not put off by the broken recruitment system?
Minister reply
The number of applications for the Army in January and February was at an eight-year high, which reflects improvements across other services as well. The Minister for Defence People and Families is implementing recommendations from the Haythornthwaite review to improve recruitment procedures.
Tobias Ellwood
Con
Question
The announcement of increased defence spending is welcomed. However, will the Secretary of State expand on the consequences to UK security and economy if Russia wins? Will he consider the full spectrum of threats before rushing into new funding?
Minister reply
Russia's winning the war would have significant negative impacts on UK security and the economy. The investment is seen as an essential defence against autocratic states, not just a financial expenditure but an investment in national security.
Drew Hendry
Lab
Question
The Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that the Chancellor’s Budget indicated cuts to public services. Where will these cuts be made if today's announcement adds up to £9 billion of cuts?
Minister reply
The plan is fully costed and funded, with a reduction in civil service size by 72,000 positions as part of this strategy.
Alec Shelbrooke
Con
Wetherby and Easingwold
Question
Can the Secretary of State ensure that programmes receive full funding including revenue, not just capital investment?
Minister reply
The budget enables proper funding for both capital and operational costs to run equipment effectively.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Question
Can the Secretary of State provide details on how much of the 2.5% increase will be spent on cyber-security and armed services personnel?
Minister reply
Details on specific spending allocations for areas like cyber and space are not readily available, but an overview can be provided through a written response.
Flick Drummond
Con
Question
When will there be an update on the plan to spend £4 million in service families accommodation investment?
Minister reply
An update is forthcoming soon.
Stephen Farry
Alliance
Question
Can the Secretary of State reassure about an appropriate balance between hard and soft power in future strategy for UK security, including humanitarian assistance?
Minister reply
The MOD works closely with international partners to assist wherever possible through a combination of hard and soft power.
James Sunderland
Con
Question
How will the additional spending be allocated towards plugging capability gaps, better operating platforms and ensuring forces have resilience?
Minister reply
The new Integrated Procurement Model aims to bring equipment into the field more efficiently, improving sustainability and effectiveness.
Mike Kane
Lab
Wythenshawe and Sale East
Question
With a history of unfulfilled commitments, where will we be with troop numbers in one year's time?
Minister reply
The commitment to 2.5% by 2030 is guaranteed; voting Conservative ensures this pledge is fulfilled.
Simon Clarke
Con
Question
Considering the need for operational capacity with our deterrent, can a fifth successor-class submarine be considered?
Minister reply
The constant at-sea nuclear deterrent will continue uninterrupted. Four modern Dreadnoughts are being delivered to ensure reliability and continuity.
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Glasgow
Question
Even Winston Churchill recognised that modern conflicts are fought by people, not armies. That is why world war two was the genesis of the NHS and the welfare state. However, while military spending is increasing, public services are collapsing. Is it not as important to wage war on poverty at home as it is to prepare for war abroad? If there needs to be an increase in military and defence expenditure, surely it should come from the cancellation of the failed Trident project, which is impoverishing military services, rather than from public services. Why should the people pay for the Government’s wars?
Minister reply
I could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman more strongly. Even in my time as Defence Secretary, there are decisions that I have made that, if we had not had the nuclear deterrent, I would have hesitated in making. It protects us every single day in ways that are not always immediately obvious to everyone. The idea that by not investing in our defence we would somehow be safer, and that somehow all that money would be available to invest in all these other public services, is to misunderstand the first principle of every Government: we are here to defend the realm, without which there would be nothing to pay for internally, because we would not be safe externally.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
In the 1930s, a wise Government ensured that RAF airfields were upgraded and improved, and that saved us from extinction in 1940. If we are to be on a war footing, will the Secretary of State remind the Home Office that it is its duty to maintain the best runway in Europe, the 10,000-ft runway at RAF Scampton, instead of letting it rot, as it is at present? If the Home Office is incapable of doing that, will it hand it over to Scampton Holdings as soon as possible—as we have argued for 15 months—so that it can be used, improved and available for a future emergency?
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend is speaking to the converted. As a keen pilot, I agree with him entirely. In fact, this usually works the other way around, but I will offer him a meeting so that we can discuss RAF Scampton and its long-term future, rather than the short term, in more detail.
Gen Kitchen
Lab
Wellingborough and Rushden
Question
Coming from a naval family, it is important to me that Labour is also wanting to reach 2.5%. Our ambition is no less than that of the Government. The Defence Secretary has said that this defence spending increase will be funded in part by big cuts in the number of civil servants. How much of this cut will be in the MOD civilian workforce, and will the Royal Fleet Auxiliary be exempt?
Minister reply
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for this package and for the 2.5% and gently suggest that conversations with those on her own Front Bench would be important at this point. It is in the interest of national security that both sides sign up to 2.5% by a deadline, which we note this afternoon has not happened. She asked a specific question about the reduction. In the MOD, it would be a 10,000 reduction by 2028. To be clear, that is a reduction from about 60,000 to 50,000. I personally believe that is exactly the right thing to do if it helps to pay for our brave men and women in the armed forces out in the country. Less bureaucracy and more action—I think that is a good thing.
Mark Pritchard
Con
The Wrekin
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Shropshire, which he referenced, and also to welcome his statement and the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday. This is record investment into UK defence, which will be very welcome in Shropshire. Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to put on record his thanks to all those that work in uniform and the civilians at RAF Cosford, at MOD Donnington, at Babcock and at RBSL— Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—which he recently visited? Can he confirm that the UK’s and Shropshire’s defence is secure with this Government?
Minister reply
I warmly join my right hon. Friend in sending exactly that message. As he says, just last week I was looking at the first prototypes of the Challenger 3 coming off the production line in his patch. My only regret was that I was not able to see him at the same time.
Question
My written questions this week have uncovered another worrying increase in nuclear safety events at nuclear weapons sites in 2023, with the first category A safety breach in 15 years at Faslane and the highest number of category B incidents since 2006. Category A incidents are defined as those that have an actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment in breach of safety limits. A former chief adviser to a Prime Minister has described our existing nuclear stock as “rotting” and “a dangerous disaster”. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much of this extra spend will go towards ensuring that, at the very least, existing nuclear sites do not deteriorate further, threatening the health and safety of armed forces staff and surrounding populations?
Minister reply
I am pleased to report to the hon. Lady that our defence standards, particularly when it comes to our nuclear estate, are extremely high. Whenever an issue is found, it is properly and thoroughly investigated. She is right to say that it is important that we continue to invest in that. This money is good news: every bit helps and we want to ensure that it is spent appropriately. As it happens, we fund the nuclear estate appropriately, but this money will help to ensure that is put well beyond doubt.
Question
This is a very welcome announcement. There are no strings attached, and a guaranteed move to 2.5% of GDP sends a powerful message to two groups of people: our NATO partners and our adversaries around the world. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the powerful message is undermined by what I can only describe as the mealy-mouthed response from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scot Nat Front Benches? If they will not support what we are doing, what sort of message does that send to Putin and to other enemies? Surely what we want now is cross-party consensus: it must be 2.5% and Labour must side with us on it.
Minister reply
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
Question
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the reservists based in Croydon, who, among many roles, have been in Estonia helping to keep us all safe? Labour wants to reach 2.5%, but my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary has asked why there is no budget line or fully funded plans for the announcement. This appears to be a bit of a pattern across Government. Only yesterday, I learned that a £1 billion announcement made about carbon capture and storage several years ago still appears nowhere on a Treasury budget line. If the Government play so fast and loose with our public funding, how on earth will the Secretary of State deliver the economic stability on which our defence spending relies?
Minister reply
I encourage the hon. Lady, and all Opposition Members, to have a closer look at what we announced yesterday. This is a fully funded announcement. We have explained where the money will come from. We have set out in tables that you can go and read, Madam Deputy Speaker, the funding for the £75 billion. It is true that a choice exists that Labour Front Benchers need to talk not only to their Back Benchers about—because they will not agree with increasing to 2.5% by 2030—but unfortunately to many on their Front Bench as well. They will need to talk to 11 in particular—the ones who have voted against Trident, some of whom wanted to leave our nuclear deterrent behind and possibly even leave NATO as well. Conservative Members are, however, entirely united in the idea of spending 2.5%, setting a date for it now, setting out how that spending will work and making the choices to get there.
Question
I strongly welcome this investment, which rightly recognises the increasingly unstable world in which we are operating. Many of our military capabilities are powered by advanced semi-conductors, and recent years have shown how fragile these supply chains can be. Will the Secretary of State set out what the Government are doing to develop strong alliances focused on securing our supply of that vital component?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right. As Business Secretary, I took the decision on Newport Wafer Fab, which highlighted to me the importance of our own supply chain for advanced semiconductors, particularly in the defence realm. That is one reason that, in the plan we published yesterday, we have committed to a new level of 5% of R&D for defence, to ensure that we are not only researching and developing but, through the expansion of the military capability in the industrial base, producing the things that we need for our armed forces.
Ashley Dalton
Lab
West Lancashire
Question
Labour wants to reach 2.5%. I do not know how many more Labour Members need to say that before it gets through. If anybody was listening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Secretary of State, also said that clearly in his contribution. The Secretary of State said repeatedly on the media round this morning, and in the Chamber, that on page 20 we can find the fully costed plan. Bearing in mind that there is no mention on page 20 of how the 2.5% will be reached through the cuts to the civil service that the Secretary of State has described, and that the entire civil service budget is only £16.6 billion, where is the fully funded plan? It is not on page 20.
Minister reply
The hon. Lady once again asserts that Labour wants to reach 2.5%. Labour cannot just assert it; it has to will the means to get there. I did not hear that from the Labour Front Bench in response to this statement or yesterday’s announcement. As in all normal cases, and particularly spending reviews, the Treasury will set out all the numbers going forward, but the fact of the matter is that the figures published yesterday show £77 billion more being spent from this year through to the end of the decade, in part paid for by removing 72,000 civil servants from the system so that we get back to where we were before covid. If Labour does not want to follow that approach, it could follow another, but the hon. Lady cannot just assert that Labour agrees without explaining how it will do it.
Philip Dunne
Con
West Worcestershire
Question
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also warmly welcome the increase of defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the leadership role they are providing to NATO. On where this extra money will go, will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little more on the balance between meeting the existing challenges in the equipment plan and introducing innovative new capability through the new procurement model that he commended to the House earlier?
Minister reply
We will both ensure that we deliver the things that we have said we will deliver. In a changing world, with the threat of Iran, Russia, a much more assertive China and a nuclear-armed North Korea, we are adjusting our programme to ensure that it does what is required. New innovations, as my right hon. Friend will have gathered from my comments about spending 5% of GDP on R&D, are very important to us.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
I thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government for their clear commitment to 2.5%. I also thank them for committing an extra £500 million of aid for Ukraine, which is important. The Secretary of State and the Government are setting a target for the rest of NATO to follow, and I hope it will. I very much welcome the news of an increase in defence spending, which my party and I have pushed for, but how much of the increase will be feet on the ground and how much will be enhanced cyber-security?
Minister reply
We are sticking with the defence review and refresh, which set out the exact personnel numbers. I think it is 188,000 across all three services. I have explained the extent to which new technology is helping to shape our thinking, but so are the lessons from Ukraine, particularly on the need to have munitions and larger stockpiles available.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Question
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I chair the 1922 defence committee, and the Secretary of State will know from Prime Minister’s questions that the whole Conservative party welcomes this announcement, but may I suggest that the message from the Government would carry so much greater resonance globally if the official Opposition also signed up to it? I am a former member of the armed forces, so I can assure him that the country speaking as a whole—the official Opposition and the Government together—carries much greater weight internationally for the good of the country.
Minister reply
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. We have seen how that has worked with Ukraine, and I am sorry that it is not working today with the timeline to get to 2.5%. I am afraid it proves, once again, that this country’s safety is in the right hands when Conservatives are in power.
Jason McCartney
Con
Colne Valley
Question
I echo the words of the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who said after yesterday’s defence spending announcement that “once again, the UK is leading by example.” In the light of the £500 million support package for Ukraine—and having seen the awful pictures of missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, including the destruction of the TV tower in Kharkiv in the past 48 hours—can my right hon. Friend confirm that the much-needed ammunition and missile systems will be in Ukraine as soon as possible, to aid its fight against Russian aggression?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, both about what the Secretary-General said about how we are leading NATO in this regard, and about the absolute importance of our being there for Ukraine. We cannot afford for this war to be lost, and it will not be lost. I will make sure that he receives the comprehensive list of the items that we will now be supplying.
Scunthorpe
Question
It was widely reported some months ago that my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had written to the Prime Minister setting out their concerns about the future of Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces. For all the reasons he has stated today, this is more important than ever, so I commend him for his foresight prior to his current role. Will he consider the importance of good-quality, British-made steel to our nation’s defence capabilities?
Minister reply
I well remember my hon. Friend’s pretty much constant lobbying. She is a great champion for her steelworks, and her comment about the importance of using British steel in British defence is taken on board.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
Question
We should all be grateful that today’s statement absolutely answers the widespread assessment of the increased risk in the world. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are discussing contributions with our European NATO partners? How important is our commitment to NATO both to the current US Administration and to any future US Administration? Lastly, does he agree that private sector innovation—Roke has recently opened an office in Gloucester—will be an important part of our defence procurement?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right about ensuring that we use this announcement to persuade other NATO members to do the same thing. I was proactively speaking to and texting my colleagues throughout NATO and beyond on this just yesterday, and I received very encouraging responses. I look forward to hearing more about the company in his constituency.
Andy Carter
Con
Gower
Question
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Ministers on the work they have rightly done to reform defence procurement, given the significant increase in spending announced by the Prime Minister. How will these changes ensure that our military forces receive equipment more quickly and, in particular, how will they benefit British manufacturers by offering global export opportunities?
Minister reply
The integrated procurement plan, brilliantly created by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, has ensured that exports and exportability are a key part of the contract. I have mentioned how we have already used this model to speed up the production of DragonFire.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Stroud
Question
Stroud constituents will welcome the Prime Minister’s boost for defence spending and ongoing focus on the dangers that we all face. The Stroud district is blessed with many strategically important businesses, such as Steller Systems, which I was with on Friday, Retro Track & Air and Impcross, to name but a few. These are innovative, nimble and agile companies doing extraordinary things. On behalf of the small and medium-sized enterprises and the small family businesses that are playing their part in protecting our country and others around the UK, will the Secretary of State confirm that SMEs will get their fair crack at contracts and that the bigger boys will pay them on time, to keep them alive for the benefit of all?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I predict that companies in Stroud will do very well from this if they are producing innovative and useful equipment for our armed forces. I take on board her point about small and medium-sized enterprises.
Marco Longhi
Con
Dartford
Question
It is great to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement about the £75 billion investment. Does he agree that it sends a clear signal to our brave armed forces that the party in government backs them, to the country that we back defence of the realm, and to companies in our supply chain up and down the country, including those in my constituency, that we back job security? It also exposes the Opposition as having no plan at all for defence.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Prime Minister made the announcement yesterday in front of British troops, who are out in Poland doing incredible work. The reassurance of the idea that there is a period of time leading up to 2.5%, with the first increase coming immediately, really helps them to do their job.
Jane Stevenson
Con
Wolverhampton North East
Question
I warmly welcome the announcement. The Secretary of State was kind enough to call in on me in Wolverhampton North East last week, and I spoke about the importance of aerospace to my local economy, with companies like HS Marston Aerospace, Collins Aerospace and Moog. How can he ensure that those companies benefit from the highly skilled, well paid jobs that this uplift in spending will bring? Does he agree that industry needs the certainty of cross-party agreement in order to make those investments, and that the Labour party needs to step up?
Minister reply
I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. She did indeed tell me about the defence companies that are so vibrant in her area. The future looks incredibly bright for them, given the amount we are investing and the fact that defence is typically an extremely well-paid profession.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Question
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on the welcome announcement that defence spending will be increased to 2.5% of GDP, and on their leadership on funding and support for Ukraine. For the sake of freedom, democracy and global safety, it is so important that Ukraine prevails. The announcement shows that it is our Conservative Government who will protect our nation and stand with our allies in the face of increasing international threats. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this sensible linear increase in funding for defence will help our defence industry to ramp up production in parallel, meaning that our armed forces will be supported, capable and resilient, and be able to keep us and our allies safe?
Minister reply
I absolutely can confirm that. One of the features of the way that we have done this is to create a straight line from next year to 2030, to ensure that industrial capacity can ramp up with certainty behind it. I am pleased to confirm that the answer is yes.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Question
The Chief of the Defence Staff from Estonia was in Salisbury plain, in my constituency last week. He told us that his country has 40,000 men and women in its army reserve, ready to serve at 24 hours’ notice; I call that being on a war footing, given that Estonia has a population 50 times smaller than ours. I am not proposing that we try to replicate that—proportionally, that would mean a 2 million-strong reserve—but will he consider using some of the money to boost our important reserve force?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend will know that we are twinned with Estonia through NATO and we provide protection to it. Estonia is very much on the frontline with Russia, in a way that we are fortunate not to be. We currently have 30,000 reserves. Rather than use them, we can use the many other things we bring to NATO and to Estonia’s protection, including the ability to provide personnel and equipment, which we do on regular basis.
Question
I commend my right hon. Friend on the work he has done in setting the new 2.5% baseline. It will reassure our allies, send an important message to our adversaries and strengthen our industrial base. I thank him for the part he played in securing £220 million for Barrow, as a result of the Team Barrow project, securing our future and easing delivery of Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS. Barrow shipyard is not alone in delivering the submarine enterprise, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the £75 billion will be spent on other key sites, such as Faslane, Devonport and others?
Minister reply
I absolutely can confirm to him that it is intended to benefit sites across the country. In the document we published yesterday, a map on page 10 shows how the different areas and regions of the country will benefit, not just in our nuclear estate but throughout the defence estate. There is not a constituency that does not benefit from the £75 billion announced yesterday.
Question
I add my own tribute to the late Lord Field. He took the time to talk to me when I was a Conservative councillor about a concern we shared for the weakest and most vulnerable in society, which reaches across the aisles of the House. There is no doubt that the international threat is developing and the world is a more dangerous place, so I welcome today’s statement. What I hear is an investment in the armed forces that we need, not necessarily the armed forces we have. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the statement from the Opposition that they are planning to conduct a review is verging on the careless, in that it gives comfort only to those who seek to do the UK harm?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right about the armed forces that we need, not the armed forces that we have. We want our armed forces to be lethal, quick, agile and capable, which is why it is so important that we invest this £75 billion. He is also right to point out that to have yet another review is simply to invite chaos and delay at exactly the time our adversaries are looking at us, hoping that we do not get on with the job of delivering an extra 2.5% of GDP in funding, which would play into their hands.
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for the announcement of 2.5% in defence spending by 2030. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the fantastic effort delivered by our reserve forces, which I had the pleasure to see for myself in Northumberland last Saturday?
Minister reply
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. There are many members of the reserve forces in the House, including the Minister for Defence People and Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We thank all members of the reserve forces for their service and for the time they give, and we thank their employers, who allow them to take the time to be reservists. We are grateful for all they do.
Shadow Comment
John Healey
Shadow Comment
John Healey welcomed new commitments on funding Ukraine and boosting defence production but criticised the lack of a fully costed and funded plan in the recent Budget. He questioned where the additional money was coming from, challenging the method used to produce the £75 billion figure. Labour wants a strategic review within their first year if elected, recognising the need for increased defence spending due to growing threats. However, they criticised past Tory Governments for hollowing out armed forces and failing on recruitment targets.
▸
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.