Challenged the Secretary of State's claims about defence spending, arguing that excluding Ukraine funding from the core defence budget would show a decrease rather than an increase. He questioned the transparency and consistency of how additional spending was presented.

Echoed Kevan Jones's concerns about the lack of detail in the Government's commitment to defence spending, specifically questioning where the money would come from if they were to freeze the defence budget for six years.

Criticised the Secretary of State's presentation of additional spending as misleading. Cited an article by Paul Johnson highlighting inconsistencies in how the Government claimed increases to defence spending.

Noted that 13 Back Benchers wish to make speeches, implying a need for brevity in contributions.

Welcomes the debate, acknowledges rising threats to security, supports UK military aid for Ukraine, affirms Labour's commitment to defence spending, criticises the government for failing to meet their own commitments on defence.

Questions John Healey about whether Labour will match the £15 billion and £75 billion expenditure outlined by the Secretary of State.

Supports backing for Ukraine, agrees that reversing cuts to armed forces is necessary, advocates increasing army numbers to demonstrate seriousness in defending democracy.

Encourages cross-party consensus on defence spending, challenges Labour to match the Conservative commitment of 2.5% of GDP for defence.

Points out that when in coalition government, Conservatives cut defence budget by 18%, criticises compulsory redundancies during the period and contrasts it with hypothetical Labour actions.

The Government recognises the current threat and is committed to increasing UK’s defence investment to 2.5% of GDP on a linear basis, providing credibility and certainty of delivery. The announcement sends a powerful message to NATO allies and addresses new geopolitical realities such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. It also highlights the importance of maintaining substantial conventional overmatch, especially in deep fires and air superiority.

Discussed the reduction in defence spending, particularly on the Ministry of Defence police budget. Highlighted concerns about the security and well-being of military personnel. Emphasised the importance of engaging with lower ranks ('ordinary ranks') to improve their terms and conditions and support for an armed services representative body. Advocated for a more collaborative approach within Parliament, inspired by models from Denmark and Sweden, to create a robust defence posture with full parliamentary backing. Also mentioned the need for closer mutual defence agreements between the UK and EU.

Welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement to increase defence spending from over 2% of GDP to 2.5%. Emphasised the importance of scrutinising claims regarding additional investment. Highlighted reforms in military equipment procurement, moving towards a faster wartime model compared to bureaucratic peacetime practices. Discussed the shift in focus towards preparing for potential wars of necessity against adversaries like Russia and China. Raised concerns about air defence vulnerability and proposed retaining older aircraft in storage as a war reserve. Criticised delays in airborne early warning systems and Boeing's performance on contracts, suggesting that UK industry should receive better workshare deals.

Asked if the retired Typhoon aircraft still had considerable life left, questioning whether selling them off was justified given their remaining operational capability.

Noted that contracts denominated in dollars create significant financial pressure on the defence budget due to exchange rate fluctuations.

I agree with the necessity for a robust defence budget but we must also consider the efficient allocation of funds. It is imperative that any increase in spending does not come at the expense of other vital public services.

While I acknowledge the importance of maintaining a strong defence, the current government's policies are shortsighted and neglect the needs of our citizens. We need to focus on balancing military expenditure with social welfare programmes.

The MP criticised the MOD's handling of munitions supply for Ukraine, highlighting a delay in securing agreements with BAE to produce additional shells. He also emphasised the need for Government intervention in industry to ensure industrial capacity and the importance of maintaining skilled personnel in critical industries like shipbuilding.

Mr Jenkin welcomed the debate on defence, emphasising the importance of defence policy that determines how to spend defence money and sets a higher priority for defence spending. He advocated for an increase in defence spending, noting the cyber-attack as evidence that the country is already at war. Mr Jenkin also highlighted the need to shift from a peacetime mentality to a wartime mindset, including greater investment in resilient supply chains and national security across various sectors like energy and food security. He stressed the importance of UK leadership within NATO, particularly regarding support for Ukraine, and discussed the benefits of an integrated procurement model which he believes will drive cultural change necessary for modern defence needs.

The world is more dangerous, with potential conflicts in Europe involving Ukraine against Russia. The speaker emphasises the importance of defending democratic principles such as free speech, liberty, and the rule of law against authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. He argues for increased public support for defence spending to counter these threats. Since 2010-11, there has been a 1.2% fall in defence spending in real terms. The Government's record shows weakened military capability due to budget cuts and underfunding of procurement, leading to personnel reductions and resilience issues. Additionally, there are concerns about the reserve forces' recruitment and retention rates, particularly for specialist roles. The speaker calls for urgent action towards a 2.5% GDP defence spend.

Lewis stressed that defence spending should not be seen as a percentage point game but rather as an urgent necessity to prevent war. He noted the disparity in attendance between debates on immediate conflicts and those on long-term security issues, suggesting that constant underinvestment in defence could lead to dire consequences. He cited figures from the Defence Committee's study showing how defence expenditure had decreased since the Cold War era while spending on welfare, education, and health had increased significantly. Lewis argued for a return to higher peacetime defence investment as was done during the Cold War to deter conflict between superpowers.

Gale briefly addressed the House, noting that there will be a 10-minute time limit on speeches after the next speaker due to limited time available for contributions. He did not provide extensive policy details or statistics in his contribution.

The armed forces are being 'hollowed out' due to a deliberate policy over the past 14 years, including an 18% cut in the defence budget up to 2015-16. The current defence budget is 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. Personnel cuts of nearly 50,000 and reductions in ships and aircraft have led to low satisfaction ratings among service personnel. The recent announcement by the Government lacks detail and separation between resource and capital expenditure limits. There needs to be a focus on homeland defence, equipment capability, and supporting British industry and skills.

Emphasises the importance of defence debates in Government time, highlighting the first such debate since he has been advocating for it. Acknowledges the significant expertise present in the House and praises contributions from various committees. Discusses his role in promoting better understanding of defence through initiatives like the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. Argues against the idea that Parliament should vote on deployment of troops overseas, citing historical examples where such votes have led to poor outcomes.

Welcomes the debate on UK defence policy, highlighting the importance of considering strategic ends alongside means. Critiques the emphasis on defence capability over strategy. Stresses the need for realism regarding security environments. Acknowledges the Trident alternatives review but argues that current circumstances necessitate a strong military stance. Emphasises the need for quiet strength rather than belligerent rhetoric to avoid provoking adversaries. Supports continued UK support for Ukraine regardless of political changes, criticising public announcements on sensitive issues like missile use. Discusses operational implications and strategic communications regarding Russia-Ukraine conflict. Raises concerns over cuts to the regular Army and advocates for a credible force of 82,000 troops.

My constituency lies at the heart of one of the largest clusters of defence and aerospace manufacturing in Europe. Companies such as Rolls-Royce are developing key technologies for future combat air programmes, contributing to employment over 30,000 people locally with a significant supply chain across the south-west region. Apprenticeships are crucial for training the next generation of scientists and engineers, underlining the MOD’s role in providing apprenticeships as the largest provider in the country. The Prime Minister's announcement to raise defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP is welcome, demonstrating our commitment to NATO allies and enhancing sovereignty. Over £75 billion will be invested over six years with a focus on dual-use technologies from 2025-26 onwards. Visits to Ukraine highlight the importance of collaboration between British and Ukrainian defence manufacturers amid increased Russian military spending.

In the debate on defence procurement, Jim Shannon emphasised the importance of Northern Ireland's role in the UK’s defence industry. He noted that the UK spent £54.2 billion on defence in 2023-24 and is expected to spend £57.1 billion in 2024-25. Shannon highlighted the contribution of Thales, a company based partly in his constituency, which employs around 500 people and contributes significantly to Northern Ireland’s GDP. He also mentioned the importance of SMEs and called for a regional hub to support procurement contracts in Northern Ireland. Additionally, he stressed the need for better integration of cyber-security within defence spending.

Sunderland emphasises the necessity of defence spending given global instability and Russia's aggression. He supports the Government’s commitment to a defence budget equal to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, advocating for an immediate capability audit to ensure that new funds are spent wisely on addressing current gaps in land, sea, air, space, and cyber capabilities. He stresses the importance of strategic lift and logistic tail, as well as modular approaches to equipment procurement for interoperability and sustainability. Sunderland also highlights the need for NATO's member countries to meet their 2% commitment and advocates for Europe taking more responsibility for its security. Additionally, he emphasises the UK’s global footprint beyond NATO and its role in maintaining bases across the world. He concludes by stating that the number of armed forces should be sufficient to meet defence tasks rather than being fixed at a certain size.

Developed points on deterrence, procurement, and the type of warfare facing Britain. Emphasised the importance of smart procurement and investing in equipment that can survive modern battle conditions, such as mass drones and cyber tools. Discussed the need for effective messaging to influence Russian public opinion.

Eagle detailed Labour’s dedication to enhancing national defence and supporting armed forces, emphasising the party's unshakeable commitment to NATO and nuclear deterrence. She pointed out that the last time Britain met the 2.5% GDP target for defence spending was under a Labour Government in 2010, while Conservative cuts since then have significantly reduced military personnel and capabilities. Eagle further criticised the current government’s plans for civil servant job cuts and poor procurement practices that have wasted over £15 billion.

Francois corrected a factual error in Maria Eagle's speech regarding Ajax project timelines, providing an update on the initial operating capability for the first vehicles being set at the back end of 2025.

Murrison discussed the contributions made during the debate, praising various MPs and highlighting the need for increased defence spending across NATO. He criticised Opposition members' inconsistency regarding their support for this level of spending and the implementation timeframe.

He committed to matching the Government’s cash spend on defence but faced criticism for not clearly outlining how he would achieve the 2.5% target or when it would be reached.

She also gave a commitment to match the Government’s cash spend on defence, but her assurances were questioned regarding the timeline for achieving the 2.5% target.