Critiques the government’s portrayal of defence budget increases, stressing that the £24 billion figure over four years is misleading and actually amounts to a smaller increase. Highlights inefficiencies in procurement leading to unaffordable equipment plans, reduction in military personnel, and the detrimental effects on British industry due to preference for foreign suppliers.

Supports Jones's points regarding the impact of budget cuts and mismanagement on military readiness and efficiency. Emphasises that delays in procurement have caused significant cost overruns, delayed delivery times for essential equipment, and reduced combat effectiveness.

Questions the long-term implications of relying on foreign suppliers for military equipment. Points out that purchasing from other countries limits ownership of intellectual property, potentially disadvantaging the UK in terms of operational flexibility.

Ellwood argued for increasing defence spending due to rising threats, criticised manpower cuts in conventional forces, emphasised the importance of new technologies as enablers rather than replacements, and stressed the need to address China's soft power initiatives. He also called for keyworker status for deployed troops.

McDonald expressed concern about the lack of progress on rules surrounding autonomous weapons, highlighting the need for greater collaboration with allied countries to set global standards and rules.

Stewart agreed with Ellwood's points, emphasising that manpower cuts are detrimental to operations and reduce career options for young people considering joining the forces. He argued against cutting boots on the ground.

Stone suggested that reducing the Army by 10,000 could worsen recruitment problems due to limited career options for young people interested in joining.

Critiques the MOD's defence expenditure distribution, highlighting disparity in spending between Scotland and England. Raises concerns about inefficiencies in procurement processes, citing examples like Type 45 warships and fleet solid support orders. Emphasises the importance of maximising UK content, workforce, suppliers, apprenticeships, and societal benefit in future contracts.

Discussed the long-term trend of defence spending as a percentage of GDP, noting that in the mid-1950s we spent 7% on defence compared to now when it is below 2%. He highlighted the decision to raise the maximum number of warheads for the nuclear deterrent from 225 to 260 due to evolving security threats and technological advancements. Lewis argued this was necessary insurance against a potential aggressor's calculations, provided headroom for future transitions in nuclear capabilities, sent signals about international commitment to maintaining nuclear deterrence, or reassured domestic audiences concerned about cuts to the Army.

Corbyn argues that the Government's White Paper on security misses the fundamental point of what real security is. He criticises the decision to spend £24 billion more on defence while cutting overseas aid, and calls for engagement with countries rather than military build-up. He also challenges the UK’s position as a global power and its involvement in conflicts around the South China Sea. Corbyn emphasises the importance of healthcare investment post-covid and advocates for a 'no first use' policy regarding nuclear weapons. He argues that people want to live in a peaceful world, not one with underpaid soldiers and arms sales leading to conflict.

Fysh supports the Government's commitment to defence spending at a minimum of 2% of GDP, advocating for an increase. He emphasises the role of UK armed forces in global humanitarian efforts and security. Fysh highlights the importance of procurement focusing on prosperity for British industry and jobs. He discusses two key programmes: the unmanned aerial vehicle programme by Leonardo and the potential medium-lift helicopter project (AW149). These projects are crucial for sustaining engineering skills, attracting foreign direct investment, and enhancing export opportunities. Fysh calls for a sole-source procurement process to ensure timely delivery of equipment.

Winterton requests colleagues to limit their speeches to 10 minutes maximum to accommodate all speakers within the allocated time.

Argues for the necessity of defence spending, citing historical contexts like NATO and the need for collective defence. Criticises the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition's reduction in defence spending from 2010 onwards, contrasting it with Labour's increases under previous governments. Emphasises the importance of proper funding for armed forces and criticises foreign procurement decisions.

Responds to John Spellar by emphasising the financial context inherited in 2010, stating that a country cannot defend itself if it is broke. Implies that Labour governments have historically left fiscal messes.

Supports John Spellar's argument and recalls that during the pre-2008 period, the Conservative Opposition advocated for higher defence spending than what was being spent by Labour at the time.

The Government have announced an unprecedented multi-year settlement for defence, offering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the armed forces. Defence spending has increased by £24.1 billion over the next four years, including investments in research and development of £6.6 million, generating £25.3 billion annually for the UK economy and employing 133,000 people. The MOD now has a balanced budget with the opportunity to balance its red line, becoming financially sustainable for the first time in decades. Defence will spend £85 billion on equipment over four years, doubling shipbuilding investment to more than £1.7 billion annually by 2030.

The increase in defence spending does not compensate for the nearly 55,000 fewer people in the armed forces due to Conservative policies since 2010. The budget today is still lower than it was in 2009, and the £13 billion black hole in the equipment budget will remain unfilled. Military contracts were excluded from EU law, but this Government chose to put FSS out to international tender under the guise of EU rules.

Exposes the deeply rotten culture inside the Ministry of Defence which wrongly embodied in its thinking the idea that it could not do certain things. Challenges the notion that the MOD was prevented from supporting British industry due to EU laws.

Agrees with his colleague about the opportunity arising from leaving the European Union, allowing for more flexibility in defence procurement without adhering to state aid rules or EU procurement rules. Most defence contracts were bilateral anyway.

The speaker criticises the UK's defence spending and its commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, questioning whether the public fully understands or supports these commitments. He emphasises the need for more transparent discussions about defence spending and aims, suggesting multi-year agreements and wider public debates are necessary for building public confidence in security policy decisions. He also highlights that health, education, local government spending, and cohesive societies should be considered national security issues.

Congratulates the Defence Secretary on securing a £24 billion multi-year increase in defence expenditure, representing an £85 billion investment over four years. Emphasises that this surpasses manifesto pledges by £16 billion and uses taxpayers’ money wisely to invest in future capabilities. Welcomes investments in R&D (£6.6 billion) to tackle challenges like disinformation activities. Highlights the importance of UK’s cyber-domain and space activities, including a new agency dedicated to artificial intelligence and a new space command. Mentions 8,000 public servants at MOD Abbey Wood and significant defence contractors in his constituency, supporting at least 30,000 jobs in the south-west region. Commends the Government’s recognition of the need for a sustainable defence industrial base and the opportunities this investment will create for apprenticeships.

Thanked the right hon. Member for North Durham for laying out the issue seriously; echoed the succinct definition of defence by the right hon. Member for Warley; thanked armed forces for their work during the pandemic in his constituency; emphasised buying British products to retain intellectual property and local employment; highlighted recruitment issues due to cuts in the Army; expressed support for the chairman's remarks about boots on the ground; mentioned threats from Russia in the Black Sea region; acknowledged support from the Government Front Bench; thanked Royal Marines for supporting Dorset County Hospital during the pandemic.

Renewed thanks to HM armed forces, particularly the Royal Marines; focused on future defence spending and manufacturing; highlighted the importance of British manufacture in the rotary sector; emphasised the economic impact of Leonardo helicopters on communities; urged consideration for domestic manufacturers like Leonardo; argued that choosing foreign companies could harm exports; noted Leonardo's £200 million annual R&D expenditure aligning with government plans to make the UK a global science superpower; underlined the role of armed forces in supporting testing and vaccine efforts during the pandemic.

I am immensely proud to represent a town that is home to the historic Cammell Laird shipyard. British shipbuilders like Cammell Laird have been let down by procurement policies that neglect domestic investment, favouring off-the-shelf defence projects from abroad. My party calls for 'buy British by default' policy requiring Ministers to prove a defence project cannot be built at home before buying from abroad, alongside an expanded definition of good value including benefits to British manufacturers and employment opportunities. For the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships bidding process, I call on the Minister to ensure these vessels will be built entirely in the UK by the Team UK consortium, guaranteeing or creating at least 6,500 jobs across the UK.

Proud of Conservative party's commitment to defence and investment in armed forces. Recognises £8 billion real-terms increase for our armed forces, with planned expenditure increasing by 4.9% last financial year and further increases above 5%. Acknowledges the importance of RAF bases like RAF Halton and RAF High Wycombe. Welcomes investment in Space Command and cutting-edge technology like F-35 programme and future combat air system. Supports funding for a new national flagship to promote trade, even under financial constraints.

Morris discussed the importance of defence procurement for local economies, especially shipyards, which could significantly contribute to the government's levelling-up agenda. He also addressed the lack of recognition and support for veterans’ mental health, highlighting a charity in his constituency that provides assistance but depends on community funding.

I want to focus on the shrinking numbers of personnel and set aside funding to build them back up. I understand the Government’s aim to build up cyber sectors, but we also need feet in boots, on boats and in the air. The waters have now been muddied by including phase 1 trained personnel in the total Army trained strength. Those soldiers are not able to do all that many of the duties requested due to their capabilities and training. Is it not true that as much as 15% of trade-trained strength is unable to deploy owing to various reasons? We have a level of soldiers who are not trained to the capability needed for a big response. If we apply reality, the British Army regular manpower available for a brigade-level deployment of three years is only about 55,000.

My hon. Friend mentioned the 70,000-odd regular deployable forces but did not mention the reserve forces, which will be a major element of what we have available and are in excess of 25,000.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot simply add the reserve numbers because in many cases they are not formed units, are not training with regulars, and some individuals may not be fit for deployment?

Congratulated the right hon. Member for North Durham on securing the debate and praised the men and women of the armed forces, particularly for their work during the pandemic. Emphasised the need to recognise the wider role of security and the armed forces in light of recent events such as those in the Black Sea. Criticised the lack of Treasury Minister presence at the debate and highlighted issues with procurement spending inefficiencies. Raised concerns over housing conditions for members of the armed forces and questioned why no one has lost their job due to waste. Advocated for investment in accommodation services, equipment, and retention strategies. Supported calls for fleet solid support ships to be made locally. Reiterated commitments made during the 2014 independence referendum regarding the size of the armed forces stationed in Scotland and criticised the failure to meet these promises.

The debate discusses the additional £16.5 billion in defence spending announced by the Prime Minister, which was intended to address a £17.5 billion budget shortfall and fund new capabilities in space and cyber, international partnerships, and more collaboration between MOD and the defence industry. Evans criticises the lack of detail on how these plans will be funded or implemented. He highlights issues such as delays with Ajax vehicles, cancellation of Warrior project, job losses at Lockheed Martin, and the need for skilled project management and clear strategies to ensure deliverability. Evans also emphasises the importance of consistent and competent project management oversight and the necessity for immediate and concrete action from the Government to support the MOD’s transformation.

The Minister thanked the right hon. Member for North Durham and the Chairman of the Select Committee, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for their contributions. He highlighted the importance of maintaining the nuclear deterrent and praised the feedback from Exercise Warfighter which validated decisions in the integrated review around trading mass for more capability with precision deep fires. The Minister also acknowledged the quality of helicopters made in Somerset, extolled the virtues of new technologies emerging, and championed the UK defence industry. He discussed the Army board’s innovative ideas on how to get combat personnel from back office into frontline, confirmed the trade-trained strength at 72,500 and addressed concerns about resilience going forward. The Minister highlighted the significance of the Prime Minister's investment in the UK's armed forces since the end of the Cold War and the multi-year settlement that allowed for a balance between military need and accounting issues.

The right hon. Member raised questions about the products from Yeovil not being bought, despite the Minister's praise, asked him to ensure that troops on deployment get their jabs by cutting through bureaucratic nonsense.

The Member inquired about a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs in armed forces accommodation and requested a quarterly update to ensure transparency and delivery on promises made at the Dispatch Box.

The hon. Member agreed that the ability to write contracts within the MOD and DE&S is fundamental for giving the best possible value to taxpayers.

The right hon. Member expressed concern about the announcement of a specific end date without a clear military support plan for Afghanistan, which did not sit well with the objectives set in intervening there years ago.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on UK defence spending, with contributions from Members highlighting the importance of defence for historical context, local economies, and personnel welfare. The debate covered topics such as the nuclear deterrent, economic benefits of defence spending in the UK, and the role of armed forces during the covid pandemic.