Hillier responds to Cartlidge, acknowledging the need for seriousness in defence matters but criticises past actions under previous Conservative governments that delayed procurement and left military readiness lacking.

Thomas questions whether the delay is impacting important investment plans and highlights concerns about UK personnel on NATO’s border with Russia lacking specific equipment due to delays in procurement decisions.

Western expresses disappointment over the failure to stand by Ukraine during the invasion of Crimea, questioning Cartlidge's stance at that time.

Darlington critiques the previous government’s drone strategy for lack of investment in satellites and radars, making the UK reliant on foreign technology.

Murrison highlights the impact of delays on companies such as NP Aerospace, which is producing body armour for Ukrainians but lacks confidence in future contracts with the British Army due to the delay.

Jenkin points out the structural flaw in the Government's approach, noting that despite a 10-year plan, no funding is agreed beyond 2029 by the Treasury.

Lewis criticises the current government for comparing present defence spending with post-cold war levels rather than during the cold war when spending was regularly between 4.5% and 5% of GDP.

Carns paid tribute to those serving in the armed forces, criticised the motion as an attempt to rewrite history rather than contributing to defence policy. He highlighted current global security challenges and emphasised that decisions must be taken in the national interest.

Members intervened with questions about the publication of the Defence Investment Plan, criticism of past funding decisions, and concerns regarding China's threat to UK security. They also highlighted inconsistencies in statements from the Leader of the Opposition on military involvement.

Argued that the UK is at war with Iran, criticising the government for not taking action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Asked about NATO spending commitments.

Asked the Minister to clarify specific defence spending commitments and explain the 1.5% required by NATO.

Cautioned about the defence investment plan, emphasising careful procurement strategy.

Warned of a Russian threat near vital strategic resources in his constituency.

Questioned the Conservative stance on going to war, criticising their alignment with Donald Trump's rhetoric.

Criticised past defence procurement scandals and emphasised the need for efficiency in spending.

Noted that many colleagues wished to contribute before the Minister responded.

Critiqued Conservative-led military cuts, pointing out a net increase of only 10,000 troops after significant reductions. Mentioned the reduction in surface fleet size.

Asked which specific cuts were most damaging, implying criticism towards previous government policies.

Recalled his experience as a shadow Defence Minister and criticised the 2010 coalition for implementing harmful defence cuts.

Questioned whether Liberal Democrats delayed the continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent programme, expressing dissatisfaction with their actions.

Suggested that reversing the closure of Winchester’s Army training regiment could help in rebuilding military readiness.

Questioned the impact of leaving the EU on UK's defence and criticised President Trump for deriding the UK as cowards.

Asked about the cost implications of a potential independent nuclear weapon proposed by the Liberal Democrat leader.

Called for seriousness in debate, considering troops are in harm's way and emphasised the importance of serious discussions on defence issues.

The hon. Member highlighted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' recent move to advance the doomsday clock, indicating that we are closer to global catastrophe than ever before. He argued against increasing defence spending and cutting public services to fund it, particularly mentioning the proposal to reinstate a two-child benefit cap to finance military expansion as being contrary to his values. He outlined how austerity measures have led to poverty and wealth inequality, exacerbated by the pandemic and cost of living crisis, leading to deteriorating standards of living in the UK. The hon. Member emphasised that pursuing economic growth through militarism is misguided, citing low employment multipliers for military spending compared to other sectors such as health care and construction. He proposed a 'peace dividend' instead of a defence dividend, advocating for political choices that prioritise building hospitals, schools, and infrastructure over weapons manufacturing.

The hon. Gentleman was asked whether he believed there to be any military threat from abroad against the UK. No direct answer is provided in the given text.

The hon. Member questioned if Brian Leishman agreed that an independent Scotland would face significant challenges, including difficulties in defending strategic assets and having to make difficult choices between funding armaments or essential social services like hospitals.

The hon. Member criticised the Government's policy on welfare, particularly the two-child benefit cap, arguing it fails to address the rising number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. He also highlighted that if we could just spend the same amount on in-work and out-of-work benefits as before the pandemic, it would save £50 billion a year. The Member emphasised the importance of spending equally on welfare and defence to combat hybrid warfare from Russia and China, questioning the Government's reliance on US support while alienating President Trump.

Agrees with the Opposition on the need for increased defence spending but disagrees with their approach. Criticises plans to reinstate a two-child limit and cut net zero expenditure, arguing they would weaken the nation. Supports ending investment in fossil fuels supplied by dictators and reducing dependence on the Middle East. Emphasises the importance of preparing for war through production lines, supply chains, and training, rather than just increasing defence spending as a percentage of GDP.

Anderson discusses the changing dynamics of global defence, including the technological advancements in warfare such as drones and autonomous systems. He points out that the UK's defence spending has decreased over recent decades, from 333,000 troops in 1981 to about 138,000 today. He advocates for increasing defence spending to at least 3% of GDP to maintain a strong military presence and global influence.

Jenkin highlights the profound impact of drone technology on modern warfare, noting that massing drones rather than troops can provide an effective defence against potential threats to NATO territories like London.

Barclay supports the idea of scaling up reserve forces as a rapid response mechanism in times of crisis, suggesting it could be an effective and relatively low-cost solution within the £60 billion defence budget.

Vince acknowledges Anderson's constructive stance on defence matters. He emphasises the importance of soft power and collaborative efforts with allies like Estonia in strengthening national security strategies beyond just military might.

First, I should note that, for all their chatter outside this Chamber on defence, there is not a single Member of the Reform party here. They are utterly incapable of having a serious conversation when it comes to defence. I would like to congratulate the shadow Defence team. I did not believe it was possible to reduce their credibility on defence any further, but they have managed to lower the bar once again and slither under it. To suggest that we should restore the two-child benefit limit to pay for defence spending shows such a lack of understanding of what is happening in society. Under their Government, for 14 years, the people living at the poorest edges were working—those people on benefits were working and still could not pay the bills to feed their families and put the heating on. That tells us that the Conservatives do not understand working people. They assume that anybody receiving a benefit is a scrounger or does not want to work. The Tories’ legacy was a procurement programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by more than 50%. Few MPs will feel the cost to their communities of the chaos and choices made by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition as keenly as I do in Barrow and Furness. The Opposition Benches are filled with those who were responsible for wreaking carnage on the communities I grew up in. The price of the coalition was to delay the nuclear deterrent; the cost to my community was economic devastation, with 10,000 families where the main breadwinner was out of work, 10,000 skilled workers losing their livelihood, and an industry that is struggling to recover to this day. After 14 years of hollowing out our defence capabilities, Conservative Members have the nerve to come here today and attempt to blame this Government—a Government who have increased defence spending to its highest sustainable level since the cold war, and who are investing in our armed forces to give them the largest pay rise in two decades and the homes they deserve in order to turn around the recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Tories. This Labour Government are once again cleaning up the mess left behind by those on the Opposition Benches.

It is a bit of a pity, is it not, that we seem not to recognise what is going on today? It would probably help to recognise that defence spending was cut from the end of the cold war to 2022, when the whole NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I have heard today—I am sorry to some of my colleagues—was from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), because he had the honesty to stand up and point out what the choices are. I disagree with him, but he made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. I believe that if we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I am afraid that we are now in war, and things have to change. There are several concerns to bring back from the United States last week in my role at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. One of them is the American commitment to NATO predicated on saying to other members, “That is why we need you to spend 5%.” This gives wiggle room to say, “Well, if you’re not going to spend that, we can’t defend you any more.” The Americans are concerned about the Democrats potentially taking control of Congress and controlling the amount of money that can go to the White House and the commander-in-chief. In Europe, article 3 is becoming a single market issue rather than defence of borders. We need to be light on our feet for rapid technological changes and must develop new weaponry as Russia knows how to defeat the old ones used in Ukraine. The Royal Navy procurement needs quick adaptability.

Agrees with the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace that the armed forces have been 'hollowed out' under previous Governments, including his own party's tenure for 14 years. Criticises the current Opposition for failing to meet defence spending targets and lowering morale in the services. Highlights improvements made by the Labour Government in housing and pay for armed forces personnel. Emphasises the need for sustained investment in defence and improvement of conditions for those serving, noting specific achievements such as the largest pay rise in two decades, a veterans' strategy, and plans to renew military homes.

Critiques the opposition's motion, highlighting its catch-all nature and lack of specificity. Emphasises that investment in defence should not marginalise people or communities, citing Scotland as an example where defence has become increasingly remote and irrelevant. Criticises the government for failing to publish a definitive defence investment plan despite setting high expectations during their strategic defence review. Expresses concern about the Treasury's role in determining national defence strategies and questions the competence of the current Chancellor in matters of defence. Raises issues related to nuclear deterrent spending, suggesting that money could be better spent on conventional European defence roles. Calls for a transparent publication of the Defence Investment Plan.

Focuses on the technological capacity delay due to the delayed Defence Investment Plan, noting that 8% of UK GDP relies on satellite services. Emphasises the importance of space for defence, intelligence, and security, advocating for a clear strategy similar to the previous government's defence space strategy from 2022. Criticises the current government for failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging commercial capabilities in space. Discusses the risk of falling behind European neighbours like Germany who have committed significant investments in space technology. Highlights the impact of delayed DIP on domestic and space industry growth, with companies unable to proceed without a clear plan. Calls for an urgent increase in defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament.

Critiqued the physical component of military strategy, highlighting issues with the leaseback agreement on Diego Garcia and training lags in Ukraine. He also pointed out historical cuts to Type 45 destroyer numbers and propulsion system failures, emphasising that without a defence investment plan, strategic plans are meaningless.

Highlighted the importance of South West Devon's role in UK defence, including Plymouth’s naval base, SMEs relying on defence contracts, and the anticipation for the strategic defence review. She emphasised the need for funding to deliver growth and enable business opportunities.

Critiques the delay in delivering the defence investment plan, highlights overstretch of air forces with only 10 F-35Bs available for training and tasks, raises concerns about future cruise anti-ship weapons system, batch 1 offshore patrol vessels, global decision support system, maritime aviation transformation programme, Project Beehive, and Project Vantage. Emphasises the need to commit to defence spending at 3% of GDP.

Argues that after the cold war, governments reduced defence spending but with Russia attacking Ukraine in 2022, more needs to be spent on armed forces. Criticises delay in publishing defence investment plan and lack of seriousness by Government regarding setting plans for defence. Expresses concern over the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner.

The Government's proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money to lease back Diego Garcia lacks credible legal threats, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice opt-out for Commonwealth countries. Additionally, the Prime Minister’s position on human rights in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is morally wrong and debilitating recruitment within special forces community. Moreover, Labour's delay to the defence investment plan, with operational spending cuts across the British armed forces, undermines deterrence against potential aggressors like Putin or Xi Jinping.

Critiqued the previous Conservative government's neglect of defence policy and investment. Emphasised the need to support armed forces with necessary equipment and addressed criticisms by highlighting Labour's achievements in awarding contracts, securing jobs, and increasing defence spending.

Division called off and main question agreed upon.