The House recognises the threat posed by Russia and China, as well as the uncertainty regarding US reliability within NATO. It acknowledges the UK's current military shortfalls and calls for a programme of rapid rearmament to strengthen defence capabilities by 2030. The motion criticises the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) for being too slow, lacking funding, and failing to align with the strategic vision outlined in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The plan's division into two halves, where only half is funded, exacerbates this issue.

The DIP should cover up to 2036, but it does not, indicating a significant gap in planning and funding for the future.

A company offering jet trainer replacement has gone into receivership due to delays in the DIP, highlighting economic impacts on defence industry.

The Treasury Committee heard that the Government have not worked out how to reach 3.5% of GDP for defence spending.

Questions the reasons behind the delay in announcing the DIP and its current deficiencies, suggesting there were unresolved issues during the planning phase.

Everyone in this debate will rightly speak about defence spending, procurement and ammunition, but I want to ask a broader question: what does warfighting readiness actually mean in 2026? For too long, we have measured military strength by the number of ships afloat, aircraft we fly or tanks we field, but recent conflicts have reminded us that wars are won by nations, not militaries alone. Success depends on industries that can out-produce an adversary, economies that can absorb shocks, and societies resilient enough to sustain conflict over time. Warfighting readiness is no longer the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence; it is a national resilience strategy. If our energy networks, communications, supply chains or industry cannot keep pace with battlefield demands, armed forces will inherit those weaknesses from day one of any crisis. Resilience must sit at the heart of our national security.

I agree that stockpiles matter but the ability to regenerate them matters even more. We should use all technological advantage to move faster than ever before, especially in AI and autonomous systems. Building a procurement system that can adapt quickly is crucial for innovation cycles measured in months outperforming those in decades. This requires cultural change as much as adopting technology to speed up procurement and ensure the right kit gets into the right hands quicker. Ultimately, rearmament aims at deterrence through capable armed forces, political resolve and industrial capacity; it must be systemic within the Department and single services for true readiness.

The UK is at risk due to Russia's aggressive actions, including hybrid warfare against national infrastructure. The Government must recognise the urgency of preparing for a kinetic war by 2030 as stated by NATO and the Prime Minister. It is essential to mobilise the whole nation, not just the armed forces, and adapt governance to meet these challenges. Bernard Jenkin emphasises the need for resilient financial systems, sovereign defence capabilities, and protecting critical national infrastructure from foreign infiltration. He also highlights the importance of a national conversation about existential threats to democracy.

Intervened to agree that the Government must be blunter with the British people regarding the nature of the threat we face, echoing Bernard Jenkin's call for a more forthright approach in communicating with citizens about national security.

Suggested learning from Norway’s model of total defence and civil preparedness where the entire population recognises its role in national resilience. The country communicates effectively with its populace, enabling a comprehensive approach to readiness for potential conflict.

We should not allow Russia to make us talk ourselves into a place of weakness. The British Army, while it may not be at full readiness, is still capable and well-stocked with excellent armed services and people in uniform. We need more resources to deter war effectively, including industrial capacity and cutting-edge technology. To show commitment to NATO allies and strategic moment, we must aim for 3% of GDP by 2030, reflecting the urgency rather than a gradual increase. While acknowledging progress made by the Government, there is concern that current plans may not meet the threats posed by Russia’s reconstitution and technological advancements in Ukraine.

The world has become more dangerous and Britain needs to be ready. The Strategic Defence Review set the right ambition but the Government's delay in implementing it is a danger. There was nearly a year's delay before the publication of the defence investment plan, resulting in lost momentum and delayed capabilities. The plan fails to provide the necessary urgency for addressing immediate threats, such as air and missile defence, which are critical for deterring aggression. Britain must act swiftly and with urgency to prevent disaster, deter aggression, and bolster NATO.

The hon. Member for West Lothian argues that the UK is already in a prolonged confrontation with Russia, characterised by sub-threshold activities such as cyber-attacks and espionage. He questions whether the Government is honest enough about these threats to the British public and calls for clearer definitions of what constitutes a threat crossing an acceptable threshold. He emphasises the importance of national capability and public awareness in deterring Russian aggression.

In response to Graeme Downie's speech, Tom Hayes acknowledges the seriousness of the threat posed by Russia but also highlights concerns among constituents about the psychological impact of such discussions. He suggests that openly discussing fears and plans can help gain public support in addressing these challenges.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar and the hon. Member for Macclesfield that there is a lot of common ground in the Chamber today. The structural flaws in the funding allocated through the defence investment plan were highlighted, less than half of £15 billion announced is new money. I pointed out inconsistencies between Government documents regarding efficiencies and the lack of clear plans with low confidence. Reserves should be prioritised more, and national resilience requires an all-of-Government response with clearer details on KPIs for Departments.

I congratulate Mike Martin on securing this debate. We live in a time when our country is being targeted by hostile states, and we need to look at home defence which is under threat in unprecedented ways since WWII. The strategic defence review calls for a whole-of-society approach but the public doesn't yet feel it's urgent. I acknowledge the Government’s support for armed forces pay and housing but stress that more needs to be done, including supporting SMEs in the defence industry. Public awareness of these threats must increase despite challenges with disinformation.

Emphasised the need for honesty in discussing national security and readiness, highlighting warnings from military experts about Russia's potential threat. Stressed that Britain needs to prepare now rather than delaying defence spending until 2035.

Questioned the priority given to defence spending, drawing attention to issues of homelessness and food insecurity. Argued for a focus on domestic social welfare and diplomacy rather than increasing military expenditure.

Focused on supporting veterans and improving conditions for the armed forces community, including raising issues around NHS support cuts. Emphasised the need to meet procurement targets for small businesses and called for additional investment in defence.

We live in an increasingly unstable world, with threats to national security from conflicts such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The UK inherited armed forces weakened by years of under-investment. This Labour Government is investing £298 billion over four years to modernise the armed forces and improve their readiness for modern warfare challenges. We will invest in drones, autonomous systems, new warships, and strengthen industrial bases through better access to finance for defence manufacturers. The support for service personnel includes extending the armed forces covenant and improving housing and paternity leave.

We are not spending sufficiently on defence, currently at 2.5% of GDP, with a target of 3.5% by 2035 but projected to only reach 2.68% by 2030. The focus should be on war readiness beyond just platforms and procurement, including information space, countering disinformation, and preparing for sub-threshold attacks. Defence is a national endeavour that requires broad understanding of threats and the need to defend the nation.

The debate criticises the UK Defence Investment Programme for unrealistic spending plans and insufficient protection for the islands. Dave Doogan emphasises that the projected expenditure on defence is not incremental, questioning the efficiency savings of £10.7 billion claimed by the MOD. He highlights issues with outdated platforms such as clapped-out Vanguard submarines and Ajax vehicles, suggesting these problems undermine confidence in the programme's ambitious goals. Additionally, he raises concerns about the lack of transparency regarding the nuclear enterprise budget over a rolling 10-year period.

Mr MacCleary congratulates his hon. and gallant Friend on securing the debate, stressing the urgency of addressing national defence amidst a perilous decline in Britain's defences due to successive governments' inaction. He points out that the delay in publishing the Defence Investment Plan was damaging and costly, noting it cost precious time as adversaries have been building their forces and probing vulnerabilities. The £1 billion extra funding secured by the Secretary of State is insufficient as most has been taken from cancelled projects or funds meant for military housing improvements. Mr MacCleary emphasises that anything below £28 billion leaves the country vulnerable to hard choices about critical capabilities, particularly in air defence where at least £1 billion is needed. He urges issuing defence bonds to make £20 billion available within two years and suggests exploring multilateral funding efforts such as a European rearmament bank. Mr MacCleary also highlights the need for better spending, noting that only 5% of procurement budget reaches small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the negative impact of delays on these firms. He argues for the urgent reinstatement of commitments to fix military housing and urges alliances with European neighbours due to growing uncertainties in American commitment.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important and timely debate, which coincides with the NATO summit. I will make what is perhaps a point of consensus: yet again, when we debate the defence of the realm—the first duty of Government—the Reform Bench is empty; yet again, the plastic patriots have gone AWOL when we discuss the defence of this country. Arguments about military readiness are not new. The Roman military theorist, Vegetius, some two millennia ago, coined the now-famous phrase, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—he who desires peace should prepare for war, in order to deter it. NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, and article 5 is its absolute fulcrum. We must maintain our commitment to article 5 to keep all NATO nations safe. Today, we face a revanchist Russia led by Putin, who launched an invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, and then an even more brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Against that rising threat, Labour produced its much-vaunted strategic defence review, but it still contains echoes of the 10-year rule, declaring the Government’s intention to deter, fight and win against states with advanced military forces by 2035. That is nine years away; we need to rearm accordingly, including by spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2029 at the very latest, if not earlier. The three co-authors of the SDR were adamant that the cost of implementing it was spending 3% of GDP on defence, and a year after the SDR was published, we finally received Labour’s plan for how to pay for it: the so-called defence investment plan. But that was not before Labour’s Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister both resigned on 11 June after months of frustration with the Treasury over the paucity of funding in the plan. The outgoing Defence Secretary wrote in his resignation letter, “you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” The former Armed Forces Minister said he cannot stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment he knows to be inadequate. Sadly, it is worse than that. The chiefs of staff have been urging the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to invest an additional £28 billion in defence over the next four years, partly to enable them to implement Labour’s SDR. They were offered barely £15 billion instead. The disastrous DIP relies on a further £4.7 billion that has not yet been cleared by the Treasury and will be subject to another public spending round. In other words, there is practically no new money for defence at all. We will not deter Vladimir Putin with such unfunded proposals. If Trotsky was right, and war is interested in us, we must rearm now to deter it.

My right hon. Friend agrees that one of the reasons for the failure of deterrence at the beginning of both the second world war and the first world war was that the United States was detached from the future of security in Europe. The success of NATO has hinged on the knowledge that an attack on any NATO country would mean war with the United States from the outset. My concern is that the United States is at present led by someone with insufficient regard for that history.

Emphasises that £300 billion is new money, addressing criticism from the Opposition. Discusses the government's strategic defence review and the defence investment plan which includes massive increases in defence spending. He highlights the importance of modern technology and autonomous systems in warfare.

Questions the Minister about the adequacy of current defence spending compared to historical levels during the Cold War, suggesting that current levels are insufficient given the risks posed by Russia.

Highlights the issue with the UK's industrial base capacity and suggests innovative approaches such as multilateral options for financing defence projects.

Requests clarification on why efficiency targets have increased significantly compared to the strategic defence review, questioning whether the SDR was too unambitious.

Summarises key themes from the debate: the ongoing war below the threshold, national resilience and economy, and the need to inform the public about military capabilities and threats. Resolves that the House recognises various security threats and calls for a programme of rapid rearmament.