I inform the House that I have selected the amendment (o) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments (l) in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and (p) in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which will be moved at the end of the debate. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

I beg to move amendment (o), at the end of the Question to add: “but respectfully regret the absence of a Defence Readiness Bill from the Gracious Speech, and the 10 month delay to the publication of the Defence Investment Plan; call on the Government to bring forward both as a matter of urgency; further call on the Government to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament; further regret that the Gracious Speech commits to re-starting inquests into Northern Ireland veterans; and also call on the Government not to progress with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 to protect veterans and improve the morale of all who serve in the armed forces.” It is an honour to open the final day of debate on the King’s Speech on behalf of the Opposition. Today’s debate is on defence readiness. May I begin by expressing how saddened I was to hear of the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan from the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery? My condolences, and those of the whole Opposition, to her family, both personal and regimental. Before turning to the defence-related matters that were or were not included in the Government’s programme for the next legislative Session, I pay tribute to the men and women serving in our armed forces right now across the globe, whether they are on board our nuclear submarines, which provide a continuous at-sea deterrent, or deployed in the middle east to defend our overseas bases. I thank them for their service and unwavering professionalism. I also pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian allies, who continue to defy those original expectations of an early Russian victory. When we take steps to publicly show our sympathy for Ukraine’s heroic struggle—for example, by wearing badges, as I have done every day since the invasion, or by flying the Ukraine flag from local and national Government buildings, we do so not just to show solidarity with a democratic nation under brutal attack by a dictatorship, but because it is firmly in our national interest to assist Ukraine in keeping Putin’s military in check. When newly elected councils make it their first priority, on entering office, to pull down the Ukrainian flag, we are entitled to ask if the party in question cares about the fate of its people, and understands the implications for our national security of Russia triumphing. Finally, I pay tribute to all those who served our country in the past: our brave veterans. That brings me to Labour’s plans, as set out in the King’s Speech. Of all Britain’s military capabilities, few are more important to our defence or more widely admired, particularly by the United States, than our special forces, yet at a time of war on two fronts, Labour is ploughing on with a Bill that will reopen vexatious legal actions. That not only threatens our veterans, but would undermine the morale of all who serve today, particularly in the special forces. Those special forces include the Special Air Service, and those in the regiment that was on duty in Loughgall in 1987, and who shot IRA terrorists who were driving a digger with a bomb in its bucket towards a police station, and firing machine guns into the building as they approached. I believe that those soldiers were acting to defend our society from terrorists intent on mass murder. Whatever one’s view, surely going back almost 40 years to events that took place in a split second makes no sense. Crucially, in October 2023, coroner Justice McAlinden declined to list a new inquest into Loughgall precisely because of the cut-off date set by our legacy Act, which therefore did its job of halting such cases and genuinely protecting our veterans from endless litigation. However, in his comments, Justice McAlinden added that preparatory work for the inquest should continue, because there would be a general election the following year, and that might affect how the legislation was implemented. He had a point, did he not? Fast-forward three years, and with war now facing us, not just in Ukraine but in the middle east, the Government of today remain intent on repealing the protections that we put in place for veterans. It goes without saying that Labour’s plans will harm our veterans, once again keeping them awake at night with the fear that they will be hauled before our courts.

I commend the shadow Minister for bringing this matter forward. He is right to put it on record; it is very much part of this debate. However, this goes further than the veterans who cannot sleep at night, and the families who are worried about what will happen to their father, brother or sister. Does he agree that this is affecting recruitment? Those who want to join the Army are saying, “If we join and get involved in a battle to protect this country, we could find ourselves being persecuted for it, or taken to court.” Does he agree that, for that reason and others, the Government must be fair, when it comes to legislation, and must listen to the points that he put forward?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very good interventions. He has hit the nail on the head. This is not just about veterans, as important as they are; it is about the wider impact on recruitment. Indeed, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it, or his. In November last year, nine former four-star generals wrote: “This lawfare is a direct threat to national security…The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.” I say this to Labour MPs: when considering the troubles Bill and the issue of lawfare, surely the overriding factor to consider is the threat that we face as a nation, and the impact of the legislation on our ability to defend ourselves. Do they really think, in their heart of hearts, that this is what they should be prioritising, when we need our soldiers more than ever? I put this challenge to all those who intend to stand in Labour’s leadership contest. Will those candidates seeking to become our next Prime Minister recognise that the first duty of any leader is defence of the realm, and that it is therefore in the national interest to scrap the troubles Bill and back our brave veterans?

Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that no party and no victims’ group in Northern Ireland supports the Conservative party’s approach to the past, and that even the Dillon judgment last week did not in any way rule it legal? Would he not agree that soldiers following the rule of law is a matter of recruitment, too? No soldier wants to be painted with the brush of not having followed the rule of law. Would he care to tell the House how many of the 300,000 soldiers who served under Operation Banner in Northern Ireland have faced judicial proceedings? It is in the very low two figures.

I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Having served in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many veterans I was there with and others who were there before, and there is a scintilla of a real question mark about how they will be treated. The vexatious nature of these complaints will, of course, eventually drag them back into the courts. That is the fear. They are sure that they are innocent, but by the time the courts have finished with them, innocence would not matter at all, because their life would have been destroyed. Does my hon. Friend not agree?

I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.

As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Our legacy Act was based on what happened in South Africa. We may not like it, but if we want peace and reconciliation, any changes in the law that favour those who may have been guilty have to apply to both sides. It is simply a statement of fact. As I think I just showed with Loughgall, our Act of Parliament—the legacy Act—did indeed stop an inquest that would have been damaging to the armed forces but which I do not believe would have led to any prosecutions. Turning to what was not in the King’s Speech, the strategic defence review promised that: “A new Defence Readiness Bill should provide the Government with powers in reserve to mobilise Reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict.” With war on two fronts, surely such legislation should be the absolute top priority of this Government, but alas, there is no defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech. Why not? The defence readiness Bill is not ready. What else is not ready? The defence investment plan is not ready, of course. We know that the Government are working flat out—[Hon. Members: “At pace!”]—and at pace, but the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box almost a year ago that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. It is now 10 months late, so when the Minister responds, can he tell us exactly when we are going to get the defence investment plan? Most importantly, we are bound to ask why we still have no defence investment plan. The DIP is meant to set out the detailed procurement decisions intended to implement Labour’s strategic defence review, so what do the authors of Labour’s SDR, appointed by the Prime Minister, think about the failure to publish the DIP and the impact of that on delivering the SDR? Each of the three key authors—Dr Fiona Hill, General Sir Richard Barrons and Lord Robertson—has absolutely slammed the Government for their failure to deliver. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO, stated: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” We agree 100%. The fact is, the current Prime Minister bottled it on welfare reform, U-turning repeatedly despite a majority of more than 160, and failing to make even modest changes to working-age benefits while removing the two-child benefit cap.

To be charitable to the Government, there is actually £34 billion that could be spent in defence, given that they had another U-turn on the Chagos deal. Maybe there is a delay in the plan because they are trying to decide how to spend that money, or can my hon. Friend think of another reason?

My hon. Friend has remarkable foresight, because I will be coming to the Chagos issue. This is the key point: had the Prime Minister held his nerve and reformed the benefits system, toughening the rules for working-age benefits and keeping the two-child limit, as was his previous position, he could have found the billions to fund defence rather than entrenching welfare dependency even further. Given this total failure of nerve from the Prime Minister, he had some brass neck to use his response to the King’s Speech last Wednesday to accuse us of “defence austerity”. Let me remind the House that last year the Government insisted on £2.6 billion-worth of reductions to the Ministry of Defence budget. This year, they are insisting on a further £3.5 billion of cuts. They will say that they were the last Government to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, in 2010, but they always omit the caveat that when that same Labour Government came to power in 1997, they inherited defence spending from us at 3%. Indeed, in talking about so-called austerity, this Government also conveniently forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, had Labour won the election in 2010, it was planning to cut 25% from the defence budget. At least their Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time had the good grace to leave a note confessing that there was no money left, once again relying on us to clear up the mess of a Labour Government who had run out of other people’s money, not for the first time in history. The worst thing about Labour’s resorting to history is that it is completely irrelevant. I have repeatedly accepted that defence spending fell under successive Governments since the end of the cold war. That is irrefutable, but it was because the world we lived in was one where we thought peace would last. Today, however, the threat is completely transformed and, instead of looking back, the public want us to confront the challenges we face right now, to be ready for battle and above all to be honest about the choices needed to find the cash for defence. That is why we have started to set out fully funded steps towards spending 3% of GDP on defence, as was last achieved under a Conservative Government. Let us take the example of Chagos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) did in his very good intervention. Labour Members may delude themselves that, like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, their Chagos deal is merely resting, and pining for the archipelago, but we know that the deal is dead. It is an ex-treaty. Even if they disagree, with no treaty legislation in the King’s Speech, it must be clear even to them that the hundreds of millions of pounds due to be sent to Mauritius during this Parliament, primarily from the Ministry of Defence budget, must now be available to be spent elsewhere. That is why, earlier this month in Portsmouth, the Leader of the Opposition and I set out that we would use Labour’s Chagos cash for a better purpose: accelerating the construction of the 13 frigates being made in Scotland that we ordered when we were in government. The fact is, there is no other way to address the serious shortage of surface ships in the short term than by accelerating the build of those 13 fantastic new warships. Indeed, just a few days after we set out our policy to do exactly that, lo and behold, HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service, confirming the urgent need to act on defence readiness and to be willing to divert cash from elsewhere.

Does the hon. Member agree that, had his Government not got rid of shipbuilding in my city but instead put some plans into place, we may well have been able to continue to build ships there? Instead, they decimated it and left us with three incompetent Portsmouth Ministers.

I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project. On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increase defence spending, with confirmation that we would restore the two-child benefit cap and use the savings for our military. We have also set out plans to move £2 billion a year of research and development funds from other Government Departments to fund drones and drone tech across the board. However, if we are to become the world leader in uncrewed warfare that I still believe we can be, not least after our extraordinary support for Ukraine, we do not just need our services to have the cash to test and train; we also need to invest billions into transforming our defence industrial base.

rose—

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on the industrial base.

While I welcome the Type 26 global combat ship, as I am sure my hon. Friend does—that is an important naval deal with Norway—will the timeline of its delivery not give the first ships to Norway rather than to the United Kingdom? If I am wrong, that is great, but if that is the case, there must be a discussion in the MOD about extending the life of the existing—

indicated dissent.

If I am wrong, great—I am used to being wrong on many occasions, but I am happy to be wrong on something we need to get right.

I am aware that timelines are an issue on a couple of dimensions in the Chamber at the moment, so I will come to my conclusion shortly. My right hon. Friend asks a fundamental question about the Royal Navy when we know we have shortages of surface ships. I hope the Minister will set out exactly how many Type 26s we will order irrespective of the Norway deal. I support the Norway export deal. How many will we be ordering in addition to that? The written answer he gave me was very ambiguous. We need to get that extra money into the industrial base, which is why our alternative King’s Speech has a sovereign defence fund Bill. There is one other important Bill in our alternative King’s Speech: our promise to repeal Labour’s terrible Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not enough to oppose Labour’s lawfare; we would restore full legal protections for our veterans, boosting morale and sending a signal that we will always have the back of those who serve. The public know that it is madness at a time of war for the UK Government to be prioritising putting our soldiers back in the dock for serving their country. That is why our motion today calls on this House to reject Labour’s plans and scrap the troubles Bill. We will always defend those who defended us.

I know Members across the House will join me and the Prime Minister, who did so earlier, in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, a gifted soldier and horsewoman who died on Friday—a young leader, a young life taken too soon. His Majesty opened his Gracious Speech with a warning: “An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”. As we debate our response in this Chamber, our armed forces are on missions across the world, facing down those threats, strengthening our alliances, defending our overseas bases and overseas territories, and preparing for missions to the High North, the strait of Hormuz and a post-ceasefire Ukraine. Our armed forces are working around the clock, protecting our homeland, our allies and our interests, equipped with some of the most advanced capabilities in the world. The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz is hurting all our constituents right across this country. They see it in their newsfeeds, feel it at the petrol pumps and pay for it through rising bills. This Government are determined to do all we can to end that pain as soon as we can. We have stepped up to lead a multinational response. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have built and co-chair a new 40-nation coalition, united in our mission to secure the strait of Hormuz as soon as a lasting ceasefire is in place. The UK’s armed forces are leading the way, deploying advanced autonomous minehunting equipment and new uncrewed boats and drones, and working alongside the heavy metal of HMS Dragon deploying to the middle east with its cutting-edge Sea Viper counter-drone system. That is because innovation, hard power and the ability to sustain it are the currency of our more dangerous and unpredictable age. Hard power is the essential building block of effective deterrence, and our deterrence is our insurance policy against the growing threats we face as a nation. That is why this Government are investing in hard power—investing over £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. Defence innovation is working twice: once for national security and once for British industry. That is the Labour way.

The Minister makes a strong case for hard power, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the investment in British defence. However, he also knows that generals on both sides of the Atlantic have made the case that investment in development is necessary to prevent conflict. In fact, they say that prevention is better than military intervention. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no further cuts to the international development budget in the forthcoming period?

The hon. Member knows as well as I do that we have a commitment to get back to 0.7% of GDP on international aid when we can, but I remember his party in government cutting defence spending as well. I appreciate what he is trying to say, but let us unite now in understanding that the threats we face today require investment in defence and an increasing defence budget, and that is what this Government are delivering. Investing more in our armed forces and those who wield the hard power is this Government’s approach; investing more in our defence industry that develops and sustains it is this Labour Government’s approach; and investing more in our alliances which multiply that hard power is this Labour Government’s approach.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for how investing in our armed forces and defence, after 14 years of Tory neglect, is imperative to get Britain growing and for our defence preparedness, but does he agree that these capabilities must always be exercised in the right way? Thirty UK arms licences to Israel were suspended in September 2024, but in the light of the Iran war that he mentioned and the fact that 72,000 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza, could Ministers revisit this? I know that this worsening situation means many constituents want to end all arms sales with the Netanyahu regime.

This Government have called for a ceasefire. We have called for increased aid to get to the people who need it. We have introduced arms export controls against those weapon systems that could be used in Gaza. We of course keep all export licences under review, but I think the whole House, whichever party we are in, wants to see a lasting peace and a two-state solution, so that the people of Gaza and Palestine can live side by side with a secure Israel. That is the effort that this Government are making in that respect. The Conservative equipment plan that we inherited in July 2024 was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces and ending the Tory hollowing out and underfunding that we inherited. Our strategic defence review and our defence investment plan will put that right. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was listening to the Defence Secretary’s speech last night, he would have heard him say that it is getting close.

When is the plan going to happen? I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of veterans in the UK. They take a keen interest in what goes on in our armed forces. We look across Portsmouth harbour to ships that are sat stationary, not going anywhere, and see a defence industry that is being undermined at every step. When will the Government actually put their words into action?

The hon. Member, like me, represents an area with a lot of military personnel and a lot of veterans. That is why I know that she will welcome the fact that veterans spending is at a record high under this Labour Government. We are working to deliver the defence investment plan, but that has not stopped us from investing in new capabilities, which I will come to in a moment.

I follow the Minister’s words, as always, with much interest. Has he had a conversation with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who last Thursday spoke of dither and delay, and does he relate that to the extraordinary delay in the defence investment plan?

I always welcome recruits to our armed forces and defence debates, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is absolutely welcome in our defence debate today. I say politely to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that I focus a lot of attention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who left an unfunded and hollowed-out armed forces, but he too was a Minister in that Government that hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. While I welcome his intervention and expertise, he cannot escape his record of underfunding our armed forces. We are now working to deliver that funding to our armed forces. We are on a path to warfighting readiness by 2030. We must be mission ready by 2030 against a peer adversary. That means investing in our armed forces. That mission is backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, backed by our ambitious programme of defence reform—the most ambitious in 50 years—and by the defence industrial strategy, a funded strategy. That is unlike the document worked on by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, which was unfunded and left on a shelf to gather dust. We are fuelling defence as an engine for growth, creating good jobs up and down the country. Because we are still getting on with the job of defending our country, this Government have signed more than 1,200 defence contracts since the election, nearly nine in 10 of which have gone to UK-based firms.

I posed this question to the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he was last at the Dispatch Box: where is the DIP stuck? He seemed to point the finger at the Treasury, but can I get an update on where the DIP is actually stuck?

I am a big fan of Lukes—even Lukes with new beards, as the hon. Gentleman now is—but I am not going to give a running commentary on the DIP. We are working flat out to deliver it and it will be published when it is ready.

The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?

Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.

I welcome everything that the Government are putting forward with the spend in Northern Ireland. The Minister has committed himself to that and there have been lots of visits to Northern Ireland to make it better, but the UK spend per head on the mainland is £400 and the UK spend per head in Northern Ireland is £80, which means there is a big difference in what has to be done. What steps will be taken to improve procurement and defence contracts for businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can have equality?

We have a brilliant defence industry in Northern Ireland. That is why this Labour Government backed it with a £50 million defence growth deal that I announced only a few weeks ago in Belfast. We will continue to support businesses large and small in Northern Ireland. In the past week alone, this Labour Government have deployed advanced autonomous minehunting equipment, backed by £115 million of new investment for minehunting drones and counter-drone systems for the strait of Hormuz, and signed a £1 billion contract to equip the British Army with new remote controlled artillery. We have equipped our Typhoon jets with the advanced precision kill weapon system, which will make shooting down Iranian drones cheaper and easier for our RAF, and we have announced funding for 13 new defence unicorns. We are a Government that are backing UK jobs as we rebuild our armed forces, and we are also delivering for our people.

rose—

I give way to my constituency neighbour.

I have a simple question for the Minister. He keeps stating that 1,000 or so contracts have been signed, nearly all with companies based in the UK, but what percentage of those companies are small or medium-sized enterprises compared with the primes?

I will get the hon. Lady the full details, but we are backing an increase in defence spending for SMEs, with a target of increasing it by 50% in the next two years. It is our mission to do so and that is why we have stood up the new Defence Office for Small Business Growth. I will get the percentages that she asks for, based on the latest figures. We are backing our people. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years, we have extended free childcare and we have introduced the first ever independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life. We have ended the Tory privatisation of defence housing, and we have made a £9 billion investment to tackle the scourge of the dreadful military homes that we inherited by refitting or rebuilding nine in 10 military homes. We have turned around the Tory retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited: outflow is now down 8% and inflow is up 13%. That is what a Labour Government are delivering. As the geopolitics shift, it is important that we, across this House, renew our support for Ukraine. It is important that we all stand together. That is why the Defence Secretary now chairs the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and why the United Kingdom now chairs, with our French allies, the coalition of the willing. Just as it is important to call out those parties that seek to take down Ukrainian flags, it is more important that we challenge them on what they would do to support Ukraine. I ask Reform Members, what will their party do to support Ukraine? Taking down the flags is a backward step, but I am interested in hearing what are the positive steps. I say to Conservative Members, I am interested in restoring the cross-party unity on Ukraine that we used to have, which seems to be fraying because of the party politics they are playing, so will they say when was the last time the Leader of the Opposition backed the UK’s leadership on the coalition of the willing? I cannot recall one occasion, but I am interested to know when that was. We need to ensure that the message goes out clearly from this House that we back Ukraine and we will continue to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest. We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver. I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough. This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed. In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities. There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

If His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech was meant to show that this Government have grasped the scale of the danger facing Britain, it fell a long way short. We live in a more dangerous world than at any point since the end of the cold war. Vladimir Putin is waging war in Europe, and Ukraine is fighting not just for its very survival, but for the security of our entire continent. Across Europe, we are seeing sabotage, cyber-attacks, disinformation, intimidation and hybrid warfare. Further afield, the world order is being tested by the rise of China, by instability in the middle east and by authoritarian regimes that are watching very carefully to see whether democracies still have the resolve to defend ourselves. At the same time, we can no longer assume that old certainties will hold. The United States remains a vital ally, but President Trump has shown just how quickly long-standing alliances can be weakened, questioned or taken for granted. That is the reality facing Britain. This should have been a King’s Speech that had national security at its heart. It should have been a moment of seriousness, urgency and ambition. Instead, once again, we got more delay and more warm words that are not backed up by action. We all know that the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces, but this Labour Government cannot simply point to the failures of the past and pretend that is enough. They now have the responsibility to act, but so far they are moving far too slowly.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the devastating record of the Conservatives, but does he share my sadness and frustration at the role played by the Liberal Democrats in hollowing out the size of our armed forces and waving through Budget after Budget that cut defence spending in this country? Will he own up to that sorry record?

As has been pointed out, defence spending has been reduced by successive Governments over a very long period of time, so focusing on the Liberal Democrats’ record alone is somewhat unfair, to say the least.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which party it was that insisted we delay the replacement of the continuous at sea deterrent by two full years as a condition of the coalition?

The right hon. Member enjoys raising the coalition quite a lot. You are talking about the nuclear submarines, aren’t you? That is what you asked about.

Order. I was not talking about anything. Please do not use the words “you” or “your”.

The Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to our nuclear deterrent repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. The defence investment plan is still not published. Industry is still waiting for certainty, and our allies are still waiting for clarity. Our armed forces are still waiting for the investment that they need, so it was deeply disappointing that the promised defence readiness Bill was not included in the King’s Speech. It speaks volumes that the Government’s own Bill on readiness is itself delayed. That matters, because defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild capacity in industry at the flick of a switch. We cannot train personnel, repair readiness, modernise equipment, strengthen supply chains and restore deterrents with vague promises or “working at pace”.

One thing that the Government need to improve and be better at is drone technology. For every one Ukrainian soldier killed, drones have killed 14 Russians. With that massive move in technology, does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is time for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to have a partnership with Ukraine? The technological advances that it is making could be part of our work.

Learning from Ukraine has been very important. To be fair, the Government have made some steps in that direction, but we can always do more to learn from our friends who are testing this technology in the field day in, day out. Defence takes time. Industry needs a demand signal, our allies need confidence and our adversaries need to see resolve. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. That is not a slogan or a press release, but a serious plan to make Britain safer. We must also understand that Britain’s defence does not begin and end at our border. That is why forcing a choice between spending on defence and international development is entirely false. Just yesterday, former senior British officers wrote in The Times about the danger that cuts to development pose to our security and described aid as the “first line of defence” for the UK. The Government must urgently reverse course on the cuts, which only undermine this country’s security and soft power around the world. Last year’s strategic defence review highlighted the need for an urgent injection of cash into our armed forces. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate launch of defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years to support immediate, capital-intensive defence investment.

The hon. Gentleman is always very generous in giving way. He says that the Liberal Democrats would issue war bonds for the extra defence spending, which is just other borrowing. He has also said that he would maintain aid spending at 0.7%, which is a huge increase in spending. How would that be funded?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending. Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more. For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow. If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors. It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change. Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine. We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe. The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads. National security should not be subject to short-term political games. That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience. The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation. That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it. The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life. That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

His Majesty the King opened his Speech by noting: “An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”. We have seen unprecedented military action and instability internationally, with the conflict in the middle east being only the most recent example. Closer to home, we have continued concerns about the security of Ukraine, deterring further Russian action on the European continent and creating a resilient society that is ready to support our Government and armed forces if we have to respond. As I have previously noted in this House, the United States—our once dependable ally—is withdrawing from its historical role as the protector of democracy in Europe. It has become increasingly clear to us on the Defence Committee that there is an overreliance on the USA, both militarily and for access to its defence industrial base. When we see the US delaying deliveries and increasing the cost of Patriot missiles already sold to Switzerland as a result of the Iran war, we must examine our own dependencies, as it is becoming increasingly unclear how far they are sustainable. In March, I warned that Russia is already operating in the grey zone against the UK, notably in sabotage and cyber-operations against the infrastructure that supports our prosperity. Furthermore, we know that Russia, China and others are arming at pace and increasing their readiness for war, yet many UK capability targets are measured in years and decades, rather than months. Neither the Government, our military, nor our society are yet prepared or resilient enough to cope with a large-scale conflict. As His Majesty warned us a week ago, “Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.” The UK’s armed forces need to both improve their current readiness and adopt new technologies at pace and at scale. The Government have consistently recognised that our armed forces are hollowed out, and both the strategic defence review and the national security strategy committed the Government to improving the UK’s warfighting readiness. However, our credibility has been harmed in recent months. The lack of available frigates and destroyers to carry out the tasks that we have set ourselves and, often, that we have agreed with NATO, is merely one example of the difficulties faced. The US is carrying out a NATO audit, and it is looking hard at us. Our European partners are questioning whether we can deliver on the commitments we have made to NATO as part of the defence planning process, and whether we continue to deserve our leadership role in NATO. In the Defence Committee’s report, “The UK contribution to European Security”, we warned that “Time is short, given the urgency of the threat and the work required to respond appropriately.” We raised questions about both the sufficiency of the capabilities we provide to NATO and those with which we could protect our homeland. We questioned the Government’s progress on engaging the population about both the threat and how we respond to it. We have also looked at long-term procurement programmes, completing the previous Committee’s work on the global combat air programme and undertaking a new inquiry into AUKUS. We are well aware that decisions taken today, particularly those that delay programmes or lead to the loss of sovereign capability, have a huge impact on our future ability to defend our nation and deter adversaries, so we await the defence investment plan. We know that the delay is damaging both our domestic industry and our international credibility. We do not have empty factories, spare components or a surplus of welders sitting around, waiting to jump into action once the Government decide what they want. Companies do not have warehouses full of supplies waiting for the Government to put their order in. The defence industry needs to increase capacity, which means building production lines and training people so that they can build the products. That is particularly relevant if allies and partners are buying the same things at the same time, which we have seen as a result of the war in Ukraine. Most importantly, we do not know at what rate the Government intend to reach the target of 3% of GDP being spent on defence—hopefully in this Parliament—or the NATO target of 3.5% by 2035. All the various defence financing options need to be rapidly considered, with some implemented as soon as possible. I have asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a timeline, so that industry can plan based on when that additional funding will arrive. He refused to give certainty beyond 2027, and we need that certainty. The US and the EU are looking at our defence industrial base and working out how best they can tempt our companies to move to their countries, so that they can benefit from British innovation, while we fail to provide a reason to stay here. In our European security report, the Defence Committee warned that establishing capacity takes time, and if the Government decide to just turn on the tap at the last minute, a lot of taxpayers’ money will be lost to defence inflation, leaving the MOD with very little to show for it. Let me now move on to the defence readiness Bill, which should have featured prominently in the King’s Speech, but alas, the Government have not included it. The purpose of the defence readiness Bill is to give the Government “powers in reserve to respond effectively in the event of escalation towards a war involving the UK or its allies”, and to “facilitate external scrutiny” of the UK’s ability to defend itself. The Government are determining which additional legal powers they need and looking at “measures to…better protect our Critical National Infrastructure, provide for the mobilisation of wider Defence capability in crisis, and ensure Parliament’s ability to scrutinise warfighting readiness.” We were told that this work would include engagement with key stakeholders—including other Government Departments and the Committee—during 2026 as specific measures are developed. Drafting will then “take place following robust evidence-gathering and policy development.” All of that is welcome, but we need a timeline. It has now been more than two years since the end of the last Parliament. The Government have demonstrated again and again that they understand the problems; what they have failed to do is implement a transformative solution. We need to fund defence properly, with a timetable showing precisely how and when we will reach the agreed 3.5% NATO target. We urgently need a defence investment plan, published before the summer recess, that shows what is being invested where and, crucially, where the disinvestments are, and what the subsequent changes to the structure of the UK’s armed forces will be. We need a defence readiness Bill to be published in this Session, and we need a commitment that it will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. As the Prime Minister has talked about, we need to engage the public in a national conversation about spending more on defence and what the public’s role in our nation’s security is. The Government are rightly wary of panicking the public, but the best way to avoid that is to ensure that the public understand what is required of them as individuals and communities, and to ensure that our brave armed forces have the necessary capabilities to defend us.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). He will recall that I voted for him to hold his position, and I will come for payback later on. It is also very good to see my area neighbour, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), in the Chamber. I will listen with great interest to what he has to say, and I hope that the Labour party finds another use for him through its talent spotting, if I can put it like that. Before coming to the topic of defence in this debate on the Address, I want to touch on another issue that has arisen. My brilliant assistant, Alice Stuttaford, spotted yesterday something that tells me that we have a slight problem with the Government’s commitment to the legal position on the use of slave-made products by Great British Energy. In answer to a question from Politico about whether they were implementing what, thanks to many Labour Back Benchers and many Opposition Members, is the law—my amendment passed and became law—and applying it to the producers as well, a spokesman for the Government said: “We have strict procurement controls in place to ensure that any solar panels”— it is not just solar panels, but all elements to do with net zero— “are free from forced labour, as far as possible”. That is not the law. There is no caveat to the law. Everybody rebelled on the Labour Benches, and Opposition Members also voted for it, and we implemented an absolute, which is that it is not for Great British Energy to use any products that have been produced using any kind of forced labour. I know that this is not the speciality of the Ministers present, but I ask them to raise it, because I also saw that the Gracious Speech contained very peculiar commitments to using immigration as a way of tackling forced labour. That is not good enough. We need to reinforce the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and make it an offence for any company to import or use any items or goods that were made using forced or slave labour. That should be a unifying factor across this House, and I do not know why the Government have now watered down their intention. Madam Deputy Speaker will know this full well as she has been party to it: this cause goes to the root of one of the issues I will come on to, which is the threat that we face from places such as China. If we go on strengthening such places by buying their slave-made goods, then we do our own defence no good at all. What is needed is a wide-ranging commitment through the Modern Slavery Act to ban all products made by slave labour. This debate is on defence, and we are now facing the greatest threat to our freedom across the western world since the 1930s. I do not believe that the threat is less than it was during the cold war; in a way, it is a greater threat, because at least during the cold war we already knew and recognised what war was about, why we had to be prepared for it, and what we were defending. We have lost lots of that. Many people out there do not fully understand how the threat has changed and grown. The reality today is that one shipyard in China makes more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. China has over 130 times the capacity to build naval ships than Europe and America have at the moment. I say to people who do not think that this is a threat: do not necessarily listen to what those totalitarian states say; go and have a look at what they are doing. They are producing and preparing for war. I am not, I hope, scaremongering, as I believe this to be a reality. China is reinforcing and supporting Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Without China, Russia could not have continued this war. Russia was running out of ammunition, but China brokered an arrangement with North Korea, which now produces millions of rounds of ammunition for Russia, and even provides soldiers who, once used, abused and wounded on the battlefield, are then assassinated so that they are not a source of shame when they go back. This is about totalitarian states. The Government should not use the phrase authoritarian states. They are totalitarian states, and there is a difference. Authoritarian states are about dictators and others who have risen to power and at some stage have to be brought down. Totalitarian states are ones where every element of how people live their lives is controlled, run and spied on—with people arrested as a result—by the state organs, regardless of who is in charge. Communism is the key here; those states are communist. There are other extremist versions of such states. Iran is part of that alliance. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an extremist organisation, and I do not understand why the Government have failed to proscribe it. It really is high time, as it is present in our country stirring up violence and hatred. We should deal with that and say it is a criminal act for the IRGC to be here. To that extent, how the Government respond to this challenge in defence terms is critical. I am one of those people who has argued since the end of the cold war that we made a mistake in reducing defence. Nobody listened to me then, and there is no reason why they should listen to me today, but I tell the Minister that I am going to keep on saying it. I hope Members on the Government Benches and others will ask that question. I know what the restrictions are, and that the Treasury dictates to Departments and says, “We can’t afford this. We won’t do it.” People at the Treasury are the last people in the world to ever recognise a threat to anybody, at any time, from anything. The Treasury continues as if all was sweetness and light because it does not want to make any changes. It is for Defence Ministers to make the point about the threat. Why in heaven’s name have we not published the defence readiness Bill? It is the Ministry of Defence’s greatest weapon in the fight with the Treasury. Every other Department—Health or whatever—know what I am talking about. It is always a fight, but it has to be, because we are facing what is likely to be our greatest threat since the 1930s. To face that threat, Ministers need to make it clear to the Treasury that we cannot skirt around this any longer; we have to spend that money and commit. The Government have talked about being committed to 3% in due course, but that will not be enough. When I was serving, we were committed to 5% of GDP to face down the Soviet Union. We will need the same again, because I believe we are about to face an even greater threat. Ministers will know that the Conservatives will give them our full support if they are prepared to fight for that. Let us get the defence investment plan published right away—that is really important. Those totalitarian states do not face the restrictions that we do. We have those restrictions for a good reason: we believe in democracy. But freedom is the most expensive thing that we will ever try to own, and it can be taken away with just a wish. The Government’s job is to stand firm and say that the No. 1 priority is to defend the realm from threats, internal and external. If we do not do that, we will have failed in our obligations, failed the British people, and failed our allies and friends, who look to us for leadership. We can only lead, however, if we have the equipment to show our allies that we have the endeavour. When we took the Falkland Islands, we had 53 frigates and destroyers available to us. We could not do that today. That is the measure of how far we have gone under both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Ministry of Defence must tell the Government, “Enough is enough. We are going to publish this Bill and the defence investment plan—and, by the way, where is the China audit? Let’s publish that too”.

I begin by joining others in expressing my condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), despite our best efforts to retire him at the last general election. The test of any of us in politics is: did we leave things in a better place than we found them? Thanks to the choices made by this Labour Government, the NHS is on the road to recovery. Waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March—the biggest fall in a single month outside of the pandemic for 17 years. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years, patient satisfaction with access to general practice has gone from 60% to 75%, and at a time when public trust in politicians is low, we hit our target of recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers three years early. On social care, I am proud that we are investing an extra £4 billion; that we have delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s; that the extra £150 million in the disabled facilities grant is providing more dignity, freedom and independence to thousands more disabled people; and that the first ever fair pay agreements will be delivered in social care, because the people who care for our loved ones should never care for their own. That was all made possible thanks to the efforts of the entire NHS and social care team. In the four and half years that I have led for Labour on health and social care, I have met the best of them: the ones who ran towards danger in Southport and fought to save those children; the ones who scrubbed up and went to work during the pandemic, while the rest of us retreated to safety; the ones who bring new life into the world; and the ones who hold our hands at the end. Leading that team has been the greatest joy of my life. The depth of love and gratitude I have for the people I have worked with is beyond words—the brilliant team of Ministers and officials at the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly my private office, NHS England, the best team of special advisers in Government, and the leaders and frontline staff across this remarkable system. I am rooting for all of them, as well as for my successor as Health Secretary as he takes on the best job in Government. I will not pretend that leaving Government has not been an emotional wrench. The scars that I bear on my abdomen from my cancer treatment are a daily reminder to me of a time in my life, not so long ago, when I was thinking not about politics, but only about survival—and the NHS was there for me when I needed it. Walking through the doors of my Department every day as the person entrusted with protecting the very service that saved my life has been a massive responsibility and the most enormous privilege, and not one that I gave up lightly or hastily. I left the Government because we are in the fight of our lives against nationalism, and it is a fight that we are currently losing. Unless we change course, we risk handing the keys of No. 10 to Reform, and I do not want that on our consciences. For the first time in our history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom. Scottish and Welsh nationalism represents an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom. Reform UK represents a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great—values and ideals that are written into the DNA of the national health service that it would dismantle, given the chance, and whose very existence is an act of courage as well as conviction: that healthcare should be provided based on what each of us needs, not on what any of us can afford. It is a reminder that, even in our darkest hours, this country is capable of doing big things. It is our responsibility to defend that promise and the values that it represents, not just for the NHS or even for the survival of this Government, but to win the battles that we thought were long since won: of progressives against reactionaries, of patriots versus nationalists, of hope over hate. That is our fight. It is Andy Burnham’s fight in Makerfield, and it is Labour’s fight for the soul of our country. For too long and too often, patriotism in Britain has been left to the loudest voices and the narrowest arguments, as though love of country belongs to one tribe, one party or one point of view, but the Britain that I believe in is bigger than that. Patriotism is not about who you exclude; it is about who you stand beside. It is not rooted in fear of change or suspicion of difference; it is rooted in solidarity—in the belief that we rise or fall together. That is the best of our country’s story: a Britain where people from different backgrounds, different faiths, and different nations and regions, still see themselves in one another; a country where the son of Indian pharmacists can become our first Hindu Prime Minister without having his Englishness questioned; a patriotism built not on blood and soil but on shared values, shared institutions and shared responsibilities. I understand that SNP and Plaid Cymru Members will not see themselves in the English nationalist politics of the party whose Members sit on the Bench behind them. But nationalism is not progressive, and nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. Nationalism says, “Look inward. Protect your own. Turn away from the others.” Patriotism says, “This country is strongest when we are confident enough to be outward looking, generous and united”—united, but not always the same. On the Labour Benches, we believe in a stronger Scotland and a stronger Wales as part of a fairer United Kingdom. Twenty-eight years ago this week, the people of Northern Ireland took a leap of faith and voted to endorse the Good Friday agreement—the triumph of hope over bitter enmity, and a reminder that a bigger and better politics is possible when people have courage. That is why we must reject the politics that tries to divide us—whether that is dividing the countries of the United Kingdom or the people who call Britain their home. The nurse from Nigeria is not the enemy of the factory worker in Newcastle. The family fleeing war is not responsible for the cost of living crisis. Division is the oldest trick in politics, and Britain deserves better than that. The future of this country will not be built by setting neighbour against neighbour; it will be built by renewing the bonds between us, with decent jobs, strong public services, safe communities, a place we can call home and a sense that everyone has a stake in Britain’s success. That is the patriotism we need today—not a brittle nationalism built on grievance, but a confident British patriotism: decent, fair-minded and internationalist, bound together in common endeavour with the conviction that our greatest strength has always been one another. We need to mobilise that spirit as we face the gathering storm. The war in Iran may be over for now, but this fragile peace has not resolved the crisis in the strait of Hormuz. Even if it were resolved tomorrow, the long-tail consequences for the global economy and the British people will be stark. The tragedy for this Government is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been delivering the fastest growing economy in the G7, falling inflation and lower interest rates, but her hard work has been undermined by the consequences of a war we did not choose. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for keeping us out of it. It will be painful for the British people, who have weathered crisis after crisis: some imposed on us, like the wars in Iran and Ukraine and the pandemic; and others, like austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss’s joyride with the British economy, the result of poor political leadership. When I gave my maiden speech 11 years ago, I argued that none of the problems facing our country would be solved by leaving the European Union. Today, in the dangerous and volatile world we find ourselves in, dominated by an unpredictable superpower in the USA, a rising superpower in China and a failed superpower in Russia, it is even more clear that we would have been better off leading Europe than leaving the European Union—not despite our sovereignty and the need to control our borders, but to enable those things. That is why I argue for a new special relationship. It is also why I welcome the assurances that the Government are strengthening sanctions on Russia to underline the rock-solid support that we have given President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. The frontline in Ukraine is the frontline for our freedom and democracy. We are meant to be the party of internationalism and solidarity. It is only too disappointing to see Reform councillors taking down the Ukraine flag when the British people want to fly it in solidarity. It is truly, truly shameful. NATO’s Secretary-General is right to warn today that our alliance has an “unhealthy” reliance on one ally. We need to invest more heavily in our defence, and more rapidly. I know that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his team do not need persuading on this—nor do they need lectures from Conservatives, who ran down our capability and now have the audacity to heckle from the sidelines like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade has not turned up fast enough. I am with the Secretary of State and his team all the way.

Bankrupting the country has consequences.

The shadow Secretary of State mentions “bankrupting the country.” I think he is thinking about Liz Truss and the joyride that he was no doubt cheering on. A period of silence, or at least an apology, might be welcome from those on the Conservative Front Bench. We need to recognise that a nation draws its strength from the condition of its people. A recent survey of 16 to 29-year-olds suggested that around half of all young people in this country would not be prepared to fight for it. I am not so sure about that; I think they would be every bit as brave and self-sacrificing as their grandparents and great-grandparents were, or as their contemporaries holding back the Russians in Ukraine have been. When the cause is just and the need is urgent, they will step up, regardless of what they might have told opinion pollsters. I know that because, when this country was facing a dire threat—from covid—young people did step up. The generation least at risk gave up the most to help the rest of us keep safe. And how did Britain repay them? By short-changing them on their education, layering on debt, making it harder to get on the housing ladder, and failing to protect them from the AI jobs apocalypse. This generation is the first left totally exposed to the time-sucking algorithms and perils of social media. The Education Secretary and I have raised our concerns about the impact of this on their learning and their wellbeing, but I also wonder what it is doing to their sense of connection with community and country. But patriotism is not a lecture that the old deliver to the young; it is a relationship. For generations, Britain understood that relationship as a social contract: you work hard, you play by the rules, you contribute to society, and in return you can build a decent life, a secure job, a home of your own and a family if you want one, with the hope and conviction that your children will do better than you did. A generation ago, the average home cost around four times average earnings. In many parts of Britain today, it is eight, 10 or even 12 times average earnings. Private rents consume vast proportions of household income. Millions of young people who work hard and do the right thing cannot see a path to home ownership or security. Today, nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. Many are trapped in insecure work, unable to move out, delaying starting their families and postponing adulthood itself. Layered on top of this economic insecurity is a new technological anxiety. For generations, people believed that there was a ladder of advancement, with an entry-level job, skills acquired over time, promotion, security and progress. Now, many young people fear that artificial intelligence may remove the lower rungs of that ladder altogether. They ask what skills will still matter. Will there still be routes into stable, middle-class lives for kids from working-class families like mine? Will deindustrialisation be replaced with reindustrialisation and the jobs of the future? Will opportunities extend to our towns, rural and coastal communities, or will inequality become entrenched? Those are not irrational fears; they are rooted in real economic change. Unless mainstream democratic politics can answer those questions, others will exploit that vacuum—they already are. Defence is about hard power and capabilities, but it is underpinned by the soft power that binds a country together: pride, belonging, shared activities and institutions, and hope. We need to rebuild those things for modern times. This is the calling of the Labour party, which was brought into existence to champion the interests of the working man and woman—for the many, not just the privileged few. It gave me—this kid from a council estate in Stepney in east London—the chance to realise my potential, to go to a great university, and to spend my career tackling the injustices that hold back other kids from backgrounds like mine. The greatest tragedy of Britain today is that the next generation, for the first time in our modern history, faces worse prospects than the last. The question is not whether young people would fight for their country, but when their country is going to fight for them. This is our generational challenge: not only to deal with the immediate issues of affordability, small boats and NHS waiting lists, but to face up to a turbulent world being remade by climate change and the biggest and fastest industrial revolution in the history of the world; to make sure that no one is left behind and no one is held back—that is our job now, as the old economy of the 20th century finally gives way to the AI revolution of the 21st; and to tackle the crisis facing the next generation as an emergency, with the urgency that the moment requires. Never waste a minute: that has been my mantra in government, and it is why I do not believe our party has time to waste treading water. The thing about emergencies is that they make the impossible possible. Look back at the crises we have confronted: we could not vaccinate against the deadly virus—until we could; we could not nationalise the banking system—until we could; we could not reorient our entire manufacturing base towards building aircraft—until we could; we could not build hundreds of thousands of homes fit for heroes—until we could. In times of greatest peril, our country has been capable of doing big things. We still can. Britain used to punch above its weight in the world. We still can. Each generation used to provide a better future for the next. We still can. Another member of the cancer club, the late, great Bowelbabe, Dame Deborah James, famously said: “take risks; love deeply; have no regrets; and always, always have rebellious hope.” It is with that in mind—and with the belief that we can and must do better, with deep love for my party and my country, with no regrets, and with rebellious hope—that I have left the Government. The Labour party was elected to deliver real change. We still can.

After the next speaker, we will go to a speaking limit of seven minutes.

May I genuinely congratulate the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on a remarkable speech and wish him well in his future ambitions? His speech and its content were, I am afraid, not as germane as the contribution of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee. I agree with everything that he had to say; I only regret that I could not put it as elegantly as him. The resignation letter of the right hon. Member for Ilford North is worth reading, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have read it closely. He wrote on Thursday that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift”, and that should worry the Government. I agree with him, and I am thinking in particular of the defence investment plan, which we have not seen. I am conscious that the defence readiness Bill, which we were expecting in this King’s Speech, has yet to materialise, and that is of deep and profound concern. In the 1930s, we arguably faced a similar situation to what we are up against now, and the Government of the day decided about five years in advance of the outbreak of the second world war that they must gear up our defence industrial base for the future. They created things such as shadow factories, initially with opposition from industry. Those were centred largely, at least initially, on the automotive industry and the production of aircraft, but went on to extend much further than that. It was a truly co-operative venture that led eventually to this country being able to turn out more aircraft in those early years than Germany could. I would have thought that this Government would have learned those lessons and now be bringing forward, as a matter of urgency, its own defence readiness Bill. The Government have missed an opportunity, and I am sorry about that, because there is no shadow of a doubt that industry is being held back, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, in its ambition to partner with the Ministry of Defence and with Ministers to get things going, whether that is reprovisioning what we have rightly sent to Ukraine or fitting our armed forces for the future. Some have already mentioned hollowing out. It is worth saying that in 1989, every country in the western world was taking a peace dividend. It would have been extraordinary had they not, and they would have been punished by the voters, but that was then. The big lesson I have learned from what has happened in the years since 1989 is that Governments can afford to titrate what they provide in order to defend this country against the threats facing it—although that is never popular electorally—but they must do nothing to reduce the armed forces below an irreducible minimum, so that armed forces can regrow rapidly, as happened in the years immediately preceding 1914 and 1939. Governments must also do nothing that will damage long-term projects, because procurement is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap—procurement takes decades. I think we have learned from that mistake. One of the mistakes that the previous Government made was delaying the Dreadnought class. That was because, as I referred to in the intervention that the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) generously allowed me to make, of pressure from our then partner in the coalition Government. Right now we are facing the prospect of our principal ally, the United States, backing off in terms of its support for us and our European allies. We can no longer entirely rely on that on which we previously relied heavily. If, as seems likely, the United States proceeds with this particular course of action, we will be the only provider of a nuclear deterrent declared to NATO, and it is therefore important that in the defence readiness Bill—when we see it—we have a reaffirmed commitment to reprovisioning the continuous at-sea deterrent apace. Much work has been done in respect of infrastructure and at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but we are still facing a rundown Vanguard class that is obliged to go on patrol for upwards of 200 days, with a consequent impact on the men and, now, women who man the submarine service. Of all the pinch point trades in our armed forces, it is those in the submarine service that should keep us awake at night. It is imperative that we accelerate that programme. I also ask Ministers to look at the F-35A provision, and to agree with me that providing 12 airframes is hardly sufficient given the threat that we now face. I need to know, I should like to know, and I am sure the whole House would like to know when the F-35As will be operational, as opposed to the provision of training airframes. Is it the intention of the Government to expedite that programme? Is it the intention of the Government to exploit the option that they have kept open to have more than 12 of those airframes, and will Ministers confirm that they will be nuclear-enabled? I strongly urge Ministers to consider the sovereign defence fund Bill in the alternative King’s Speech, which would repurpose the National Wealth Fund to overhaul our vital defence industrial base. Governing is about difficult decisions, and it seems to me that defence is a more urgent priority right now than using the fund—in the words of the Government—to help tackle climate change, and, indeed, a more urgent priority than ramping up welfare, as Lord Robertson has made very clear. The defence industrial base will be pretty useless if it is not populated by men and women with the skills that are necessary to deliver what is needed in order to keep this country safe. The youth opportunity Bill, which also features in the alternative King’s Speech, has the kind of imaginative content that I would have expected from an incoming Government who had 14 years to think about these matters. Unfortunately not: all that we had from the Prime Minister on young people on Wednesday was a load of waffle. Time and again, it is as if he is a passive observer rather than an active participant. The youth opportunity Bill explains how genuine investment in our young people will power and grow the economy, delivering a virtuous circle from which everyone benefits. It will cap state funding for pointless, work-irrelevant, badly taught degrees from third-rate institutions that are perpetrating a fraud on a generation, and will grow well-focused apprenticeships such as those offered by Wiltshire College in my constituency. Let me now say a few words about special forces. We must approach these issues with a great deal of care. I am extremely concerned by the messaging that has gone out from this Government in relation to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—not so much the case that has been put before the House by the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the way in which it has been received. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State for Defence, will know very well—because his contacts are probably better than mine—that this messaging has caused a degree of disquiet, particularly among units that are crucial to this country’s defence and security. They will perceive that, in years to come, a future Government may decide that what is happening now, and what is acceptable now, is no longer acceptable.

This business with what is going on over Northern Ireland is not alone, because it builds on a perception and on the gratuitous pursuit of soldiers involved in Afghanistan and Iraq—partly by the Prime Minister in a previous life, but certainly by lawyers knowing full well that what they were pursuing were in fact complete untruths. That has made those former soldiers wonder what is the point. If politicians will not stand up for them, who will?

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with him. This is about more than Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland has a read-across to a number of theatres where our men and women are actively engaged or could be in the future. The exodus from some of these units will cause irretrievable and irrecoverable damage to our ability to protect the men and women of this country. I have no doubt that Ministers are acting with the best of intentions, but I urge them to look at the messaging that is being given to the men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent, and to decide what they can do to address this legislation. I would say “Scrap it and start again”, but if they cannot do that, I ask them to consider what they can do to prevent the idea from gaining penetrance among those units that the Government are simply not on their side, and in any event even if they were, that Governments in the future might, by the standards of the day, decide that what is being done at the moment in the name of the state and in the King’s name was no longer acceptable. Lawfare is a real and present danger to the men and women of our armed forces, and, knowing him as I do, I feel certain that the Secretary of State is cognisant of the threat that it poses. Conscious of the frog in your throat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall end my remarks there.

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It is clear that when it comes to defence readiness, there is much on which we can all agree. Let me also—before he leaves the Chamber—pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). The former set out in powerful terms the challenges that we face as a country, but it was the latter who set out, also in powerful terms, the hope and the determination that we must show in government in order to meet those challenges in a way that the country deserves. As ever, my right hon. Friend showed great courage and strength in leading from the front. Today’s debate rightly focuses on defence and national security, and it could not be more timely given the challenges that we face. However, that sense of security comes not just from investment in defence, although that is clearly important and I will say more about it shortly, but from investment in the broadest sense—investment in our people, in the creation of strong, resilient, enterprising and cohesive communities. That is what will ultimately keep us safe. The Armed Forces Bill and the national security Bill are important steps forward, and, given the disgusting and horrifying extremism and antisemitism that we have seen rising here in Britain, the tackling state threats Bill will also be a welcome response to the threats that we face on our own soil, including those from Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Having called for it, I welcome the legislation that is coming, and will be following developments very closely. However, we cannot make meaningful progress on defence without the defence investment plan. While I know that the Secretary of State and his team are working incredibly hard on producing the plan, the delay in its production is having real-world consequences, and we need it to maintain our international credibility. In my role as the UK’s trade envoy to Italy, I know how important collaboration is for the global combat air programme, which will unleash opportunities and defence investment. In my region, the north-east, our defence sector is a major employer, supporting thousands of jobs and a wide network of small and medium-sized enterprises. We could do even more, but we need certainty and security about what is coming down the track in order to protect our supply chains and the big contractors that we know are still waiting. Without the investment plan, we risk undermining defence manufacturing and sovereign capabilities, both in my region and across the country, and domestic production is not something that we can gamble with. We have such a strong story to tell in Newcastle. The opening of the North East Space Skills and Technology Centre at Northumbria University has added a new dimension to our regional capabilities by supporting apprenticeships and graduate programmes, helping to build the next generation of skilled workers. We know that defence investment does not just impact one industry; it boosts skills, innovation and opportunities across our whole economy. We need to know the details of the plan so that businesses can provide real, tangible support for our young people, and so that those young people can access high-quality training and employment. As a northerner, I am pleased to see the northern powerhouse Bill included in the King’s Speech, but it must be backed by genuine investment. The north cannot possibly endure yet another round of broken promises, especially after the catastrophic management of High Speed 2 by the previous Government. The small business protections Bill will offer long-overdue protection for sole traders, freelancers and family-run businesses, which we know have been ignored by large companies for far too long. I know that many small businesses will welcome the Bill, as it could genuinely save livelihoods, particularly in retail and hospitality. On the subject of retail and hospitality, the north-east is home to some of the best—Newcastle upon Tyne North is the home of the Greggs sausage roll, after all—but many in the sector are concerned about the impact of the overnight visitor levy Bill. I urge Ministers to keep an open mind as evidence emerges, because we need to ensure that our hospitality industry thrives. For many businesses, it is too often a question of whether they will survive. I urge the Chancellor to do everything possible to support our businesses, especially in retail, leisure and hospitality, because those are the sectors that give so many of our young people their first foot on the career ladder. Without them, we know that the costs to the state and to those individuals would be so much higher. Too often businesses feel like the odds are stacking up against them, so we as a Government need to all pull in one direction. It is in all our interests to make sure that opportunities for jobs, investment and community cohesion reach far and wide, because they do as much for our national security as investment in rotary blades and electronics. I will continue to monitor this issue in my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment. Finally, the energy independence Bill and the nuclear regulation Bill are both welcome. They will strengthen our energy security and our national security, and they will accelerate home-grown renewable energy. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on warm homes, I want to see really ambitious energy production, and I will continue to monitor the progress made on warm homes and on the retrofitting of homes, because that is how we will help households to manage the rising cost of living. So much in this King’s Speech will be welcomed by my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne North, from the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill to the social housing renewal Bill, but we have to ensure that they feel it, that they understand it, that they come with us and that they see the vision, so that we can help people to build better lives and stronger communities right across the UK.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has such a sunny personality that I always feel cheered up after listening to her contributions, even when she is the bearer of somewhat disappointing news about the economy. I was also impressed by the speech of the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is just about to escape from the Chamber. However, it did leave me wondering what my headline would be if I were a parliamentary sketch writer. I think it would be, “Why on earth did he resign?” It sounded much more like a manifesto in a leadership campaign than a trigger for calling one, but there we are—we all have our own motives. The right hon. Gentleman made a point that is of great relevance to this debate, which I promise I had already written down before I heard him make it: the comparison between the terrible experience of the pandemic and the terrible experience of a country involved in a full-scale war. There were, of course, casualties during the pandemic, and there was the determination to learn from it. The outcome is that we are a lot better prepared for the future, should another deadly virus attack us. As a result of the lessons learned during the pandemic, we will be in a much better position to develop effective vaccines far more quickly. However, I am afraid the real parallel is not a very happy one. It is a fact that if someone had said before we knew we were going to have the pandemic, “You need to invest a considerable sum of money in developing a system that enables you to develop vaccines quickly in response to the emergence of a new deadly virus,” we probably would not have done it. That is where the parallel lies with wartime situations, because for many years, defence-minded Members on both sides of the House have been urging successive Governments to spend a lot more on defence. If those warnings go unheeded and this country ends up in a full-scale armed conflict with a peer adversary, we will not be talking about spending 3% or 4% of GDP on defence; we will have to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on defence. We do not wish to get to that situation, because it would lead to not only economic loss—think of the human cost. If, by investing in defence in peacetime, we can deter a potential enemy from starting a war, we not only save the treasure; we save the blood that is otherwise shed so copiously. As we know, Russia is spending something of the order of between a third and a half of its gross domestic product on military power. In the past, the Defence Committee has looked at the question of what this country has spent historically. In a report entitled “Shifting the goalposts?”, and a second report entitled “Shifting the goalposts: an update”, the figures show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was completely correct. He said that in the mid-1980s, when he was serving, we were spending something of the order of 5% of GDP on defence. In fact, the figure given in 1983-84 was 4.4%, and in 1984-85 the figure was 4.5%. In reality, however, that was because we had higher criteria than the other NATO powers for what counted as defence expenditure, and we adopted their lower standards later. Looking back, we can see that the figures were actually 5.3% in 1983-84 and 5.5% in 1984-85. Those are very big figures. People talk about the way in which the peace dividend was taken, but as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), pointed out, 1996-97—the year in which Tony Blair took over from the Conservative Government—was already at least half a dozen years after the end of the cold war, if we understand that to have taken place in 1991 rather than in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, we were still spending 3%. That was the figure then, so as the current Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), rightly said in an admirably objective speech, given that Russia is preparing for conflict now, we are responding too slowly and “time is short”, given the urgency of the situation. When we talk about achieving figures of 3% in a few years’ time and 5% in a few more years’ time, I would ask the House: does the killer in the Kremlin intend to give us that time? If we want to deter him from taking a step that would be to the detriment of the world, we need to invest now and, as in the case of the pandemic, find the money now. If a war broke out tomorrow, we would find the money at once, so let us find it today and diminish the chance of that terrible conflict happening the day after.

I welcome any debate that has the collective security of the British people at its heart, because I believe one of the greatest threats to our security is the economic system governing this country, which has consistently failed working-class people and communities, and which will undoubtedly be made worse still by the illegal and ill-planned war in Iran. Now more than ever, we need a radical restructuring of priorities and policies: more council housing, a total end to right to buy, and the nationalisation of our industries that were sold off and gutted by Thatcher, including water and energy. In 2026, no one in Britain should be going hungry, so I welcome the Government’s recognition in the King’s Speech that there is a food poverty crisis in the UK. However, the redistribution of surplus food will not begin to end the food insecurity faced by over 14 million people in this country. It is a sticking-plaster over a gaping wound. We need a solution that acknowledges the sheer scale of hunger across the UK. Over the last five months the Right to Food UK Commission, which I am proud to be part of, has travelled across these islands from Liverpool and Knowsley to Newcastle and Northumberland, and from Cardiff and Aberdare to Belfast, with Glasgow and London to come next month. It has listened to the people this country too often ignores—not economists in boardrooms, not corporate lobbyists, but working-class people in working-class communities. They understand better than anyone the scale of food insecurity in this country, and how it is impacting the lives and health of people who are living with hunger every single day—and living with its consequences. The commission has gathered evidence for what I believe will be the defining report of our generation—a road map to finally making the right to food the law of the land. In one of the richest countries on Earth, millions of our people are going hungry, and that should shame every single one of us in this place. I say this truthfully because what I have heard over the last few months has left me absolutely devastated. I have sat with parents who skip meals so their kids can eat. I have listened to disabled people tell us that they are sitting in freezing homes, deciding whether to put the heating on or to buy food—let alone a treat, a day trip or, God forbid, a holiday. I have met workers in full-time jobs relying on food banks to survive. That is the scandal of modern Britain, because these people are not failing: Britain is failing them. We heard evidence from Public and Commercial Services Union members that civil servants are using food banks because of low pay. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union reports that the very workers who make our food cannot afford to put it on their own tables. We should think about how obscene that is, and about how flawed our economic system must be if that is the result. We must stop pretending that this happens by accident; it does not. This is the result of political decisions: 40 years of neoliberal economics have seen people and communities disempowered and left behind, industries destroyed, trade union power weakened, public services hollowed out, and wages and incomes driven down while wealth has flowed upwards—and after all that, people are told to be grateful for charity. Food banks were never supposed to be part of British life. They are the clearest sign that our economy and society are broken, but an entire generation of children are growing up believing that they are normal. That is not normal or acceptable, and it is not inevitable, because hunger in Britain is not caused by a lack of food; it is caused by poverty. That is the truth at the heart of this debate: it is not about scarcity, but poverty—low wages, insecure work, sky-high rents, a broken security system, and an economic system that protects wealth while punishing the poor. That is why I say gently to Ministers that surplus food redistribution is not a solution to hunger. Yes, any support for struggling families matters—of course it does—but we cannot build a just society on leftovers. We cannot normalise emergency charity as permanent public policy, and we cannot allow food banks to become the fourth emergency service of the British state. Because if we do, we are accepting managed poverty instead of ending it, and I reject that completely. Earlier this week the Mayor of Greater Manchester spoke about the damage done by 40 years of neoliberal economics, and he was spot-on because everywhere the commissioners travelled there was a sense deep in communities that people have been abandoned. In Northumberland, one woman said something I will never, ever forget. She said, “Don’t you dare call us disadvantaged; call us asset-stripped.” My God she was right. That is exactly what has happened to working-class Britain—asset-stripped, hope-stripped, industry-stripped, security-stripped—and then those very communities are blamed and demonised for the consequences of political choices. But despite everything—despite all the hardship—those communities still fight for one another. That was the beautiful thing we witnessed everywhere we went. Solidarity is still alive in this country. Working-class people feeding each other, looking after each other and organising together show more humanity in church halls and community centres than many have ever experienced from Government. That is the spirit, and that is what the right to food campaign is built on, because people do not want charity forever; they want dignity, they want security and they want to know they can feed their families without fear. Hunger is a political choice, and if hunger is a political choice then ending hunger must become a political priority. That means universal free school meals. It means wages people can actually live on. It means secure work and stronger trade unions. It means proper enforcement of a legal right to food, and it means investments in community kitchens and local food programmes. It means finally rebuilding a welfare state that protects people instead of punishing them, and, yes, price caps on essential items. These are not extreme demands; they are the bare minimum standards of a civilised society, because in 21st-century Britain nobody should be going hungry. In the communities we have visited, everybody agrees that food is our most basic human right. Good food should be a fundamental human right for all, and a right to food would place this at the very heart of Government decision making. History will ask all of us in this House a very simple question: when millions of children were going hungry, what did you do about it? I know what side I am on.

I call my constituency neighbour, Mike Martin.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not normally introduce me like that, so thank you very much. It is an honour to share a constituency border with you and to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who made a heartfelt and powerful speech. Wars are raging in Europe and in the middle east, and there are extreme tensions in the far east. Moreover, these regional conflicts are starting to knit together: Russia and China supported Iran in the middle east, and North Korea supported Russia in Ukraine. This knitting together of regional conflicts is what we saw in the 1930s in the foothills of the second world war, so there is an argument that we are now in the foothills of another global war. It is undoubtedly true that the threats we face are increasing, yet at the same time, day by day, UK military capability is decreasing. We must rapidly rearm to narrow this gap; it is the only way that we can deter conflict. Despite that, the King’s Speech contains no programme of rearmament. The Government speak the language of urgency yet refuse even to introduce the necessary policy and legislation. As has been mentioned by Members from all parts of the House, we have been waiting for the defence investment plan since last autumn, and we were promised a defence readiness Bill in this King’s Speech, but where is it? As an island nation, our Navy is of the utmost importance, but it is also on its knees. While HMS Dragon took a week to deploy to the Mediterranean, the French sent an entire carrier group—an aircraft carrier, eight frigates and a submarine. How did they do that? On paper, France and the United Kingdom have comparable fleets, but in practice France achieves about 80% availability for its escort vessels, while we achieve only 50%. Through better maintenance, France achieves a better outcome. Capability on paper is worthless if it cannot deploy. It gets worse. We started this year with seven frigates. HMS Richmond will be decommissioned this year, and HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service this month. That leaves us with five frigates. Furthermore, three build slots in Glasgow intended for new frigates have been ceded to Norway, because of the lack of guaranteed investment due to delays in the defence investment plan. That is a real-world example of Government inertia affecting our defence. Putin exploits weakness, and he shies away from strength. It pains me to say it, but our Navy does not project strength, and Putin will continue to mount increasingly flagrant violations of our territorial waters until our Navy is strong enough to make him think twice. Will it take the severing of a data cable to cause us to act? Moving from the sea to the land, the Ministry of Defence was unable to confirm to the Defence Committee whether it is able to deploy a battlegroup—1,000 soldiers—to the continent of Europe. That comes back to my point about projecting strength. Putin knows that if he were to test article 5, the 900 British soldiers in Estonia would be at extreme risk. We have no ability to deploy reinforcements, and the King’s Speech does not do anything to change that. There is a gaping hole in our deterrence, and every day it goes unaddressed, the risks to our forces already deployed and our nation at home grow. Our artillery systems have halved in number since 1997. Our precision deep-fire capability has been cut by a third. We have just 14 155 mm artillery systems, although I note that the Government have recently announced a new order. Poland donated 100 systems to Ukraine and rebuilt its own inventory at the same time. It donated and replaced; we just donated, which is why we have 14 artillery systems left. Meanwhile, warfare has changed, and the UK has not adapted. During a recent NATO training exercise, a British brigade was effectively wiped out by four Ukrainian drone operators. That is not an indictment of our soldiers, but a reflection of modern warfare. We cannot allow that situation to become a reality. The picture I have painted is one of systematic underfunding across all domains, and unless we rapidly rearm, we will be unable to deter. If we want to deter and to lead in the security of the Euro-Atlantic area, we probably need an Army of about 100,000, with reserves of 50,000, a fleet of 50 ships and about 250 combat aircraft, with crewed systems surrounded by autonomous systems and one-way effectors. That is the capability we must be talking about if we want to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic.

I am following the hon. Member’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He mentioned the reserves, and I am a reservist. Would you give the Government credit where it is due for carrying over the Armed Forces Bill, which will advance the age of retirement for reserves to 65, and agree with me that we can probably go further in looking at people, especially the reserves, who are skilled in particular areas and may be able to help us address the challenges of the future, rather than those of the past?

Dr Andrew Murrison, you know better than to use the term “you”.

I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and as well as increasing the scope of who can be called up, it creates a consolidation of different types of reserves and allows zig-zag pathways for specialists who can come in and out of the reserves, so it is absolutely a step in the right direction. One thing that is missing at the moment might create the political space for an increase in defence spending. I was slightly waylaid by the right hon. Member who intervened, but I should have said that to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic area, we are talking about a 50% increase in defence expenditure, not £1 billion here or £2 billion there. A 50% increase in defence is the scale we are talking about.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not, if that is okay, because we are short on time. To create the political space for some of these trade-offs, because that is a huge amount of money—£30 billion extra every single year—we need to have the national conversation on defence that was announced in the strategic defence review, but has been notable by its absence. That is why I, together with the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Richards in the other place, have formed the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We hope to raise public awareness not just of the threats, because I think the public understand the threats we face, but of the lack of capability, and the diminishing capability, in the UK military. I recently went to a school in my constituency to talk to sixth-formers, and I have asked this question in several schools since, but they all assume we have a fleet of about 50 or 100 ships. When I tell them that we have 14 frigates and destroyers—surface combatants—they are shocked. The general public do not know the state of the British military, which is entirely incommensurate with the threat we face. In conclusion, because time is very short, our military is a paper tiger. Sooner or later, we are going to be found out, and when we are found out and the battlegroup in Estonia is overrun or an aircraft carrier is sunk, Suez will pale into insignificance. This King’s Speech falls far short of what is required.

Order.

My belief in the importance of national defence is rooted in the single, simple idea that the United Kingdom is a nation inherently worth defending—not because of tradition or nostalgia, but because of the values of decency, respect, hard work and community that continue to define our society and can never be taken for granted. Sadly, these values are not universally held, and when we look beyond our borders, we see a world that is increasingly dangerous, worryingly unpredictable and more divided than I can remember. That is why I welcome the Government’s steadfast commitment to improving Britain’s defence readiness, through both their pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and the various measures outlined in the strategic defence review. However, the scale of the challenges we face today is unprecedented, and our job is to meet them. Our approach to boosting Britain’s defence readiness cannot be focused on spending alone. Instead, we need to think about how to strengthen the industries that support our military capability, whether by streamlining procurement or empowering defence-focused SMEs to better respond to global conflicts.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I apologise, but I will not give way, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak. All too often, we hear from SMEs in the defence sector that access to funding is limited, slow-moving and difficult to secure. All too often, we see innovative British companies sell up or even relocate overseas. Take Ballistic Dynamics for example, an SME that is passionate about boosting the UK’s defence capability, but whose founders report facing structural barriers such as a lack of consistent funding opportunities and frustratingly opaque tender processes. In these troubling times, when our adversaries are increasingly bold in their challenges to our stability, home-grown industries will be a key component of what some are calling our pre-war phase or, in some cases, our grey zone. That pre-war phase must include the full utilisation of our highly trained and highly disciplined reserve forces who are too often undervalued in defence planning. I am glad to see the Government’s efforts to improve the recruitment process for reservists, and I would encourage even greater investment in the facilities, institutions and training that support them. I also appreciate the focus on the reserve forces more generally, but it has to be noted that the very limited reference to the active reserve forces in the SDR is causing concern among some sections of the armed forces community. The strategic reserves as a concept is seductive, but it relies on many optimistic assumptions to be realistically relied on as part of any defence plan, whereas the active reserves exist now. Preparing the United Kingdom for the potential of future conflict is a monumental task and it will require collaboration throughout Parliament. I urge Members across the House to work together to protect the security of the country, its citizens and our shared values.

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). He made some very important points about being prepared and the importance of the reserve. I want to focus on the actual threats to this country as we stand here today. To a certain extent, the threats we face on a day-to-day basis get overlooked. A lot of people think a Russian invasion of the country would see missiles and bombs coming down, but there is a long, long way to go before we get to that sort of war. In fact, in many ways, we are already at war with Russia. Let us not forget that in 2017 Russia launched a chemical weapon attack in this country. If it had not been for favourable weather conditions, it could have killed thousands of people. In such circumstances, would article 5 have been triggered? In conversations I have had in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at the North Atlantic Council, the general thought is that it would have been triggered. Whether accidental or not, a chemical weapon attack using one of the deadliest chemical weapons in the world was launched in this country. Let me outline what the wrapper of hybrid warfare includes. Yes, there are cyber-attacks, which I will come back to. We also see sabotage across Europe, as well as arson, vandalism and terrorism. The destructive acts that we see on railway networks throughout Europe are almost certainly coming from the Russians. The chemical weapons attack I mentioned is not the only example of an assassination attempt on our soil. We know that malign finance, despite Governments’ praiseworthy efforts to crack down it, also takes place. One thing that people perhaps do not realise takes place daily is information manipulation, or cognitive warfare. The Russians are brilliant at it and are well embedded in it, as are the Chinese. We have all described people who go down the rabbit holes of social media and the internet, but that is where it starts. They are monitoring people’s clicks. They are monitoring what you look at first of all. They are building a psychological profile of what you are, and then they identify your psychological vulnerabilities. They then feed that line. Why? Because they are trying to get this country, among lots of other countries, not to see the need to invest in defence. I am sure that most Members will have first-hand experience of people saying to them that the war in Ukraine is NATO’s fault and Ukraine’s fault; that they represented a threat to Russia and Russia had no choice. Let me remind the House and the wider public that the only threat Russia felt was when the people of Ukraine said, in the purple revolution of February 2014, “We don’t want a dictatorial president,” and booted him out. They said, “We don’t want to look to Moscow; we want to look to Europe, because that is where they have the freedom of choice that we want to have.” That is what Russia saw as a threat. It could not let that happen and immediately invaded Crimea. It is to the shame of all of us that that was not taken as a warning at the time. I am once again very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) spoke before me, because he brings such experience to these issues. He spoke widely on that issue at the time. He makes the point that the money we were spending in the ’80s involved huge figures. That is the point we have to get back to. We must get the public to recognise the threats that we are under. Today Marks & Spencer announced a £131 million loss from the cyber-attack it suffered. People saw empty shelves at Marks & Spencer, so they went to Sainsbury’s or Morrisons, but they did not see that a cyber-attack had emptied those shelves. They do not see that a software upgrade mistake can knock out the NHS for 24 hours, as happened a couple of years ago. That is what these threats represent. Probably the most unpopular thing we can say to the public is that we must cut the budgets for other things to pay for defence. But the services that people want their money spent on will be gone if we do not pay for defence. They will not work. The biggest threat in the first 24 hours of any attack would be the knocking out of the power grid. Cyber-technology is embedded in a lot of areas, and we have to make sure that we can deal with that threat. Cyber-warfare has to have a whole-of-society approach to it. Governments cannot tackle it all on their own; they need companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Co-op to protect those areas. It is going to cost an enormous amount of money but—in the old and well used phrase—the best way to have peace is to prepare for war. There are credible threats, so we have to spend huge amounts of money. To deviate slightly from our policy, I think GDP percentages are a nonsense. It was ridiculous when NATO went there. We talk about what we were spending in the ’80s, but let me remind Members that the 2% of GDP came about in this century. The GDP figures of the past were what it cost. I urge the Government to look carefully at our proposals on reducing the welfare bill. Look at what Lord Robertson said about the welfare bill. The threats are real. We must have the deterrents in place so that an attack is not worthwhile, but the cost is an enormous amount of money, and the cognitive warfare that is taking place is making our citizens not recognise why we need to spend it. It will be a brave decision by the Government to spend that money, but as we have made clear, we would support them in it.

There is now a six-minute limit.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I know is a vocal champion of tackling antisemitism, which I will focus on in my remarks. In Tower Hamlets last week, a young man was filmed saying the most chilling antisemitic words: “The Jews, you’re going to be beheaded one by one, you dirty Jews.” He has been identified and arrested, and I thank the Met police for their action. I have picked that as just one example of the crisis we face on antisemitism. From the Golders Green terrorist attack to the Hatzola ambulance arson attack, these incidents continue to rise. What is behind this antisemitism? What radicalises individuals to act in this way? Who is responsible for these attacks? It should not need saying, but I will spell it out. Jewish people in the UK are not responsible for the actions of the Netanyahu Government, and antisemitism did not start on 7 October. Israel had not yet begun its operations in Gaza in response to Hamas’s attack when the deputy leader of the Green party filmed a video saying that people should “support the right of indigenous people to fight back”. Antisemitism is often called the oldest hatred. I welcome His Majesty the King’s specific mention of antisemitism and the need to take urgent action to ensure that all communities feel safe. I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister himself has shown in tackling antisemitism, both in our party and in government, including through the recent summit in Downing Street with the Jewish community. I further welcome the £25 million in additional funding to help protect Jewish communities, bringing the total to nearly £60 million. I agree with the Board of Deputies, which calls for an end to incitement at pro-Palestinian protests, where antisemitic hate speech frequently takes place. It has also called for the use of public order powers to restrict and ban marches where necessary. If we look at the marches last weekend, speakers from one of the march organisers, Palestinian Forum in Britain, told the crowd that Israel is a “Zionist cancer”. Meanwhile, across London at the other, far-right march, a banner was proudly displayed that read, “End the Zionist occupation of Britain”. Perhaps they could have saved the taxpayer the £4.5 million policing bill by combining their marches. Let us be clear: there is another major driver of antisemitism in this country, and that is the Islamist regime in Iran. The group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya claimed responsibility for the ambulance arson attack among others. The US Department of Justice now believes that it was a front designed to carry out terrorist attacks at the behest of the IRGC and its proxies. Meanwhile, we have Iran’s PressTV as well as its Spanish mouthpiece HispanTV. Its UK based show “Palestine Declassified” has regularly platformed conspiracy theorists and targeted Jewish schools in Britain as well as charities and individuals. I repeat my call for financial sanctions to be placed on them, as the US, Australia, Canada and the EU have done. That would close a legal loophole that currently allows them to pay UK nationals and operate through intermediaries without restriction. Connected to that is Rad Media World, a company with links to Iran that The Sunday Telegraph just reported is using the skilled worker visa scheme completely legally. I hope that the Foreign Office will revoke that ability as well as track individuals who came here through that scheme. There is also the issue of the charities that the Shawcross review has linked to Iran. In the interests of time, I will not repeat what I have said before, but I agree with the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) for the Charity Commission to have extra resource to go after those charities and close them down. Along with other colleagues across the House, I have been campaigning for proscription of the IRGC for some time. I was therefore delighted to see the announcement in the King’s Speech of the tackling state threats Bill to give the Home Secretary new powers to clamp down on foreign states and organisations posing a threat to our national security. I hope that will come alongside further and faster action to tackle the Iranian threat to us—as we have tried to do with Putin—including against its vast property empire in London and against its spreading of hatred and disinformation on social media, which is designed to sow discord and division in the UK. Are we robustly analysing the Companies House register to ensure that Bank Melli and its many subsidiaries are not dodging sanctions simply by changing their names at Companies House? Should we also be talking more about the VAJA—Iran’s intelligence agency—and its activities in the UK? I urge my Government to ensure that as soon as the new law is passed, it will be immediately acted on. By that I mean that our intelligence officers must fully understand the powers available to them through not only the new legislation but existing legislation. This week, I had the pleasure of hosting Jonathan Hackett, a marine veteran and expert on counterintelligence and intelligence operations. He made the point that, sometimes on the ground, some of our intelligence officers are not fully aware of the powers available to them. It is crucial both that they are aware of the powers they have to take action and that they have the resources and capabilities to do so.

I represent the constituency of Cheltenham, which is the home of GCHQ, where thousands of people work every day to keep us safe. They work quietly and never ask for our thanks. In this House, it is right that we acknowledge that whenever we can. I strongly agree with the points made earlier about the urgency of investment in defence. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, I commend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). I also echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about the need to reintegrate with Europe as soon as we possibly can—if not on the economy then for defence alone. Almost 10 years ago, this country voted to leave the European Union, but it is now clear that whether you voted leave or remain, you did not get what you voted for. Has Brexit made us wealthier? No. Has it made us healthier? No. Has it made it easier for businesses to grow, as we were told by the Conservatives? No. Has it lowered our taxes? No. Has it helped us protect our environment? No. The faeces flowing into our rivers suggest strongly that it has not helped our environment. Has Brexit helped us run a more effective immigration and asylum system? No! The gangsters profiting from small boats are laughing all the way to the bank. On the subject of today’s debate, has it made us more secure, and has it boosted national resilience? No! We are reliant on an unstable United States, run by an unpredictable leader who many now think is mad, with a deputy who is intent on fomenting discontent on our streets. Who is responsible for the abject failure of Brexit? It is certainly not the people of this country. We all know in this House who is responsible for the failure of Brexit, and we all know that they are currently getting away with it. While the rest of us are undeniably poorer as a result of Brexit, there are 5 million reasons why the Reform party must keep claiming that it has been a huge success. We all know what those reasons are. Reform Members are deluded, and so are their pals in the Conservative party. They must, en masse, take responsibility for the fact that this country is now poorer and less secure as a result of their disastrous Brexit. Our Government have a responsibility to be so much bolder in reversing the damage caused to this country. Every Labour Back Bencher and Minister knows that rapid reintegration with Europe is the only way to increase prosperity and security and boost business too. Apparently, the Mayor of Greater Manchester used to know it, but he is not sure for the next few weeks while he fights that awkward by-election. The good news is that the departed Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), is wildly pro-European again, which may or may not have something to do with the Manchester Mayor’s current travails. Who knows? Such a moment of national challenge demanded a King’s Speech offering significant change to reintegrate with Europe for the sake of our economy and defence, but regrettably, the Prime Minister has offered us more of the same. Politics is about ideas, and the ideas that inspire me and those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches are liberalism and internationalism. That will not change. The challenge facing our nation today can only be met by those ends. At home, communities are crying out for real empowerment, yet this Government’s devolution agenda delivers only the illusion of local control. To achieve growth, including in our defence sector, Whitehall’s grip must be loosened to devolve real power and funding not just to distant regional centres away from our communities, but to towns and cities. Those include towns such as my constituency of Cheltenham, which stands ready to help, supporting the work of GCHQ and building on it at the Golden Valley cyber park, which is supported by this Government. I welcome that and commend the Government’s decision to do so. The King’s Speech also ignores the new reality in British politics. The two-party system of the red team and the blue team shouting at each other is now over. That undermines our ability to have a thriving economy. It undermines our ability to make long-term plans to invest in the long-term defence and security of our country. It is a pity that Andy Burnham has changed his mind on proportional representation. That makes at least two U-turns before he has even rejoined this House, but let us hope he does a 180-degree turn when he gets back here. This Government now face a stark choice. They either embrace proportional representation or usher in a future Reform Government propped up by the Conservatives to give us more of the same that they gave us before: the failure of Brexit, the lack of security and the failing economy. Sadly, this King’s Speech will not do what is needed to fix our relationship with Europe, to make us safer or to empower communities, and it will not change politics for the better. It is a crying shame that with a massive majority, the Government have a massive lack of ambition.

National security should be the primary duty of every Government, and so I have been pleased to be present in this House while listening to the contributions made on defence readiness as part of the King’s Speech debate. When the world today is more dangerous than it has been for a long time and when too many people are struggling with the cost of living and young people are finding employment prospects particularly difficult, the speech highlighted this Government’s plan to create a stronger, safer and fairer Britain. Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the award for overall apprentice of the year at the Juniper Training awards in my constituency. What struck me at that event was not simply the talent in the room, but the determination, resilience and ambition shown by those young people. They are proof of the potential that lies within our young people and we have a duty to invest in their futures. Juniper Training is an example of an organisation that provides a credible alternative to traditional school or college pathways for young people who would otherwise be at risk of not being in employment, education or training. Its programmes offer not only qualifications for young people but confidence, resilience and a sense of purpose, providing a route into secure employment. Our young people deserve our full support, which is why I am pleased to welcome the Government’s new deal for young people as part of our wider youth guarantee. I am especially proud that my constituency sits within the new west midlands trailblazer area, where young people are already beginning to benefit from these initiatives. Through funding provided by the Get Britain Working programme, more than 800 young people across the west midlands have already taken their first steps on to the career ladder, with a further 1,200 expected to benefit from the £10 million committed so far by the end of 2027. In Wolverhampton itself, our youth guarantee trailblazer proposal is focused on structured work experience and transition support, intervening early to provide that crucial support. The “Wolves at Work” open door programme supports the youth trailblazer initiative and has placed more than 135 residents into work experience, and more than 50 of those individuals have already gone on to secure paid employment. Behind each of these numbers lies a young person whose life has been changed—someone who has gained confidence, stability and hope for the future. This is an achievement that my city of Wolverhampton can be proud of. More broadly, I am proud of the work that this Government are undertaking nationally to support young people into work. The expanded jobs guarantee, now set to support an additional 35,000 young people, will provide vital opportunities to those on universal credit while helping people to get back into employment, thereby reducing long-term welfare dependency. Moreover, this Government are expanding youth hubs across the country to ensure that young people looking for work can access the advice and support they need to find employment. Through a £725 million investment in apprenticeships, we are backing our small and medium-sized businesses by covering their full apprenticeship costs for eligible young people. In doing so, we are also supporting our businesses to create the wealth that this country so desperately needs. This Labour Government are providing security and control to working people, and I am proud to support that mission.

I call Mark Pritchard.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I usually get cheering at the end, not the beginning, but I appreciate it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for calling me; it is a lovely surprise. I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). He is not in his place right now, but I have notified him that I will be possibly condemning his leadership bid. In 21 years in this House, I think his was one of the best speeches I have heard. We need to hear more from both sides of the House about uniting this nation. Whether the speech unites the Labour party is a matter for Labour Back Benchers, but at a time of nationalist and extreme talk on the left and right of British politics, we certainly need more people in all parties to stand up for the common good, for common purpose and for those things that unite us as a country rather than those that seek to divide us. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Whether you are from the left or right, whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Muslim or Christian and whether you are enlightened and educated, it is about British values—or, as certain Members suggest, whether it is because you have British values that you are not enlightened or educated. It is those values that unite us, whatever our party, and we all have a responsibility to stand up and be heard on these issues. I also pay tribute to the former health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He, too, is not in his place, but I have emailed his office. He has answered more questions more quickly and more substantively than any other Minister during the period I have spent in this House apart from one other, who went on to be Prime Minister. That is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—just to be clear, that is Richmond, Yorkshire. Richmond, Surrey—or London—has the 54 Lib Dem councillors, but that is not the case in Richmond, Yorkshire, and hopefully never will be. I think my speech has already gone out the window, but—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know, it comes as a great relief. I want to pay tribute to all our armed forces on what is Defence day for the King’s Speech, including all those at RAF Cosford in my constituency—the second largest RAF base in the world—all those at the Royal Irish Regiment in Clive Barracks at Tern Hill and all those in MOD Donnington. All of them contribute to our national security. As I mentioned earlier, yes, this is about defence procurement, kit and equipment, but without defence people, without personnel—we have the Minister responsible for personnel here today—the national defence falls apart. The Minister was not here earlier, but his colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, has volunteered a meeting with myself and the Minister about the important issue of the children of our armed forces personnel, in particular those with SEND needs. I have come across quite a few cases where armed forces personnel have redeployed and relocated from, say, the United States back to the UK or from Scotland to England, and yet there has been no SEND support or even SEND information when the children are redeployed with their parents. I hope that the Minister responsible for defence personnel will meet me and look at this issue because we have to look after not only our defence personnel, but their families.

Does the right hon. Member agree that there should be a national SEND programme for armed forces children throughout the United Kingdom to support them in changing schools so often?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. There is a patchwork of quality, if you like, and it is different depending on the local education authority, so there is an argument at least to look at whether there should be—forgive me—uniformity between Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England when looking at the particular needs of children with SEND within the armed forces. May I go a little bit more parochial and welcome the investment of Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land into my constituency? As the Minister will know, we are currently building the Challenger 3 tank. I am grateful that the Government listened to my representations and those of many others within the Wrekin, Shropshire and the borough of Telford and Wrekin to ensure that the gun barrel factory, which is a real strategic asset, was put into Shropshire. I want to recognise all those working so well on the Boxer vehicle programme—an absolutely vital asset for this country—and pay tribute to all those defence engineers, men and women, and those apprentices, who are doing such a great job in keeping us all safe. I will now pivot back to a more strategic comment. Some weeks ago—colleagues may or may not remember this—I completely fluffed my PMQ about the strategic missile threat to this nation, but thankfully I had my notes on the side. Of course, we do have a counter to cruise missiles and to many other types of missiles, but this country has a strategic shortfall when it comes to ballistic missile defence. Of course, the Minister might say, “Well, we have certain capabilities on certain ships,” and I know what they are, but unless the ships are in the right place at the right time, should a ballistic missile come to this country we are, quite frankly—as I have said previously to the Defence Secretary—a sitting duck. That is not acceptable. It is the first duty of any Government to keep this country safe. How can this country be kept safe when we have direct threats from Russia with ballistic missiles, which are a proven technology, as we have sadly seen in Ukraine, and yet we have no real plan, despite the strategic defence review, to implement that need? Finally, I say thank you to all our armed forces who keep us safe and keep our interests safe all around the world.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on his speech; I will touch on some of the same themes. I am only really going to refer to the tackling state threats Bill today. This new legislation honours Labour’s manifesto commitment to follow the Jonathan Hall review and to introduce new powers that allow us to proscribe state threats, specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many of us from across the House have been advocating for this for a long time—and I, for one, am grateful to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Security Minister for enduring my questions on the subject, both in this place and in private. The Bill could not be more timely. We know that the IRGC directs Tehran’s terror networks abroad and brutally crushes dissent at home. It oversaw the sickening repression following January’s protest movement in Iran, which saw 30,000 people murdered. That repression continues to this day, while the conflict goes on, with torture, sham trials and executions all being used to try to beat the Iranian people into submission, and we are only getting a small amount of information out of Iran because of the internet blackouts. We know that the IRGC is responsible for funding and arming terrorist proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah and others across the region who seek to hurt our allies and destroy the world’s only Jewish state. The new head of the IRGC is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack against the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people; he was also the Interior Minister in 2022, when Iran cracked down brutally on the Woman, Life, Freedom protest. Of course, all of what I am saying is about Iran—a foreign country—and today’s debate is about defence readiness in this country, but unfortunately the IRGC seeks to wreak havoc on our shores. In November, the director general of MI5 linked the IRGC to no fewer than 20 potentially lethal threats here in the UK in the last year alone. The threat has only grown. The Chief Rabbi has said THAT British Jews and Iranian dissidents here are facing a “sustained campaign of violence and intimidation”. We have all seen this. We saw that the ambulances belonging to Hatzola, a Jewish charity serving the whole community, were targeted. We saw the Finchley Reform and Kenton United synagogues attacked. We saw Jewish charities, the Israeli embassy and the Iranian media all targeted. Most horrifying of all, we saw two Jews stabbed on the streets of London simply because they were Jewish. All this, the police and security experts suspect—there are ongoing investigations—is the work of paid proxies and criminal gangs on behalf of Iranian-backed terror groups, directed by the IRGC. Since coming to office, this Government have continued to ramp up sanctions against the regime and individuals. Travel bans, asset freezes and disqualifications from directorships are all very welcome and very useful in the fight against this activity, but these sanctions cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC’s nefarious actions in the UK. That is why we need the proscription-like tool now being legislated for by the Government, and why we need it now. We do not know the full detail of what is being proposed, which is why I am here to say that the Government must ensure that IRGC members cannot be active in any respect in the UK, and that includes attending or speaking at meetings. The new power must make it a criminal offence for anyone in the UK to associate with the IRGC, profess support for it, share any materials from it or attend any meetings with IRGC representatives. It must require all IRGC online material, be it propaganda or otherwise, to be removed from the internet. I call on the Prime Minister to keep his promise from just a few weeks ago, stating that this legislation will be prioritised and accelerated through this parliamentary Session. We need to see it as soon as possible. I also urge the Government to build further on this legislation, and to take further action to protect our national security and the Jewish community. First, the Iranian embassy has been using social media to incite violence on our shores. Both the ambassador and the supreme leader’s representative in the UK should be expelled. Secondly, the regime is using soft influence networks across the UK to advance its objectives, under the cover of cultural, academic, charitable and media activity. These must be identified and dismantled. Thirdly, the Government’s “Protecting What Matters” strategy, the announcement of which was extremely welcome, needs to be implemented in full and quickly. The Iranian regime is one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. It menaces our allies in the region with its support for terrorist proxies. It threatens the safety and security of the British people, including our Jewish community here at home. I commend the Government on the seriousness with which they treat this danger, as underlined by this new legislation. We now have to get on, pass these new laws and proscribe the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is time to proscribe the IRGC.

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) in what has been a constructive debate with a lot of cross-party consensus. I welcome the Minister’s speech about the measures that were included in the King’s Speech, such as the Armed Forces Bill and the commitment to support drone testing, which is something that—as we have heard from Members across the House—is very much required. I will make three points in my speech, which are about defence priorities, the threats that we face, and the need for long-term thinking. We heard from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who is no longer in his place, about the need for the British people to understand the threats that this country faces and what warfare looks like in a modern context. I am one of those who believes we are already in a conflict with Russia and should take action along those lines; indeed, I believe that in the High North, not only are we in that conflict but we are a frontline nation. Just this week, we have seen the threat we face in reports of Russian submarines in the north Atlantic and attacks on energy infrastructure, and indeed the threat to subsea cables. Those are things that I see and hear about all the time as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia. I was privileged to visit Estonia earlier this year to see some of the work it is doing to prepare not only its military, but its society. This week, there was an article in Foreign Policy by Franz-Stefan Gady that I highly recommend everyone reads. It was regarding the threats and weaknesses that NATO faces, not only on the military front but on political decision making. In that article, Mr Gady describes how he defeated NATO while playing a war game. It was not actually about military strength; it was about the need for quick decision making. He describes the UK forces in Estonia as well as other NATO forces in Lithuania. When the Secretary of State sums up, will he provide some reassurance about Cabrit and the fantastic British forces in Estonia, the speed of their response, and the operational decision making that is in place to make sure we are not delayed by political stasis in the event of Russian aggression through hybrid warfare? Russia’s experience in Ukraine indicates that once Russia controls the battlefield, that makes a counter-attack by NATO or anyone else very hard.

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about Estonia. Britain has troops deployed in Estonia providing a tripwire, as he well knows, having no doubt spent some time with them recently. Will he join me in encouraging the Government to make every effort to arm and equip those troops with the capabilities necessary simply to survive? Does he agree that at the moment, those troops do not provide much deterrent force at all, and will not do so until we give them the technologies that have been standard in modern warfare for multiple years now?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that if we are to have an effective deterrent in the Baltics, it must be operationally ready to fight the threat that he identifies, not just look good on paper. I will move on to the role of information and how we are informing the British public of the threat. I have made the point before that we must trust the British people with more information about the threat that they face, whether that is in relation to cyber-security or subsea cables and energy infrastructure. Unless the British people fully understand the threat that they face, they will not put the necessary pressure on Government or give us licence to act more quickly, as all of us in the House know we must, to defend ourselves. I believe that information breeds teamwork and togetherness, and a lack or a void of information creates speculation and misinformation from our enemies—and, indeed, from some in this House. We must ensure that the British people are the ones keeping us on our toes, and that we are defending them in the way that we should. I point to the recent cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and the retail sector, as have been mentioned. These are all threats that the UK is facing, and we must be much more up front, straightforward and trusting with the British people about that information. I move on to talk about some of the priorities for the long-term defence of the United Kingdom, which I am afraid requires uttering the initials DIP. I do not want to revisit the arguments that we have already had, but I urge Ministers to ensure that the defence investment plan looks at long-term planning as well. When the document is published, we should not focus only on some of the more immediate things. In my constituency, we are looking at the work that needs to be done around our submarine fleet, as was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). For example, work needs to be done on contingent docking facilities at Rosyth to ensure that a lack of infrastructure does not delay or curtail the operation of Dreadnought-class submarines in the future. I know that Defence Ministers are aware of the threat that poses. When we get to that position, Dreadnought must be able to enter service immediately and fully, taking the pressure off Vanguard.

I put on record my support and recognition of the bold and principled speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) earlier today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for his support of the Government’s defence agenda. Does he share my deep disappointment that British manufacturing scale-up Aeralis has gone into administration? Aeralis was potentially about to create the UK’s replacement to the Red Arrows’ Hawk jet, and with its loss, we may see our beloved Red Arrows no longer being British.

I know how closely my hon. Friend worked with Aeralis to ensure that it was considered. Having visited RAF Valley earlier this year, I saw how pressing the need was to replace the Hawk as a trainer aircraft—and it is a need that must be met quickly. I am aware that I have taken more interventions than other Members, so I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker. I urge Ministers to consider, in the DIP and more generally, the submarine recycling project, which the Minister for Defence Procurement is well aware of. As submarines continue through, we need to ensure that we have the space to manage and recycle them effectively and safely. At Rosyth, the HMS Swiftsure pilot project is coming to an end, which has seen the dismantling of one submarine. That steel has been recycled and used in the Dreadnought programme, which is an incredible way of ensuring that we are reusing materials—holding down costs and securing hundreds of jobs in my constituency. It is those kinds of projects that we must focus on for defence. We must ensure that we are aware of the threats we face, that we inform the British people about them, and that we plan for the long term so that this country remains safe.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Very quickly.

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. The work of the Defence Committee involves a lot of private briefings that some Members in this Chamber and the public do not have the privilege of hearing. When I asked the Chief of the Defence Staff recently why we do not tell the public more, he said, “We don’t want to alarm people.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are grown-ups, and that they should probably be a little more alarmed than they already are? That way, they could come with us on this journey and say, “Yes please, spend more on defence.”

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must bring the British people with us on this journey and trust them with that information. Only by moving together as a country can we defend ourselves against the threats we face.

Less than two weeks ago, the SNP secured a landslide, record-breaking Scottish election victory, including the election of two constituency MSPs who have left this place for Scotland’s Parliament. I know that regardless of political difference, there is a significant level of respect across the parties for their contributions in this Chamber and to the wider work of Parliament. That experience will stand them in good stead for what lies ahead in Holyrood. Much more respect for Scottish voters is required from the UK Government. While the Labour Government here in Westminster have floundered month after month, failing to address the cost of living crisis affecting all my constituents, the SNP has offered a message of hope for what Scotland can and should be, with its vast natural resources, its strategically important geographical position in the world, and the incredible talents of its people. It is particularly notable that in Scotland, support for independence is now consistently polling above 50%, and that Scotland’s voters have elected a significant majority of MSPs who support independence—more than ever before—with a clear mandate from the Scottish electorate to pursue an independence referendum. The theme for today’s King’s Speech debate is defence readiness. Many Members will focus on defence spend, defence procurement, national security threats and other direct defence issues. I agree with many of the points that have been made by hon. Members in the debate this afternoon; many of them were extremely well made. However, I contend that for around 4,500 personnel across three significant bases in my constituency and probably the same number again in family members; around 1,000 permanent defence contractors and their families; and an estimated 12,000 veterans and their families—a total of over 30,000 people with a defence connection—there are many issues that contribute to defence readiness. I turn first to the cost of living crisis. Like every other resident in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, our defence community are struggling to cover bills and are having to cope with more month than there is money. Defence personnel posted to the north of Scotland from elsewhere in the UK will experience an amazing place to live and work, but they will also experience among the highest energy prices in Europe, caused by a regulatory system that is hugely discriminatory to the north of Scotland. Labour MPs promised that people would see a £300 reduction in energy bills, but people there are projected to see a more than £400-a-year increase. There is little to nothing in the King’s Speech that seeks to reverse that £700-plus difference from Labour’s manifesto promise or that would remove the discrimination faced by households and businesses in the north of Scotland—discrimination that has gone on for decades, with no action to address it by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and now Labour. Up until yesterday, there was no plan from the Westminster Government to address growing food costs—something that the SNP is tackling head-on. Seemingly, the Chancellor is now looking to do similar, but, critically, not in a compulsory way. I very much welcome the Government’s late acceptance of the SNP’s wisdom in this matter, but if the Government are going to do it, I strongly urge them to do it properly. There is no plan to cut fuel costs. There has been a promise not to increase tax further, but there is no plan to reduce it. In constituencies like mine, where car use is necessary for accessing basic services and education, leisure and employment opportunities, that is especially disappointing. People in the north of Scotland deserve better than to be punished by Westminster just for living where they live. Defence personnel, who are often hundreds of miles from their family, also deserve better than having to incur substantial costs when they drive home. When it comes to energy and net zero, a sector that has always been a strong destination for retiring forces personnel, and which is very much suited to the skillsets of many who come from a military background, the current Government are intent on repeating the mistakes of the past by accelerating the decline of one sector, in this case oil and gas, at a rate that does not match either demand changes or the growth of the renewables sector. That is simply Thatcherism all over again, which saw the tearing apart of coal and steel communities in Scotland. It is also a betrayal of North sea workers and those in the vast supply chain associated with those jobs, from skilled parts manufacturing jobs to the hospitality staff across the north of Scotland—taxi drivers, cafés and corner shops—who are seeing their revenues eroded to an unsustainable level. The Government’s policies are eroding the opportunities available to defence personnel, too, and the Conservatives are no better. Their answer is simply to push the cliff edge further away, rather than embrace a managed transition, which is what the industry wants to see. Neither of those scenarios is acceptable to Scotland or to my constituents. That brings me back to the theme of today: defence readiness. It is not attractive for people to join the military when jobs and opportunity are being eroded around key bases. That stifles transition opportunities for personnel leaving the services and erodes the vitality of the communities of which those bases are an integral part. Defence spending needs to be significantly increased, we need a better offer for new military personnel, and we absolutely need much stronger defence resilience in a more challenging world—where dictators such as Putin are prepared to threaten peace on a shocking scale and threaten the infrastructure that is critical to our economic and social wellbeing. At the heart of this issue are the defence communities that are embedded in their wider communities. Those defence communities have the same aspirations, and want the same opportunities for themselves, as their surrounding communities and regions. Getting these fundamentals right supports that bigger community, aids recruitment and retention in our armed forces, and provides the opportunities that our veterans deserve when they exit service.

Things feel insecure right now, whether that is because of the war in Iran, the cost of living pressures on families or the sense that systems are not working quite right. In Clwyd North, I hear that all the time. When families are struggling and young people do not feel that they have a fair chance, it erodes their trust in the belief that things can start getting better, and it creates a feeling of insecurity. Building up that trust starts with clearly defining what we have put in place in our first two years of Government, and how our future actions will improve people’s lives. I know from speaking to people in Rhyl, in Colwyn Bay, in Abergele, in Denbigh and in communities across Clwyd North that my constituency is full of decent people trying to do the right thing day by day. I want to make sure that those people know that they are heard and that things can and will get better. We must be honest about the challenges, but focus on what matters to people: building something that works better. In Wales, that means a relentless focus on building a stronger and fairer future, helping families with the cost of living, strengthening our communities through better connections and opportunities, and improving our energy and, crucially, national security. It is about making sure that progress is felt in everyday life, especially in communities that have been historically left behind. It is about recognising how rich and varied Wales is with our cities, countryside and coast, and recognising that that requires a tailored approach to reflect different needs. This Government have already delivered significant achievements, passing 50 Acts in our first parliamentary Session. Behind every piece of legislation are real people and real lives. Among that legislation is the Employment Rights Act 2025, which strengthens protections, improves pay and tackles exploitative practices for people across Clwyd North. The removal of the two-child limit is set to benefit around 69,000 children in Wales, including 3,100 in Clwyd North. That is not an abstract number; that is families feeling more stability. When it comes to safety, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 responds to local concerns about antisocial behaviour, introducing tougher action to improve our town centres. These changes matter because of the difference they make to everyday life, with fairer work, stronger families and safer communities here at home. The need to feel secure is important to us all. In this King’s Speech, we are taking crucial steps to strengthen security, because people deserve to feel safe. The Armed Forces Bill delivers a long overdue boost to defence spending, strengthens reserve forces, improves the service justice system and puts the armed forces covenant into law, which my local veterans have said is much needed. Security also means stronger communities and shared purpose. Cutting bureaucracy, increasing police presence and introducing a national digital ID system will help people feel safer and better supported. That feeling of security also means tackling the root causes of the high cost of living, not just the symptoms. The energy independence Bill will reduce reliance on volatile global markets and deliver more secure, home-grown energy to stabilise and lower bills for households in Clwyd North. Changes to commonhold and leasehold will tackle the unfair ground rents and rising service charges about which I have heard too often in my constituency. For local businesses, the commercial payments Bill will crack down on the scourge of late payments, which is currently leading to the closure of a shocking 38 businesses a day. Taken together, those changes will ease pressure on families, support local economies, and build long-term resilience against rising costs. Security means better connections too. The railways Bill will unify track and train under one body, and give the Welsh Government a stronger role. Backed by a £14 billion plan, it will improve connections, support 12,000 jobs, and make journeys across north Wales more reliable. Given that such an ambitious plan has been set, we need all hands on deck to put it into action. I promise to play my part and to make a tangible difference to lives across Clwyd North, delivering real improvements and lasting change for the communities that I am proud to serve.

You will almost be bored with hearing me say, Madam Deputy Speaker—as will the Secretary of State—that I represent Gosport, which has one of the highest proportions of veterans in the UK, but we also have fantastic servicemen and women at sites such as HMS Collingwood, HMS Sultan, the Institute of Naval Medicine and, across the harbour, Portsmouth naval base, as well as thousands more who work in the defence industry. Although we have such a proud history of serving the nation, many of my constituents already feel deeply disillusioned and let down by this Government. Why? Quite simply, because of their failure to deliver. Inaction could be their strapline. There is a total disparity between what is said and what is done, and defence is a perfect example of that. The Government talk of defence spending, but the Secretary of State knows that, as we speak, every single corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts—and where is the defence investment plan, the clear signal that defence companies in my constituency need in order to make spending decisions to protect jobs and livelihoods? It is nowhere to be seen. This theme of over-promising and under-delivering extends to a range of other sectors. Because I chair the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I want to say a little about that sector, which contributes 16 times more to the UK economy than defence manufacturing. Formula 1, for example, is a global British brand that is worth £12 billion to the UK economy. However, our world-class major events sector is being held back by gaps in legislation—and what do the Government do? They come forward with the Sporting Events Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which was a brilliant idea, but the Bill has very limited scope. It does nothing to address the wider needs of the major events industry, which is so valuable to the British economy. In particular, cultural and business events are vital to our economy, our communities and our international standing. All words, no action. Then there is the lack of ambition in relation to ticket touts. The ticket tout ban Bill was announced in November. The Government promised a “ready to go” Bill that would put fans first, but they have relegated that promise to a mere draft Bill, kicking the can into the next parliamentary Session at the very earliest. The longer it takes for the Government to act, the longer touts will be able to rinse fans in my constituency and throughout the country to the tune of approximately £145 million, most of which goes to overseas operators. All words, no action. Then there is touring in the EU. In the ongoing psychodrama gripping the Labour party, I note that the subject of Brexit is back on the agenda and is a hot topic, but there is so much that the Government could do for our creative industries without reopening that can of worms and starting to renegotiate Brexit. They could revisit their decision to cut orchestral tax relief for EU touring. They could ensure that A1 forms are processed without delay, so that artists do not have to make double social security contributions. They could help with the cost of ATA carnets, which the Association of British Orchestras says adds about £10,000 to an orchestra’s budget. All words, no action. Let us look at school and community sport. The King’s Speech contained absolutely no new measures to improve physical activity. There has been no resolution of the stand-off between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over cuts to physical education funding. If we are serious about getting our country more active, we need action, not words. That needs to begin with legislative changes to increase participation, to increase investment in the facilities on which communities rely, and to require schools to prioritise physical education alongside academic attainment. The case is clear: a more active nation is healthier, more productive and, ultimately, more prosperous. Once again: all words, no action. There is nothing in the King’s Speech for young people. The Culture Secretary has made her national youth strategy her stated legacy in the Department, but as far as I can see, all the Government have done is rip up the National Citizen Service. They have overseen the exodus of youth workers from the third sector and replaced them with nothing but a slogan. The Culture Secretary says that young people want “somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares”, but it is all words. There is no action. Do this Government care at all? They must begin to back up words with deeds. The King’s Speech does not even begin to provide the ambition necessary to maximise the potential of our culture, media and sport, or to back our veterans and those who work so hard in constituencies like mine in the service of our nation. Meanwhile, the British economy, people’s livelihoods and jobs are suffering.

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. This King’s Speech makes it clear that defence readiness is changing. It will always be about the strength and professionalism of our armed forces personnel and their families, but it is also about energy security and digital capability—new challenges in a new era. The threats that we face are rapidly evolving. Hostile cyber-activity, damage to critical infrastructure, global instability and climate pressures increasingly affect our national security, our economy and our resilience as a country. Defence readiness today is digital as well as physical, and I welcome the measures brought forward in the Armed Forces Bill and the work of the Ministry of Defence team. Labour Ministers, many of whom have first-hand experience, are actively listening and working to implement the changes that our military communities have been calling for: improved housing, better protections for women and girls, and fully enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. This is a Government of service and delivery, and in South East Cornwall we understand that deeply. The strategic defence review rightly talks about a whole-of-society approach to national resilience and warfighting readiness. That means recognising that defence capability depends not only on military sites, but on the civilian infrastructure, workers and communities that sustain them each and every day. My constituency has a proud and long-standing connection to our nation’s defence, with over 6,000 households home to at least one veteran. That amounts to nearly 15% of households in my constituency—over double the UK average. We are home to HMS Raleigh in Torpoint, one of the Royal Navy’s key training establishments, through which thousands of recruits pass each and every year. Across South East Cornwall, many local families are directly connected to defence through their military service, veteran communities, dockyard supply chains and skilled employment. My community is also closely linked to the nationally significant work that is carried out at HM Naval Base Devonport and by Babcock International. In fact, 23% of Devonport workers live in South East Cornwall. The long-term investment going into Devonport is hugely welcome and is important for Britain’s future, particularly as we strengthen submarine support and deliver major national defence programmes, but that capability does not stop at the dockyard gates—an important point that I want to stress today. The workforce sustaining nationally significant activity at Devonport do not come from just one side of the Tamar river, and we in South East Cornwall are firmly part of the wider defence ecosystem that supports Devonport every single day. Thousands of workers regularly use the Tamar crossings for employment that is linked directly or indirectly to defence, including engineers, apprentices, contractors, dockyard workers and military personnel. We are a proud part of the wider Plymouth travel-to-work area and our connectivity across the Tamar is essential to sustaining that defence workforce and unlocking regional growth. I have consistently raised the importance of those crossings in the House, yet they are still sometimes treated as purely local infrastructure. As investment in Devonport and long-term defence capability continues to grow, the pressure on those links will only grow. As the Government rightly invest billions of pounds in strengthening Britain’s defence capability and long-term readiness, and as South East Cornwall helps sustain nationally important defence activity, our local community must feel the benefits of that investment. We recognise the reality that energy security is national security. Recent years have shown the risks of overexposure to volatile international energy markets. Secure home-grown clean energy strengthens resilience, supports economic stability and reduces vulnerability to external shocks. Climate resilience rightly forms part of this Government’s understanding of what defence readiness means to communities like mine. Extreme weather and environmental instability increasingly affect infrastructure, supply chains and operational capability across the world. Preparing for those risks is part of preparing Britain for our future. Finally, defence readiness in the modern world must include cyber-resilience and digital capabilities. Protecting critical infrastructure, communication systems and national networks is fundamental to protecting our country, because the future of defence will depend not only on ships, submarines and military assets, but on secure systems, skilled workers, resilient infrastructure and strong communities like that of South East Cornwall. When we talk about strengthening Britain’s defence capability, we recognise the places and the people helping to sustain it every day, because defence readiness begins long before a ship leaves port; it begins with resilient infrastructure, secure energy, strong digital capabilities and communities like mine. So I welcome this new era of defence readiness, and South East Cornwall is proud to play its part in supporting that national effort.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe. This duty must shape everything we do in this House, and it must shape how we think about defence. There is no doubt that Britain today faces profound defence challenges, as we have heard in this debate, from international instability to cyber-threats and increasing pressure on our energy and supply chains. But if we are serious about defence, we must also recognise that the types of threats that we face are changing. In debating security, we must also look at whether our most vulnerable people are protected from extreme heat, whether our communities can cope with flooding, and whether we can secure food, water and energy in an increasingly unstable world. Today, the Climate Change Committee published its report on climate adaptation, and its warnings could not be clearer. We are on a path to 2°C of warming by 2050. That means that in just a couple of decades or so, nine in 10 of our homes will be at risk of overheating. Peak river flows may rise by 45%, water supply shortfalls may exceed 5 billion litres per day, and 40° heatwaves will become the new normal across the UK, potentially leading to an additional 10,000 heat-related deaths per year. The CCC is also clear that without action, warming of up to 4° by the end of this century remains a possibility, which would be catastrophic, with temperatures in the UK nearing 50°, infrastructure pushed beyond what it was ever designed to withstand, and profound consequences for public health, economic stability and social cohesion. Those are not distant projections, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents and yours are already having to live with the consequences of climate breakdown. We see it in the thousands of deaths caused by the increasingly regular heatwaves, in the communities repeatedly devastated by flooding, and in rising food prices, rising insurance costs and growing pressures on the services and systems that people rely on every day. None of this should come as a surprise. Earlier this year, the Government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee warned that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to national security, threatening food and water supplies, disruption to infrastructure and supply chains, increased flooding, risks to public health and wider economic instability. It also warned of the cascading effects of displacement, conflict and competition for resources. Yet despite the scale and seriousness of warnings by the Government’s own advisers, and despite repeated calls for parliamentary time, this House has still not been allowed a dedicated opportunity to debate its findings or scrutinise the Government’s response. Our children will have to live with the consequences of inaction. It would be a dereliction of duty to let political dramas around by-elections and leadership contests distract us from this most fundamental responsibility. The evidence is clear, and we are not without options. Today’s report sets out practical, costed solutions: better cooling for hospitals, schools and care homes, so our most vulnerable are protected during extreme heat; stronger flood defences and investment in natural flood management for our communities; a serious approach to water security, so shortages do not become routine; support for British farmers, so British food production remains viable under changing conditions; retrofitting homes so they are fit for a warmer climate; and infrastructure built to withstand climate impacts rather than fail under them. The economics are equally clear. The cost of action is about £11 billion a year, but the cost of inaction could rise to between £60 billion and £260 billion annually. This must be a turning point. We can no longer treat climate adaptation as a secondary environmental issue; it is a matter of national defence, a matter of economic security and, above all, a matter of protecting people. However, it needs to be far higher up the agenda for the Government and for Parliament. That is why I am calling for a dedicated climate protection unit in No. 10, with the sole purpose of working across Departments to fund and drive forward the recommendations in this report. I am also supporting amendment (g) to the King’s Speech on the threats that nature collapse poses to national security. Defence is not about responding after disaster strikes; defence is about reducing risks before crisis becomes catastrophe. If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, climate adaptation cannot sit at the margins of the King’s Speech, but must be placed firmly at its heart.

I have spoken in this Chamber at some length about defence and the urgency of rearmament, and I was proud to join the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and Field Marshal Lord Richards in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. Before I turn to what the Government are doing about defence readiness, I think it is worth pausing, as we always should, on how we got here, because context always matters. A century ago, the Member for Epping—one who understood well what it meant to watch a nation sleep while danger gathered—described the period of neglect and lost opportunity in defence as “the years that the locust hath eaten”. I think we can apply the same epitaph to the years of stewardship of defence of the previous Government and the coalition Government. The locusts were busy: armed forces’ pay was cut in real terms in nine out of 14 years; forces housing was in such a state of disrepair that complaints reached a record 13,000 in a single year; troop numbers fell to the lowest level since the Napoleonic era; frigates and destroyers were cut by a quarter, minehunters reduced by half and ground-based air defence spending was slashed by 70% in their final years in office; and the defence industrial strategy sat on a shelf gathering dust, with a commitment on paper, but nothing in practice. They certainly were the years that the locusts had eaten. That is the inheritance Defence Ministers have to contend with. I have spoken before about the urgency of rearmament, and I will not repeat myself, but I will say that I am incredibly proud of the Government’s Front-Bench Defence team. I believe they have brought coherence, great industry and a genuine patriotic determination to sort out the mess they inherited, and they deserve to be recognised for that. I am glad that the Government are investing over £270 billion across defence during this Parliament—not as an accountancy exercise, but as a genuine strategic commitment to rebuilding our national security from the ground up. As we meet our commitments made at The Hague NATO conference to reach 3.5% in the future, I understand that there will be difficult discussions to be had, just as there were difficult discussions about foreign aid. However, there is no magic bullet when we are talking about increasing defence expenditure, and pretending that one thing will solve the issue is simply not realistic. In the two previous periods during which this country had to rearm significantly—the 1930s and the 1950s—it was a combination of increased taxation, increased borrowing and difficult choices about public expenditure that did it. I am not convinced by wishy-washy words about how just cutting welfare will sort it all out. Crucially, something else this Government understand and the previous Government never grasped is that defence spending is not just a cost. It is an investment and an engine for growth. We spend £32 billion annually with industry, equivalent to £460 for every person living in this country. UK defence supports 463,000 high-quality, well-paying jobs—one in every 60 jobs across the UK.

In the south-west where I come from, 96,000 jobs relate to defence, so it is a huge sector. In my town, SMEs are key to those jobs. Despite welcome changes, with the Defence Office for Small Business Growth from the MOD, portals are still unnavigable for many small businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD should do more to make contracts available for our small businesses and SMEs?

I was in Bristol recently at the National Armaments Director Group, the renamed defence Government support group, and I was glad to hear that it is doing more on SMEs. Maybe the Government Front Bench will comment more on that later, but it is right to recognise that SMEs are crucial and that, in the hon. Gentleman’s area of the country, they are really important. These are livelihoods, communities and the kind of good skilled unionised jobs that those of us on the Labour Benches have always stood for. I want to acknowledge the other work the Government have done: last year, £1.5 billion was committed to building the factories of the future, including the first energetics factories in two decades, creating over 1,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands; the £8 billion deal with Turkey sustaining a 20,000-strong workforce across Scotland, Lancashire and Bristol; and the Type 26 frigates selected by Norway which were mentioned earlier in the debate. I was disappointed to see Sweden choose France over the UK in its frigate decision today, but we will just leave that to the traditional UK-France enmity. There is a genuine defence dividend that is measured not in press releases, but in real jobs in real communities the length and breadth of this country. Turning briefly to something I hope will receive the attention it deserves, the SDR rightly made several important recommendations on strengthening home defence and resilience in the context of a whole-of-society approach to national security—several hon. Friends have talked about that today. The threats we face are not confined to the battlefield. They reach into our infrastructure, our supply chains and our communities. Resilience must be built across the whole of society, not just within the wire fences of our military establishments. With that in mind, I was reassured to hear the Minister, at the beginning of the debate, say that Ministers are working hard and that we will in due course see a defence readiness Bill. The legal and institutional framework for defence readiness matters and I think we all want to see that Bill come forward. I am by temperament an impatient person when it comes to defence—as you will be impatient for me to finish the speech, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the threats are not waiting for us. I am a fair person and it is only fair to say that in my view the Government are doing serious and sustained work for the renewal and rebuilding of our armed forces, restoring our industrial base and making Britain once again a country capable of defending itself. I certainly hope that the years the locusts have eaten are behind us.

We have had a very interesting debate, with interesting speeches from many Members. I, too, am fully behind the rapid increase in funds for defence and I wish to add my thanks to our serving personnel. Defence readiness requires a whole-society response and sovereign capability. Across a wide range of issues in our technologies, defence, infrastructure, housing and regulation, the same pattern keeps appearing. Services and systems that are set up to serve the public gradually drift away from having purpose to simply extracting rents and our time, all wrapped up in a bureaucratic mess. The overriding demand for quarterly profits and denial of early intervention, instead rationing resources at the point of maximum need, has driven perverse outcomes in strategic change. We are renting our entire economy to ourselves. We are wasting it on our own bureaucracies, while too often the gains are captured elsewhere. We need to move back to something much more fundamental: an economy and a set of systems that we build, understand and control. That means having real capability on sovereign technology, UK business and intellectual property, and a resilient defence and security. But this is not abstract. It is directly connected to whether this country is affordable, liveable and works for the people in it. Ultimately, this is about the social contract. My constituents need to know that the systems that they rely on—public services, housing, business, using buses and trains—have purpose to the people and are not just bottom lines to fill. They need to know that they are designed in their interest and will continue to work for them over time. I want to use one example: the Palantir contract with the NHS. That example demonstrates, in one place, how we have got it all wrong. We have a major national system that handles highly sensitive personal data where the procurement model is subscription-based, not delivery-based, and where the intellectual property is wrapped up in “know-how”, as much of what is built does not sit clearly with the public. If we become dependent on a single supplier over time, that is not just a procurement question but a question of control, resilience and long-term cost. From a systems perspective, it creates lock-in. From an economic perspective, it allows value to flow out, rather than being built here. From a national perspective, it raises the question: what happens if that capability is withdrawn, restricted or simply becomes too expensive to change? We have British firms, British engineers, and a strong, open-source capability that could deliver these systems, so the issue is not capability but choice. We cannot make the same mistake with the new single patient record in the forthcoming health Bill, announced in the King’s Speech. That should be transformational, allowing access to patients’ details wherever they originate, and it must be a sovereign capability. The same principle applies to business more broadly. Markets should reward value creation, but too often now the incentives cause value to be extracted instead, whether through monopoly positions, weak regulation or misaligned incentives. This is where the Government have a role—not to replace markets but to make them work properly again. In sector after sector we see systems that continue to function but no longer serve the people they were designed for. That applies equally to defence and security. Resilience is about not just spending levels but design. It is about ensuring that we do not build national capability on systems that can fail at a single point—whether that is a supply chain, a digital platform or a dependency on external actors. Sovereign capability is not an abstract concept. It is the practical ability to continue operating when conditions are difficult. It is the ability to serve our country and our constituents through thick and thin, whatever the weather. What links all of this is simple. When incentives drift, when control is lost, when systems become extractive, the social contract begins to fail. We have talent in this country, and we have capability. The question is whether we choose to use it. In the end, I want to see systems that work and a social contract that people can trust. The King’s Speech does not sufficiently address sovereign capability, and it lacks ambition. The Government need to go further and faster for us to truly be defence ready.

Earlier this month I joined the workers, apprentices and management at the Methil yard in my constituency, where they christened the Seahorse barge. At 85 metres long, 25 metres wide, weighing approximately 1,400 tonnes, Seahorse is an impressive achievement and will play a critical role in enabling the construction of the Royal Navy’s three fleet solid support ships. The sun was shining on Methil that day, the Forth was sparkling, and it was fantastic to join the workers, who are rightly proud of delivering this project on time and on budget. It was particularly good to hear from the apprentices at the yard about the skills and experience they had gained from being involved and about their hopes for the future. It was a day of pride and joy for the workers—and what a contrast it was to my first visit at only a few days after I was elected to this place. Then, Harland & Wolff had fallen into administration, and the future of the yard and its skilled workforce was under very real threat, but it was Labour Ministers who stepped in and worked with Navantia UK to save Methil and three other yards across the United Kingdom. Methil has reaped the rewards. Where there was once a bleak future, now there is investment and opportunity in a community where too many people and too many families are still struggling.