Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  Some hon. Members have advocated for defence bonds. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Defence Committee has examined in detail various defence financing options, including a defence, security and resilience bank—the Canadians have stolen a march on us, even though the idea was developed by a former British Army officer. There are multilateral defence mechanisms, and other nations have opted for a loosening of the fiscal rules just for defence. Obviously, these are not either/or options, but given the increased threats and the level of volatility, we must accelerate investment in defence to 3% GDP spend in this Parliament. Given that context, what options and course of action are the Government pursuing? We cannot keep plodding along at the current pace; we must meet the moment.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The public intervention by Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General is sobering. For a man of his stature to make such an assessment shows the gravity of the situation. Indeed, he was the person tasked by the Government to head up the strategic defence review. His comments align with what the Defence Committee has been highlighting for several months now: we as a nation are ill-prepared to face the threats in this more volatile world. That is why the Government’s rhetoric must align with reality. We must ensure that we get to 3% of GDP spend on defence in this Parliament. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road to the next Parliament. When the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, he said that the defence investment plan was on his desk and would be delivered very soon. Any further delay to the DIP would cause further damage to our defence industrial base, not to mention send the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries. Will the Minister please confirm when the defence investment plan finally be published?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent point. The Defence Committee has raised those concerns—the relationship between force size and expanding commitments—and we are pressing the Government to explain clearly how personnel levels align with strategic ambitions. I want to move on from the context in which we must judge our defence posture and spending. The United Kingdom remains, by any measure, one of the largest contributors in NATO. We should rightly be proud of that. Historically, we have always achieved the alliance’s core benchmark of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, but that benchmark no longer meets the threat. Pride must not blind us to reality: 2%, or even 2.5%, is no longer enough. The Prime Minister said last month, and has reiterated, that Britain needs to go faster on defence spending. I agree, and cold, hard reality dictates that we must. Going faster means just that—we do not have the luxury of time. If we need to be ready for a significant confrontation with a peer adversary in as little as three years, we cannot wait until the end of this Parliament to begin moving towards just 3% of GDP. We need a profiled increase.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour and a privilege to open this debate as Chair of the Defence Committee, and as a Member of this House who believes profoundly that the first duty of any Government, and indeed of any Parliament, is the safety and security of our nation and our people. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate time for this important debate. I will begin with a simple but unavoidable truth: the world is rearming at pace, and the United Kingdom is not keeping up. We must confront the reality together that national defence requires long-term thinking, stable investment and, as far as possible, cross-party working. Our adversaries do not operate on the basis of electoral cycles, and neither can we. While unity on principles is important, it must never prevent this House from holding any Government to account where delivery falls short. First, let me turn to the threat picture. Russia is operating a war economy, supported by China. The Defence Committee has heard that 60% of the Russian war effort in Ukraine is being bankrolled by China. Russia may not be winning the war, but it is also not losing—it is slowly gaining territory, and there is no sign that it is genuinely interested in peace. Russia now has experience of attritional combat; it is delivering new technology to the battlefield in weeks, not years; its economy is geared to warfighting; and many think that its next step will be to extend operations, not halt them.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is very important that we stand in steadfast support of our Ukrainian friends, and his point is similar to the conclusions that our Defence Committee drew after our recent visit to Ukraine. It is important that the Government continue with their support for Ukraine, and we must do so in collaboration with our European allies to ensure that the Ukrainians win that fight. I am sure that the Government have heard that message loud and clear from across the Chamber. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has said, we may have as little as three years before we will have no option but to fight a significant confrontation with a major state. Russia is already operating in the grey zone against the UK and our allies, notably in sabotage and cyber-operations against the infrastructure that supports our prosperity. That summarises the threat, both to the east and to the north, because the High North is the focus of the Defence Committee’s latest inquiry. That is another front for both Russia and China, as melting polar ice caps open up new strategic frontiers. Meanwhile, the middle east is in turmoil, and to the west our once dependable ally, the United States, is withdrawing from its historic role as the protector of democracy in Europe. We have grown to rely—in fact, over-rely—on the US militarily, and the dependencies are many and deep. But it is increasingly unclear how far that is sustainable or how much our interests align. We need to make sure that while we solidify our relationship with the US, we are not in a state of over-reliance.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has forcefully made that point, which reinforces what I just said. Some individuals may seek to be facetious about this, but our reserves are our pride. Regardless of their age, their talents need to be included as we defend our nation in future. I am pleased to see the Government taking action in clause 3 to address the state of service accommodation. The Defence Committee was pleased that the Government accepted the conclusions of our hard-hitting report on service accommodation, and we hope that the new Defence Housing Service will be able to lead the renewal that is needed. It will be important that the new body can act independently in the interests of the forces community and that it is subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny in this House. Furthermore, I must draw the House’s attention to clauses 38 and 39, which will remove the existing statutory requirements for Parliament to approve the size of the armed forces. Parliamentary control of the size of the armed forces is a vital and long-standing constitutional principle that dates back to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century. I feel that we must be extremely cautious before proceeding with measures that would diminish that control. The Government say that these changes are necessary to allow more flexibility in how the regular and reserve forces are used. Indeed, my Committee is sympathetic to that aim. However, it is not clear why it requires the removal of the statutory guarantee of parliamentary control. The Government need to justify why the measure is necessary and consider whether there are other ways of achieving their goals that would uphold the rights of our Parliament. In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear that I am drawing to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is much to welcome in this Bill that will improve service life. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issues that the Defence Committee has raised and, by doing so, build strong cross-party support for the Bill as it continues its passage through the House.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  European nations, including our own, are witnessing a very rude awakening: if we do not invest in sovereign capabilities for defence and security and rely instead on others, sooner or later we will be bullied or blackmailed by larger nations. The question for us is: will we just kick the can down the road and trundle along with small, gradual increases in defence investment, or will we chart a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament? On Arctic security, the Foreign Secretary intimated that only one British officer was involved in the Danish-led Operation Arctic Endurance in Greenland. Will she update the House on our current and future planned participation? Are there any political or practical constraints on that future participation?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, all House staff and, in particular, my constituents, who keep re-electing me as their Member of Parliament. Many of my constituents have again contacted me regarding British Sikh national Jagtar Singh Johal, who, according to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention, has been arbitrarily detained in India since 2017. I know that many hon. Members across the House feel very strongly about this issue, and I personally have raised it on several occasions. Will the Leader of the House confirm what personal steps the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have recently taken with their Indian counterparts to ensure consular access and swift action on this grave issue?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Korean War: 75th Commemoration · Hansard source

  More

  As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war and the colossal loss of life—2.5 million lives were sadly lost—we must appreciate the huge strides that South Korea has made as a democracy and a close and trusted ally, which the right hon. Gentleman has remarked on. Does he agree that while we commemorate the contribution of our brave British service personnel who served during that time, we must ensure as a nation that we are a beacon of security and stability internationally and strengthen our alliance with our South Korean partners?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and Berkshire colleague for that intervention, and he is so right in what he says. We must remember them. As we mark this solemn anniversary, we must shine a light on those whose sacrifices have too often been overlooked. Their names may not appear in our history books, but their courage shaped the world we live in. At the time of my VE Day contributions to the House in May, it was my understanding that only two British-based veterans who served in the pre-partition Indian Army were still with us. It is with deep regret that I inform the House today that both veterans have, sadly, since passed away. I would like to pay tribute to Havildar Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt MBE and Daffadar Muhammad Hussain, who was a local Slough resident. These two formidable Commonwealth ex-servicemen, whom I had the honour and privilege of meeting on several occasions, served with distinction and dedicated their lives to preserving the legacy of those who served. I am sure the House will join me in sending condolences to their family and friends. Their stories are a powerful reminder of the global nature of this conflict and the enduring bonds of service. As a proud Sikh, I carry this legacy personally. My great-grandfather lost a leg fighting in the first world war and my grandmother’s brother and other family members served in the second world war. As I discussed with my staff members Isabella Elie and Lewis Rantell, their stories are echoed in families across Britain and the Commonwealth. One such story is that of Patrick McAnulty, one of the thousands of British and allied prisoners of war who endured unimaginable suffering in captivity. Subjected to forced labour, starvation and brutal treatment, many POWs did not survive. Those who did carried the physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. Their resilience in the face of such cruelty is testament to the human spirit, and their sacrifice must never be forgotten. As we reflect on the past, we must also celebrate how far we have come. The United Kingdom and Japan, once wartime enemies, are now very close allies. Today, we stand together in defence of peace and democracy. As the Defence Committee noted in its report on the global combat air programme, that partnership is a cutting-edge collaboration between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop the next generation of fighter jets. It is a powerful symbol of reconciliation and shared purpose. As veterans share their stories during this 80th anniversary, we are reminded that remembrance must be more than ceremonial: it must inspire action. The lessons of history are clear, yet conflict persists from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan, the Congo and more. These are not distant tragedies; they are urgent reminders of the fragility of peace. In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I am regularly reminded of the vital role that our current brave servicemen and women play in keeping our country safe, and I would like to recognise their contributions, too. However, recognition must be more than symbolic; it must be matched by action and support. So, in conclusion, let us remember, let us reflect, but above all, let us ensure that the sacrifices of the past are never in vain and that the peace they secured is never taken for granted.