Tinshui Yeung
Live page editor

Image source, PA Media

The government’s message is clear: the world has changed, so the UK’s defence must change too.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with the US asking Nato countries to spend more on defence, is the backdrop to today’s strategic defence review.

The measures in the report are wide-ranging – from better housing for armed forces to building up to 12 attack submarines. All of this is backed by extra government funding, with a pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% by 2027-28, aiming for 3% by the next parliament.

But is it enough? MPs in parliament have asked this question repeatedly after John Healey made his statement.

Our analysis shows that to meet all the goals of making the UK’s armed forces ready for war, more money will be needed.

John Healey says a defence investment plan, described as a new investment framework, will be published in the autumn.

While details of this investment plan are still unclear, one thing is certain: the review marks a dramatic change in how the armed forces will fight in the future, as our defence correspondent Jonathan Beale writes.

You can read his analysis, check out all the key points of the strategy defence review, or read our full news piece.

We’re ending our live coverage for today. Thanks for ing us.

Unite, the UK's biggest union, which represents tens of thousands of defence workers, says it welcomes the government's pledge to increase defence spending.

But general secretary Sharon Graham is calling for the UK to go further and "commit to invest in UK jobs".

Unite describes the announcement of new nuclear submarines as "a great start", but is also urging the government to commit to new orders of helicopters and fighter jets.

"Countries that want to do us harm won’t wait and nor can the UK," Graham adds.

Image source, PA Media

Navy, air force and army told to work togetherpublished at 19:59 British Summer Time 2 June

19:59 BST 2 June

Douglas Fraser
Scotland business & economy editor

Any previous defence review would have featured a battle for resources between the three uniformed services. This one barely mentions them, until page 104.

The Royal Navy, the British Army and Royal Air Force would still have roles, and their identity. But the main role they're being given is to park their differences and work with each other, putting the chief of the defence staff in charge.

So instead of a battle over preserving traditions, this review implicitly consigns much of that to the regimental museums. It's telling traditionalists to embrace cyber, data and drones.

The biggest change would be for the Royal Navy. As platforms for long-range missiles and autonomous drones, it's not clear if it still requires two aircraft carriers. The review acknowledges they're there to stay, but looks to a future with a cheaper, more flexible fleet, much of it under water, and defending subsea infrastructure.

Image source, Getty Images

Review marks dramatic change in how army will fight in futurepublished at 19:47 British Summer Time 2 June

19:47 BST 2 June

Jonathan Beale
Defence correspondent

The review marks a dramatic change in the way the armed forces will fight in the future - with drones, software and artificial intelligence. There'll still be heavy metal, like tanks, fighter jets and warships, but working more alongside autonomous systems.

One of the review's authors, Gen Richard Barrons, described it as the greatest transformation in the armed forces in more than 150 years.

The war in Ukraine has already shown that technology is changing the way war is fought. It's that war, on European soil, which has highlighted the rising threats and the need to invest more in defence and innovate faster.

It has also underlined the need for what the report calls “a whole of society” approach. The armed forces are only as strong as the society and industry that stands behind it.

Over 2.5% of GDP needed to fund the defence planspublished at 19:31 British Summer Time 2 June

19:31 BST 2 June

Jonathan Beale
Defence correspondent

This review was asked to make its recommendations within the budgetary constraints of the government spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.

But it is already clear that to meet all its goals of making the UK's armed forces ready for war, there will have to be more money.

The review welcomes the government's "ambition" to spend 3% in the 2030s and adds that "as we live in more turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster".

Some of the team's recommendations, including a small increase in the size of the regular army when economic conditions allow, have not yet been funded.

A defence source told the BBC that even the government's commitment to build up to 12 new attack submarines would require an increase in defence spending to at least 3% of GDP.

Ministers say they believe they will reach that target in the next Parliament, but there are no timelines or guarantees.

Image source, PA Media

Image source, Reuters

Shortly before the session concluded, Conservative MP James Cartlidge said it was "disappointing" that some MPs didn't receive the strategic defence review (SDR) earlier - saying he had heard reports of major defence companies having received it this morning.

He says he was "begging" the minister of the armed forces for a copy of the SDR, but was refused.

Cartlidge says he wants to know how the MPs can hold the government to when it comes to "commercial sensitivity".

Before the statement, there was some political wrangling in the House of Commons over where and how Prime Minister Keir Starmer should have delivered this morning's defence spending plans.

For context: The ministerial code states that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament when it is in session.

Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle made a note describing Keir Starmer's announcement this morning as a "blatant breach of the ministerial code".

Leader of the House Lucy Powell, however, rejected the accusations and noted that the government has brought a number of matters to the House of Commons in the first instance - pointing out that the defence secretary would shortly be delivering a speech.

A little over an hour and a half after John Healey's statement started, the question session from the of Parliament concludes.

We will bring you a recap of the session soon, so stick with us.

Lib Dems' Calum Miller asks if John Healey can commit to making sure military housing meets the decent home standard.

Healey says it's right to raise the issue, but adds that "we can't turn this round overnight".

He says the government has already taken steps this year to address it, including bringing "36,000 military homes back into public control".

Image source, UK Parliament

In the last few minutes, we've heard from Green Party MP Ellie Chowns, who accuses the government of "confusing security with spending more on weapons".

She says that instead of "wasting £15bn on nuclear warheads - weapons which must never be used" they should instead focus on "real security" which involves diplomacy, decent housing, tackling the climate crisis and pandemic preparedness.

Healey responds that the government is strengthening the armed forces to "secure the peace, not to fight the war".

He says "we deter the attacks that we fear by being strong enough to defeat our enemies".

Healey adds that this has helped to keep the stability in Europe for over 75 year and it's been the "ultimate guarantee of our national security".

"It is what Putin fears most," he says.

Can higher defence spending really be 'an engine' for UK growth?published at 18:32 British Summer Time 2 June

18:32 BST 2 June

By Ben Chu

Image source, PA Media

The Strategic Defence Review states it will make defence “an engine for growth across the UK”.

Is that feasible?

There is no official measure of the contribution of defence manufacturers to the UK economy, but one of the main lobby organisations for the sector - ADS - estimates it contributed around £12bn in 2023, external.

That’s equivalent to around 0.5% of total UK economic output in that year.

The Ministry of Defence also estimates, external that its spending with contractors directly s around 134,000 jobs in UK industry.

Increased domestic defence spending of billions of pounds a year would likely boost those figures and mean defence making a larger contribution to UK GDP and employment than it currently does.

However, some of this could be economic activity that is effectively shifted from other sectors of the economy, if the government reduces state spending in areas such as transport and energy infrastructure to be able to spend more on defence.

In other words, the growth in output from defence industries would not necessarily be additional economic activity but could be activity which is moved around.

Back to the Conservatives, MP Mike Wood asks if the government will work with the Department for Education (DfE) to expand cadet forces into more state schools.

Healey says the government will work with the DfE to ramp up the number of cadets by 30% by 2030.

"It offers a unique opportunity for many young people. Skills, experience that makes a transformation to their prospects," he says.

Image source, UK Parliament

We've been hearing from the SNP's Kirtsy Blackman, who also asks where the money for the defence review will come from.

"He can’t even provide clarity on where the money is coming from," she says after listing a series of issues not addressed in his earlier statement.

"Can the Secretary of State provide some answers, on what on earth they've spent the last year reviewing">