Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to their Integrated
Review Refresh 2023, published on 13 March, whether they have any
plans to increase spending on defence to three per cent of GDP.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury () (Con)
As the Prime Minister said on Monday, we will move away from our
baseline commitment of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence to
a new aspiration of 2.5% when the fiscal situation allows. There
are no plans to change this aspiration to 3%. To ensure that we
continue to meet the threats we face, the Chancellor is providing
an extra £11 billion over five years to improve the country’s
resilience and readiness.
(Lab)
My Lords, everybody knows that our defence forces have been
underfunded for some considerable time and are not in the
position they should be. One could argue, I think quite
reasonably, that that is part of the reason we are in the mess we
are with the war in Ukraine. Autocrats such as Putin watch what
we do and think, “These people are not taking life seriously”. We
also know that the percentage of GDP figure is totemic. It was
useful because we were able to put pressure on European allies to
increase their spending, but it depends totally on what one’s GDP
is. Bearing in mind that we have insufficient money for defence,
does the Minister not believe that the Government should now make
a clear commitment of going for 3%—let us call it of GDP—but
actually attach a figure to it and start that spending now so
that murderous people such as Putin see that we mean business?
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the need to increase
our spending on defence and start that now. That is why defence
received its settlement a year earlier than other departments in
the spending review 2020. It is why, alongside the integrated
review refresh, we have included an uplift beyond that, including
£4.95 billion for defence over the next two years to improve
readiness and resilience of the Armed Forces, including
bolstering our conventional stockpiles, enabling an early
investment for the AUKUS submarine alliance and modernising our
nuclear enterprise.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that as recently as 2010, we
were spending 2.6% of GDP on defence? Given the accounting
changes that have occurred since then, that probably equates to
something more like 2.8% in today’s terms. So the recent
announcements putting us on a trajectory to 2.5% really cannot be
seen as scaling some new peak, but rather as clawing us a little
further out of the hole into which we have sunk. Does she accept
that not only is there more to be done but that it needs to be
done with urgency, and that saying we aspire to 2.5% when fiscal
conditions permit is about the same as Government Front-Bench
spokesmen saying they will bring something to this House “in due
course”? It is pretty much meaningless.
(Con)
I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is more money now
going into defence. It is the largest sustained increase in
defence spending since the end of the Cold War and, in
recognition of the changing picture globally, we announced at the
Budget money on top of that investment: £4.95 billion over the
next two years and an extra £11 billion over the next five years
to improve the country’s resilience and readiness.
(Con)
My Lords, while the money announced yesterday is of course very
welcome and we thank the Chancellor for that, it is £11 billion
over five years. This is jam tomorrow—we need the money spent
today. Has nobody noticed what is happening in Ukraine, and that
our bunkers are empty of ammunition? We need to spend the money
today. Will my noble friend confirm that, as she speaks, we are
still cutting the number of troops, ships and aircraft in the
United Kingdom defence budget?
(Con)
An additional £24 billion is going in now as a result of the
spending review 2020. The £11 billion announced at the Spring
Budget includes £4.95 billion over the next two years. That does
not include the spending on our commitments to Ukraine, which was
£2.3 billion last year and will be £2.3 billion in the coming
year.
(Lab)
My Lords, we have got figures, figures and figures. There is only
one crucial question. The Defence Secretary said in February that
the Government
“have hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces”.—[Official
Report, Commons, 20/2/23; col.65.]
Yesterday, some new funding was announced. Do the Government
believe that yesterday really represents a reversal of the
Secretary of State’s analysis and, crucially, is sufficient to
secure Britain’s national defence for the future?
(Con)
I think the Secretary of State for Defence has been very positive
about the money announced at the Budget and previously, and this
Government have overseen the largest investment in defence since
the Cold War. The British Armed Forces remain among the best in
the world; that is why we are a leading NATO partner. Over the
last 10 years, the UK has been NATO’s second largest defence
spender, after the US, and we spent almost as much on defence as
20 other NATO members combined. Future Soldier, the Army’s
response to the integrated review, will deliver the largest
transformation of the British Army in more than 20 years. As the
threat changes, we need to change with it, and we have set out a
plan to do so.
Lord Swire (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement
about the replacement and refurbishment of the nuclear submarine
fleet. Can my noble friend say from which budget that money is
coming and, critically, can she confirm that the other political
parties have signed up to this, given the long-term impact and
programme that it will require?
(Con)
I will let the other parties speak for themselves, but this is a
long-term commitment to investment in our own security. The money
we are investing in the defence nuclear enterprise is additional
funding; it is not coming from any existing contingency, and I am
happy to confirm that to the House.
(LD)
My Lords, since the additional money is over five years, and
since we are supporting Ukraine to the tune of £2 billion a year,
that additional money will all be used up in the support of
Ukraine, which invites and encourages me to ask two questions.
First, when will the money be made available to replace the
ageing armoured vehicle, the Warrior, with a new battlefield
vehicle, having regard to the shambles of the Ajax programme?
Secondly, when will the Royal Air Force be provided with
sufficient F35s to train its pilots to fly that aircraft, never
mind taking it into combat?
(Con)
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on those
two specific questions, but I should make a very important
clarification of the additional funding going into our Armed
Forces. Our support for Ukraine is over and above the additional
investment I have mentioned, so it will not be drawn on in future
years when we continue that support for as long as the conflict
lasts.
(Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that Poland has been a model in
respect of additional expenditure, and does she share the concern
about the delay in Germany fulfilling its commitment? She talked
about long-term commitments. Does this mean that the new
expenditure will be backloaded and there will be some for several
years in the future?
(Con)
We welcome the contribution from all our allies and partners. I
think I have been clear that nearly £5 billion of the £11 billion
of additional funding is over the next two years. We have
provided clarity beyond the existing scorecard period to help
facilitate long-term investment in our future defence.
(Con)
Can my noble friend clarify a statement she made in answering the
noble Lord, ? Did she really
say that none of this money is going to be needed to replenish
the armaments we have sent to Ukraine? A simple yes or no will
do.
(Con)
I believe I said earlier that one of the things we will be able
to do with our funding is bolster our conventional stockpiles.
But I want to be clear with noble Lords that the £2.3 billion
commitment we made to Ukraine in 2022-23, which we are also
matching going into next year, is over and above the money I have
set out today.
(Lab)
My Lords, I know the Treasury likes to speak in percentages and
aggregate sums, but can we cut to the chase? Will the Minister
confirm that, as far as the Treasury knows, over the next few
years our Armed Forces will reduce the number of soldiers, ships
and planes? She may consult her colleague from the Ministry of
Defence if she wishes.
(Con)
I am very happy to have my noble friend sitting next to me. We
constantly review our capabilities, but the vision for the future
of our defence as set out in the original integrated review
remains the vision for defence in this country. However,
additional resource has come in as a result of the integrated
review refresh, in order to reflect the new circumstances in
which we find ourselves.
