(South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if
he will make a statement on his commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP
on defence.
The Secretary of State for Defence ()
I congratulate the shadow Defence Secretary on securing the first
Defence urgent question of the new Parliament. Previous Defence
Secretaries answered just two urgent questions in the whole of
the last five years. Although I cannot promise to answer every
future UQ, I wanted to answer the hon. Gentleman's first one
today to underline just how seriously I take our Department's
responsibility to report to this House.
The Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of
GDP on defence. We promised it in our manifesto at the election,
the Prime Minister promised it at NATO in Washington in July, and
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised it in the Budget two
weeks ago, as well as announcing a £3 billion boost for defence
spending next year to start to fix the foundations for our armed
forces. That, of course, is on top of £3 billion each year for
Ukraine. I remind the House that the last time this country spent
2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, with the last Labour
Government—a level not matched in any of the 14 Tory years
since.
Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase to match and
deal with the threats we face. One of our very first acts as a
Government was to launch the strategic defence review, which is
working at pace to look at the threats we face, the capabilities
we need and the resources we have available. It is not just about
how much we spend, but about how we spend it. The Prime Minister
said at NATO that our plan in the SDR will come first, and then
we will set out the pathway to spending 2.5%; the Chief Secretary
to the Treasury said yesterday that this will come in the
spring.
Today is Armistice Day. At the eleventh hour, I had the honour of
laying a wreath at the Cenotaph. Today is a reminder of what is
at stake in this new era of insecurity; a reminder that our
dedicated servicemen and women, around the clock, around the
world, work to keep us safe; and a reminder of the ultimate
sacrifice that so many have made in the past so that we may live
in freedom today. We will remember them.
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker,
especially on Armistice Day. I am grateful for the Secretary of
State's response, but he keeps going back to 2010 when we spent
2.5%. That is true, but he says it without adding the fact that
his Government had bankrupted the country. In fact, I asked the
House of Commons Library about this. The Institute for Fiscal
Studies has confirmed that if Labour had returned to government,
it was planning cuts to the defence budget of 20% to 25%.
But this question is about today. The threat picture is far
graver than it has been for many generations, as the Chief of the
Defence Staff confirmed at the weekend. As the Secretary of State
says, the Labour party committed in its general election
manifesto to a
“path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence.”
The Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that it was
“cast iron”, which the Secretary of State has repeated today.
With President Trump's election victory, there will inevitably be
a greater focus on what more European NATO members can do to
boost Europe's own defence, but yesterday the Chief Secretary to
the Treasury and this morning the Secretary of State himself were
unable to say whether the Government would deliver on 2.5% in the
current Parliament. In addition, yesterday The Sunday Times
reported that Defence Equipment and Support in Abbey Wood has
effectively been instructed to avoid any new procurement at all
for the rest of this financial year.
Spending 2.5% is not an end in itself. The key reason that in
April we set out a fully funded multi-year pathway to 2.5% was to
enable the Ministry of Defence to procure, at pace and at scale,
the munitions that we need to urgently replenish our stocks to
warfighting levels. With the whole world wanting to buy more
munitions, we cannot afford to delay any further.
I have key questions for the Secretary of State, because at the
same time we are having this debate, there are a whole load of
new burdens coming for the MOD which it will have to cover. In
which financial year does he expect the share of GDP spent on
defence to start rising significantly, and will he guarantee to
hit 2.5% in this Parliament—yes or no? Not including existing
programmes, is it true that there is a freeze on new procurement
of defence equipment and support for the rest of this financial
year? Will the MOD be 100% compensated by the Treasury for higher
employer national insurance contributions and for the cost of
increasing continuity of education allowance, and will service
families be 100% compensated for the extra VAT on school fees?
Penultimately, on Armistice Day can the Secretary of State
absolutely rule out surviving spouses of service personnel being
taxed on death in service benefits? Finally, on the Chagos
islands, in the Department's written answer to me it refused to
say how much the MOD will contribute to renting back our own
military base, so this is a very simple question: the Secretary
of State will not tell us how much it is going to cost, but does
he know how much it is going to cost?
Mr Speaker
Please remember that when I grant urgent questions, the time each
person has is limited. It is two minutes for the main Opposition
party and one minute for the other Opposition party.
Fourteen years the Conservative Government had to increase
defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and there was not a plan or a
pathway from the last Government, as the shadow Defence Secretary
tries to claim. It was a political ploy that was announced four
weeks before they called the general election. It was unfunded,
and it was a con on the armed forces and on the British people,
who gave their answer emphatically by sweeping away Tory MPs in
many of the proudest military communities and constituencies
across the country.
On the shadow Defence Secretary's accusations about a total
spending freeze, I am putting in place a grip on the
out-of-control spending that the last Government left. We are
securing value for money, we are cutting waste and we are getting
a grip on defence spending in a way his Government did not.
We greatly value the continuity of education allowance and
greatly recognise the role it plays in helping avoid disruption
to the education of the children of serving personnel. In line
with how the allowance operates, we will continue to pay up to
90% of private school fees following the VAT increase in January.
By uprating the cap, we will take account of any increase in
spending.
On the Chagos islands, of course I know the details because I was
heavily involved in the negotiations. This secures Britain's
military base, and it secures a military base for our US allies,
which is why they welcomed it so strongly. I have said to the
shadow Secretary of State and to the House that when it debates
the treaty, this House will have the full information.
Nobody knows better the defence inheritance that 14 years of
Conservative government have left us for the past four months
than the shadow Defence Secretary: he was a Defence Minister at
the heart of the problems, with billion-pound black holes,
service morale at record lows, and a crisis in the recruitment
and retention of personnel. Never again must a Government leave
our armed forces in a worse state than they found them, and this
new Government will make this country more secure at home and
strong abroad.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mr (Slough) (Lab)
We live in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, with
hundreds of thousands of people dying or being injured on our own
continent in Ukraine, and wars and conflicts raging in the middle
east, Africa and beyond, not to mention the increased nefarious
activity in the grey zone. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are
dealing with exceptional circumstances and we need to grasp the
gravity of the situation. I have a great deal of time and respect
for the Secretary of State because I know that he gets it, but do
others in government understand the gravity of the situation,
because we need clarity? We need a timetable so that not only our
allies, but those in our defence community, know where we are
heading.
Yes, they do. Everyone agrees that defence spending must
increase, and it is increasing under this Government. It
increased in the first Budget of this new Government by nearly £3
billion for next year. Alongside that is the cast-iron commitment
that we are a Government who will set a path to spending 2.5% of
GDP on defence.
Mr Speaker
I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
(Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We are deeply concerned about the impact of the US elections on
Ukraine and Europe. President Trump is an unreliable partner and,
within days of his election, US support to Ukraine is regrettably
under question. Clearly the UK needs to urgently set out a path
to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We need to lead in Europe.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the previous Government's
legacy on our Army, which is the smallest since the Napoleonic
era, is deeply regrettable? Will he commit to securing a UK-EU
defence and security agreement, as was on the table while was Prime Minister? Will the
Government convene a summit on saving Ukraine, to begin the
process of seizure of frozen Russian assets, so that the UK and
our European allies can support Ukraine regardless of the path
the US takes?
We do not need a summit to release the interest on the frozen
assets—the corrupt Russian money—as we are doing that already.
The Chancellor and I are working closely on that, and we have
announced that, from early next year, £2.3 billion will be
available for Ukraine for that purpose. I give the hon. Lady the
assurance that we will pursue a UK-EU security pact, alongside
the deep bilateral agreements we have already started to strike,
including the one last month with Germany, which was the most
comprehensive defence agreement this country has signed in many
years. Finally, the hon. Lady is right—I have argued this
before—that at a time of increasing global threats, European
nations in NATO must do more of the heavy lifting. We must be
prepared to spend more on defence, but we must also be prepared
to work together to increase the level of deterrence we can offer
to those who would do us harm.
(Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
Was President Trump not right in his first term, when he pushed
NATO countries to increase defence spending? The numbers have
gone from six countries meeting the 2% target back in 2021, up to
23 countries meeting the target now. Is this not serious, because
if President Trump makes decisions on Ukraine in his second term,
we might be faced with a choice either to accept those decisions
or to step up and ensure Europe's defence ourselves?
I welcome the fact that 23 NATO nations will hit the 2% spend
this year. I regard that as a floor, not a ceiling. The UK, under
Governments of both parties, has always spent well above and set
the pace for other European countries. We will continue to do
that, because European countries in NATO must take on more of the
NATO leadership. We are determined that the UK will do that,
which is why we have said that our approach to defence will be a
NATO-first policy. We will, wherever we can, look to be first in
NATO, so that we set the pace on the sort of transformation to
the better equipped, better able and more lethal forces that our
nations need to deter adversaries and to defend ourselves if
required.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that we used to spend a lot more
than 2%: in the 1980s we spent between 4.5% and 5.1% of GDP on
defence. Does he share my concern at what I heard on the radio
this morning, when a Labour politician in another place was
saying that he could see an outcome in Ukraine whereby Russia
gets to keep the territory it has occupied, while Ukraine does
not get any guarantee of joining NATO but merely some more
security assurances? We know what happened last time with the
security assurances previously given. Does the Secretary of State
agree that, whether we spend 2.5% on defence now or in the near
future, it is important that whoever we send to Washington does
not capitulate in advance?
The right hon. Gentleman made the important point, implicitly in
his question, that it is the Ukrainians who are fighting and the
Ukrainians who will make the call about whether to talk and on
what terms. Our task, as one of the leading supporters of Ukraine
and its fight for sovereignty, freedom and its own future, is to
support it and to step up our support for its fight, and then to
step up our support, if necessary and whenever required, in any
negotiations, as well as to play our part, as we have made the
commitment to do, in providing any security guarantees for the
longer term.
Ms (St Helens South and Whiston)
(Lab)
Russia has gone to war in Europe, starting in Ukraine. It was
America and Britain that saved Europe in the last war; it looks
like this will be the same. Europe simply must step up. What
discussions has the Secretary of State had with Lloyd Austin
about America's role in the way forward?
To be quite honest with my hon. Friend, it is a little early to
have discussions with America. It is less than a week since the
presidential elections and the current Administration have more
than two months to go. As she would expect, I am in detailed
discussions with the current Administration and my counterpart
there, in particular about how we together, as two of Ukraine's
leading allies, can step up our support over the couple of months
ahead.
In the future, I expect a President Trump-led Administration to
recognise that it is in America's interests, NATO's interests and
the interests of all countries that believe in the international
rules-based order and a stable and secure peace that Putin does
not prevail, because if large countries like Russia are able to
redraw international boundaries by force, that sends a signal
that undermines the security of all nations. If reports are right
that President Trump has already spoken to President Putin and
warned him against the escalation that we see from Russia in
Ukraine, that is a good first step and early sign.
Sir Iain Duncan (Chingford and Woodford Green)
(Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have the highest respect
for him, even if we have occasionally clashed across the Floor. I
ask him this simple question. In China today, one shipyard
building naval vessels is out-building the whole of the United
States' naval capability—and it has many hundreds. Given that,
and the threat from Russia, Iran and this totalitarian state
axis, if comes back and spells out
exactly what I believe he will—that this is the biggest threat we
have faced since the cold war—will the right hon. Gentleman not
ask but tell the Prime Minister that the No. 1 responsibility is
the defence of the realm, with 2.5% now?
The Prime Minister does not need me to tell him that the first
duty of any Government and of this Government is to defend the
country and keep our citizens safe. He will not need me for that
because he commissioned the strategic defence review; my job is
to oversee it successfully. He will not need any persuading of
the arguments, assessments of threats and capability
recommendations that that strategic defence review, externally
led by , is likely to produce.
Mr (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right not to give a scintilla
of credibility to the idea that the Conservative party, having
spent 14 years never reaching 2.5%, would do that if only it had
one more chance. He is also right that what is important is not
just identifying more money for defence spending but making sure
that we start spending it better. Can he say any more about what
he is doing to ensure that the huge wastage in defence
procurement that we saw under the Conservatives is brought into
hand under his stewardship?
I am almost tempted to encourage the shadow Defence Secretary to
answer that question, because he was Minister for Defence
Procurement until four months ago, so he is principally
responsible, for instance, for the fact that only two of the 49
largest defence projects are on time and on budget. He failed to
fix what the Public Accounts Committee of this House—an all-party
Committee—termed the “broken” procurement system that has been
failing our forces and failing British taxpayers. This is a deep
task of reform. It is not a glamourous task, but I have made it
one of my first priorities as Defence Secretary.
(Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Is the UK able to provide an armoured division to NATO on an
enduring basis?
The armed forces will always respond to the requirements placed
on them. We will always seek to fulfil our NATO obligations. One
reason why I conducted a NATO test in the first 100 days is that
I was concerned that part of the failures of the last 14 years
had led to our falling short. That is part of the inheritance
that we take on as a new Government. My determination as Defence
Secretary is that we make our forces fitter to fight and better
able to deter and to play a leading part in NATO, as it steps up
our level of deterrence and defence across the 32 nations.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
South) (Lab)
Today, on Armistice Day, we honour those who have served, those
who have fought and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to
protect the freedoms we enjoy. Does the Secretary of State agree
that today and every day we must remember everything that our
armed forces are doing to keep us safe? Will he come to my
constituency to meet Sight Scotland Veterans, an incredible
charity that provides amazing support to all our visually
impaired veterans?
At the risk of upsetting my diary secretary, I welcome the
opportunity to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and her local
veterans group. She is right that, today of all days, we remember
not just those who gave their lives for the way of life we enjoy
today but the serving personnel—the men and women in our armed
forces around the world. We currently have 10,000 personnel on
operations in 50 different countries around the world. This is a
reminder of their work day in, day out to keep us all safe.
Sir (Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
Let me assure the Secretary of State that those of us who have
followed the defence debate over the last 10, 20 or even 30 years
know that he takes these matters extremely seriously and
understands the scale of the challenge that we face. In that
vein, I encourage him to start telling the truth: that we will
have to spend far more than 2.5% of GDP on defence within quite a
short number of years. A former Chief of the General Staff has
warned that this country might be directly at war within the
lifetime of this Parliament. May I suggest that the Secretary of
State use his friends throughout this House to influence both his
Government and the Treasury influences on the Conservative side,
because we are going to have to bust a gut for a major rearmament
programme that we have not seen in this country since the
1930s?
The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his arguments, and I
welcome his contribution. The Treasury will have noted it, and
will probably take it as an early representation for the next
Budget. In the meantime, I will ensure that the strategic defence
review starts with the threats that we face: war in Europe,
conflict in the middle east and growing threats globally, as well
as Russian aggression more widely beyond Ukraine. We will ensure
that we are able to match the capabilities that we develop with
the threats that we face, and we will do so within the resources
that we have available.
(Macclesfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made the
important point that the new Government inherited £167
billion-worth of projects, none of which were rated green by the
National Audit Office. Does the Secretary of State agree that
more money is one part of the equation, but spending it well is
the other part?
Indeed; that is one reason why, early doors in Washington, the
Prime Minister not only reaffirmed our iron-clad commitment to
increasing defence spending to 2.5% but said that the strategic
defence review comes first, as a pathway to 2.5%. That is exactly
so that we can ensure that we increase what we spend, but also
spend it better.
Dame (Gosport) (Con)
In 2023, I asked the Secretary of State's colleague, the right
hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (), who is now the
Education Secretary, how Labour's plans for VAT on school fees
would impact the continuity of education allowance for forces
families. I was told that I
“need not be concerned about what we are discussing
today.”[—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c.
570.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=725&ColumnNumber=570&House=1&ExternalId=7B4A4367-30A3-4902-BA65-FD877EC7D85F)
It is two years on and VAT on school fees goes live in January,
but details of the rates of continuity of education allowance
still have not been articulated to the forces families in my
constituency. As the proud MP for a military constituency, I can
tell the Secretary of State that I am concerned and my
constituents are concerned. What is the plan to better
communicate with them?
I am sorry that our confirmation of the steps we are taking from
January has not reached the hon. Lady. I will ensure that they
are. There will be an uprating in the continuity of education
allowance, which will ensure that our armed forces who take
advantage of the allowance will be able to get up to 90% of the
school fees they have to pay covered by that allowance, and that
that takes into account any rise in school fees as a result of
the VAT being levied.
(Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State referenced his so-called plan for
defence spending back in April this year, a plan that the
Institute for Government said did “not add up” and was
“fictitious”. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
agree that under this Labour Government we will never make
funding commitments to our armed forces unless they are fully
funded?
I do. My hon. Friend is right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies
described that so-called plan, the election pitch four weeks
before the Conservatives called the election, as “misleading” and
an empty promise. I give the House the undertaking that the plans
we put in place will be openly discussed in this House. We will
ensure that we can match the resources available to our
plans.
(Moray West, Nairn and
Strathspey) (SNP)
Defence professionals across Whitehall will have their heads in
their hands at this Government's commitment to 2.5% at some point
and when fiscal conditions permit. To fail to commit on defence
investment with the multiple security threats facing us, from the
Ukraine war to the middle east and a plethora of global
cyber-threats, is strategically illiterate. Those threats will
not wait for the Chancellor to get a grip, so what urgent steps
will the Secretary of State take with the Chancellor to ensure at
least the 2.5% promised by the Labour party on defence is spent
when the threat assessment demands it, which is now, and not when
the Chancellor feels it to be convenient?
Mr Speaker, I am going to take what I can from the hon.
Gentleman, which is an SNP welcome and an urging for an increase
in defence spending. That will happen under a Labour Government.
The Scottish workforce, the Scottish military and the
Scottish-based military will play an important part in the
defence of this country in the future.
(Stevenage) (Lab)
We have heard some chutzpah from the shadow Secretary of State
for Defence today. The Conservatives had 14 years to get to 2.5%,
yet they demand it from us now. I am very pleased that the
Secretary of State has set out how we will get towards 2.5% after
our strategic defence review, but in the meantime we have to
clear up the mess the previous Government left behind. Can he
assure the House that he and his colleagues are working to clear
up the waste and mismanagement they found when they came to the
Ministry of Defence?
I can indeed. It was one of my predecessors as Defence Secretary
who admitted to this House that under 14 years of the previous
Government the armed forces had been “hollowed out and
underfunded”. That is no surprise when we look at the record of
the Conservative Government when they came into office in 2010,
compared with the record of this Government. Our first Budget has
a £3 billion boost to defence. Their first Budget had a £2
billion real-terms cut. Our manifesto had a commitment to
increase defence spending to 2.5%. Their first five years in
government saw an 18% real cut in defence spending, which laid
the foundations for the degradation and the poor state of our
armed forces, and the poor state of the finances that we have now
inherited.
Dr (South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
The last Government extended to state school pupils the undoubted
advantage of the combined cadet forces, which had been the almost
exclusive prerogative of private school students. Why, then—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at me while he
is asking his question?
Dr Murrison
Why, then, Mr Speaker, did this Government decide, last week of
all weeks, to defund combined cadet forces and thus remove the
advantages that state school pupils are now enjoying as a result
of decisions taken by the last Government?
I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman's description
of any decisions that we have taken, and it would run contrary to
what he and I agree is the value of combined cadet forces. Most
of us, in our constituencies, have contact and working relations
with good cadet forces that give young people opportunities that
they simply would not have at school or in any other walk of
life. They have an important part to play in the future of
individuals, and also in the wider understanding of our armed
forces.
(Livingston) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State's recent announcement of the
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—a promise made and a promise being
kept—but does he agree that this is just one part of the puzzle
when it comes to showing that we can support our troops as they
work to keep us safe?
Indeed I do. My hon. Friend is a strong champion in his
constituency in Scotland for the armed forces and veterans. I
greatly valued the visit that I was able to make with him before
the election to talk to veterans in his constituency and talk
about our plans to increase support in respect of employment,
mental health and housing for the future.
(Fareham and
Waterlooville) (Con)
One of the big achievements of the last 14 years was the delivery
of the aircraft carriers, both of which are stationed in
Portsmouth, near my constituency. However, it remains clear that
they are underpowered. We need more Type 45s, more Type 26s and
more Type 31s. If the Government are serious about the 2.5%, when
will they set out their plan to invest in our Royal Navy and, in
particular, our aircraft carriers, so that our carrier strike
group can provide a world-class capability?
The aircraft carriers constitute an important defence programme.
We are considering the threats that we face and the future
capabilities that we need as part of the strategic defence
review, which will report in the spring, and we will follow that
within our clear path and our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP
on defence, just as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the
media yesterday.
(Bracknell) (Lab)
Today is Armistice Day, which provides an important moment in
which to pause and remember the huge amount that our armed forces
have done to keep us safe. On this day, does the Secretary of
State agree that we must not only set out our ironclad commitment
to 2.5%, but support the armed forces, their families and our
veterans?
Indeed. The forces families who support those who put on the
uniform are too often overlooked, which is one reason why we
introduced legislation last week for an independent armed forces
commissioner, as we promised to do at the election. The holder of
this post will report directly to Parliament, will have access to
personnel, sites and information, and will be able to look into
the concerns of not just those who serve but the families who
support them, in order to improve service life for the
future.
(Salisbury) (Con)
May I commend to the Secretary of State the role of Ploughshare,
which is used to deal with the increasing commercialisation of
opportunities at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at
Porton Down, in my constituency? In the context of the Ministry's
holistic review, which is now under way, will he undertake to
ensure that that organisation is not held back from extending its
opportunities to commercialise assets emerging from MOD
research?
One of the weaknesses in our system is that the often-excellent
innovation, research and development does not get developed,
invested in or commercialised, so potentially brilliant small
companies do not grow and expand. I have to say to the right hon.
Gentleman that I am not familiar with Planshare—[Interruption.]
Ploughshare. I did not even hear the name correctly. If the right
hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with some details, I
would welcome his letter and certainly have a look.
(Dunfermline and Dollar)
(Lab)
Like others on this side of the House, I welcome the increase in
defence spending that was announced in the Budget, after years of
Tory cuts to our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree
that we need to increase defence spending in response to emerging
threats around the world, from Ukraine to the middle east and
Asia-Pacific, and that the figure of 2.5% should be kept under
review in the light of changing events around the world?
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the important point that the
starting point for any defence planning must be the threats that
we face. At the heart of any defence plans must be the people who
serve and on whom we depend. I make that heartfelt point
particularly forcefully today, on Armistice Day.
(Honiton and Sidmouth)
(LD)
In 2021, when was Prime Minister, defence
spending in the UK was 2.3% of GDP. In 2022, following Russia's
full-scale invasion of Ukraine, defence spending was 2.3% of GDP.
Now that an isolationist President-elect is about to go into the
White House, defence spending is 2.3% of GDP. When will defence
spending rise beyond 2.3% of GDP?
I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact
that this Government have made a commitment to set a path to
increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that we have not
had in this country for the last 14 years. Everyone agrees that
an increase in defence spending is needed, and it is needed in
order to deal with precisely the increasing threats that he
cites.
Mr (Leeds South West and Morley)
(Lab)
I welcome the Opposition's new-found enthusiasm for meeting the
2.5% defence spending target, especially given that they were not
able to meet it even once in 14 years. I gently remind them that
the last party in decades to meet the target was the Labour
party. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only do we need
to increase our spending to 2.5% of GDP, but we must remain
steadfast in our support for the people of Ukraine to protect the
entire continent of Europe?
I do agree. I pay tribute to the last Government for ensuring
that the UK led in providing support for Ukraine. As a new
Government, we have been determined to continue that over the
last four months. We have stepped up the military aid that we are
supplying to Ukraine. We have sped up that support in a way that
President Zelensky now cites as a model for other countries, and
we are now spending more on military aid to Ukraine than ever
before—£3 billion this year, next year and every year for as long
as it takes, plus the £2.3 billion that we will be able to
release from the frozen assets seized from the corrupt regime of
Putin's Russia.
(Huntingdon) (Con)
I would urge the Secretary of State to exercise a little bit of
caution when referring to defence spending under the last Labour
Government. As someone who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
who used some of the kit and equipment that was issued then, I
know that there were some serious concerns at the time,
particularly around the Snatch Land Rovers, for example. I spent
a lot of time driving around Basra in one of those, and a lot of
people lost their lives in those vehicles, so I would exercise a
little caution and restraint.
My question is on a different topic: the CEA. How much will
meeting the additional cost of VAT cost the MOD from its own
budget?
We will publish the financial figures for the CEA in due course
and in the normal way.
On the hon. Gentleman's previous point, I am very conscious of
what he and those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq faced. I am
very conscious that at times during the last Labour Government,
as with any Government, the kit and equipment was lacking. That
is why we tried to replace the vehicles, using urgent operational
requirements at the time. Although we inevitably fell short in
some areas, we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in 2010, when
we were last in government, and the strength of the full-time
British Army was over 100,000 soldiers.
(Rugby) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of hon. and right hon.
Members about Armistice Day. During the previous Government, the
size of our armed forces shrank from 192,000 to 138,000—a 28%
decrease. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will take this
Labour Government to put our defences back on the firm footing
that we need in an increasingly dangerous world after many years
of underinvestment?
My hon. Friend is right. He is pointing to armed forces numbers
and to the heart of a deep, long-running problem: the crisis in
recruitment and retention in our forces. Recruitment targets were
set every year for 14 years and missed every year for 14 years.
We are taking steps to start to deal with this, including through
the largest pay rise for our armed forces for over 20 years, so
that I can now stand here as the first Defence Secretary to be
able to say that all those in uniform are now being paid at least
the national living wage. The introduction of an independent
armed forces commissioner to improve service life will start to
reset the nation's contract with those who serve and the families
that support them.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Last year, global arms expenditure reached $2.4 trillion, the
highest level since the end of the cold war. UK arms expenditure
went up, and it will no doubt go up a lot more because of the
statement that the Secretary of State has made today. He rightly
mentioned the conflict in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, and I
think he could have mentioned Sudan as well. What actions are he
and his Government taking to try to bring about a cessation of
those conflicts and of global tension to allow defence
expenditure to be reduced globally so that some of that money can
be used to deal with the serious environmental and inequality
issues that face this planet?
We cannot wish away the threats, and we cannot wish away the
conflicts, which is why it behoves any Government to ensure that
we have the armed forces that are capable and equipped to deter
those who would do us harm. On the question of conflicts, our
support for Ukraine is steadfast. That conflict could be ended
today if Putin withdrew from his illegal invasion of that
sovereign country. On the middle east, we have argued and
worked—in opposition and now in government—for a ceasefire in
Gaza that would allow the immediate release of all hostages and
the necessary flooding of humanitarian aid to Palestinian
civilians. That is a first step towards a political process that
must be directed towards a two-state solution, which is the only
guarantee of long-term peace and security in that region.
(Hitchin) (Lab)
I had the privilege of starting my day in Shefford, just up the
road from the Chicksands base in my constituency, marking
Armistice Day with local veterans and the wider community. I
welcome today's commitment to ensure that we finally have a
credible plan to get to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but as
the Secretary of State has set out, it is about not just what we
spend but how we spend it. The last Government spent millions on
armed forces accommodation but all too often left the forces in
my constituency in shocking situations. Will this Government be
different in ensuring that our armed services can finally access
the quality of accommodation they deserve on local bases?
My hon. Friend is right. Time and again surveys of armed forces
personnel show that poor-quality housing, which would be
intolerable in civilian life, is cited as a reason for low morale
and an intention to leave the forces early. This is an underlying
problem that we will fix. We will not be able to do that
overnight but we are determined that we will provide the
accommodation and housing that our heroes in uniform have a right
to expect.
(Exmouth and Exeter East)
(Con)
I completely agree with the Defence Secretary that defence
spending must increase to meet the threats we face. Given that
the threats are visible and increasing, I found myself nodding in
agreement with Admiral Lord West's recent Guardian article, in
which he said we should be bold and move directly to spending 3%
of GDP on defence. Does the Defence Secretary agree with his
revered Labour colleague's assertion? If not, why not?
In our first Budget, we increased next year's defence spending by
nearly £3 billion. We have a cast-iron commitment to increasing
defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that, over the past 14
years, Conservative Governments simply never matched.
(Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Secretary of State rightly refers to R&D spending and
small firms, yet small firms in my constituency tell me that
spending has dried up. Can he assure me that this is just a blip
and that normal flow will resume as soon as possible?
I think the shadow Secretary of State will agree that one of the
necessary reforms to our procurement system, especially in an era
in which innovation and technological development will be at an
increasing premium, is to do much more to support small and
innovative firms, perhaps including some in the hon. Gentleman's
constituency. We have to reform our procurement system to ensure
that happens, and we will.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers to all the
questions.
I seek an assurance that our spending will focus not only on
cyber-security, which is obviously essential, but on recruitment
and retention. That spending must take account of the fact that,
in April 2024, the Army fell below its target size for the first
time since it was set, meaning that all three service branches
are currently below target—the Army by 1%, the Royal Navy and the
Royal Marines by 5%, and the RAF by 10%. Overall, the UK armed
forces were 5,440 personnel, or 1%, below target. We need an
assurance on recruitment.
The hon. Gentleman sets out some of the details and dimensions of
the crisis we face in recruitment and retention. We will start to
turn that around, but we will not be able to do so straightaway.
We have made a start with proper, fully funded pay awards for our
armed forces this year. We are also making a start with new
legislation to set up an armed forces commissioner to improve
service life. We will take further steps to renew the nation's
contract on the support we can offer to those who serve and the
families who support them.
Point of Order
4.22pm
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know how strongly the House
feels about the Government's decision on the Chagos islands. The
Defence Secretary has made it very clear today that the
Government know what the cost of that settlement will be to the
Ministry of Defence. Many colleagues have repeatedly asked,
through oral questions and written questions, what the cost will
be. This is public money. Given that the Government refuse to
tell us what the cost will be, can you advise us on how else we
can probe to find out how much public money will be used?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has certainly put that question on the record
again, and I am sure the Secretary of State is listening very
carefully. He may wish to respond—or perhaps not. I am sure the
shadow Secretary of State will not give up at this stage and will
find other ways to seek that information, which I am sure will be
forthcoming at some point. I am sure he will continue to ask the
question.
