Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes to defence spending
priorities they will make as a result from the outcome of the
NATO summit in June.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence () (Con)
My Lords, although the next spending review will determine the
exact changes to defence spending priorities, as the Prime
Minister stated at the NATO summit last week, we need to invest
for the long term in vital capabilities such as future combat
air, while simultaneously adapting to a more dangerous and
competitive world. The logical conclusion of the investments we
propose to embark on and of these decisions is 2.5% of GDP on
defence by the end of the decade.
(Lab)
My Lords, I must first say that I am very impressed that the
Minister is so on top of her brief; she read it just 20 seconds
ago. The NATO summit clearly identified Russia as a clear and
present danger. There is a danger of a world war at very short
notice. The summit identified a need to spend money on defence.
We need to spend that money today. Does the Minister not agree
that we need to spend now? It is no good waiting for the end of
this spending review. We know that we will not have a fully
stocked armoured division available to fight peer-on-peer until
the 2030s. We know that our number of frigates will keep falling
and not come up again until the 2030s. We might well have had two
wars by then. We need to spend now. Does she agree?
(Con)
To reassure the noble Lord, I tell him that the pack was read,
digested and tabbed, but unfortunately it was not where I was. I
was very pleased to be reunited with it. What we have seen with
recent events is a confirmation of what was identified in the
integrated review and the defence Command Paper—that Russia is
the current threat. Therefore, the assessment in these papers
holds true. However, we are not complacent. We recognise that the
context in which we are operating is shifting and we are watching
and analysing the situation. We will make adjustments where
appropriate, but we should wait in some cases to see what
unfolds.
(Con)
But the devil is in the detail, my Lords. Although I welcome 2.5%
by 2030, can my noble friend perhaps—
Noble Lords
King!
(Con)
In looking at the priorities for the NATO summit and the
longer-term considerations for defence spending, what
consideration was given to the urgent need for collaboration on
further supplies of ammunition for various weapons? That could
otherwise threaten to completely undermine the efforts to defend
Ukraine.
(CB)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
I thought someone was going to answer the question for me; all
offers of help gratefully received. My noble friend identifies a
significant issue that was the subject of extensive discussion at
the recent NATO summit. The MoD continues to understand the
implications of the war in Ukraine for the readiness and
resilience of our Armed Forces, for the health of our industrial
base and for our review of our stocks of weapons and munitions,
because that forms a key element of the analysis we carry out.
All parties to NATO are doing similar things, but I reassure my
noble friend that this department remains fully engaged with
industry, allies and partners to ensure that all equipment and
munitions granted in kind are replaced as expeditiously as
possible.
(LD)
My Lords, in Madrid, NATO agreed to create a force of 300,000
troops to be kept on high alert in order to meet the Russian
threat. How can the United Kingdom make a meaningful contribution
to that force without increasing the British Army?
(Con)
As my noble friend Lord Howe explained so eloquently last week in
response to a Question specifically about this, we have explained
our approach. We are very clear that the Army will be more agile.
It will have a greater speed of response. It will be remodelled
around brigade combat teams, which means more self-sufficient
tactical units with the ability to integrate the full range of
capabilities at the lowest possible level. In addition, every
part of the Army Reserve will have a clear war-fighting role and
will stand ready to fight as part of the whole force in time of
war.
(CB)
I first apologise to the Minister for my enthusiastic earlier
attempt at intervention. I assure her that the last thing I would
seek to do at the moment is to expect to speak on behalf of Her
Majesty’s Government. Turning to the substantive question from
the noble Lord, Lord West, will she accept that in a declining or
stagflating economy a GDP target several years out is almost
meaningless once inflation is taken account of? Will they at
least attempt to set an immediate target for where they expect to
get to within a reasonable—I should say “prompt”—period in terms
of real funding?
(Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the investments we
propose to embark on, such as AUKUS and FCAS, will mean that
defence spending will reach 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.
It is currently projected to reach 2.3% of GDP this year. We
constantly assess the threat and our ability to respond to it,
which is a responsible way to proceed.
(Lab)
My Lords, on Monday in the other place, while making a Statement,
the Prime Minister was on more than one occasion asked a variant
of the excellent question that the noble Lord, , asked. He
never once answered the question but twice prayed in aid what he
called the “gigantic” commitment we are making to the AUKUS
agreement and how it will increase defence spending very
considerably, taking it over the target of 2.5%—those are not the
exact words but that is what he said. On 16 December when he made
the initial Statement about AUKUS he said nothing about predicted
costs. On the contrary, he said that AUKUS came with lucrative
defence and security opportunities. There is no information in
the public domain on the predicted cost of AUKUS so where can I
find the evidence of the gigantic commitment we seem to have
made, that only the Prime Minister seems to be aware of?
(Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, AUKUS is subject to an 18-month
scoping period, so Her Majesty’s Government cannot prejudge the
outcome of that period. Similarly, in the advanced capabilities
space, all working groups are currently in the initial phases. As
that proceeds, we will have a clearer picture of what the UK
contribution can be. Much the same can be said of FCAS. These are
very significant projects.
(Con)
My Lords, are there plans to deploy any of our existing naval
forces to the Black Sea to facilitate some of the export of the
large quantities of grain which at present are unable to
move?
(Con)
My noble friend refers to an important issue: how we transport
that grain, if possible. Discussions are taking place among the
different partner countries as to what solutions there might be.
There are no Royal Navy craft in the Black Sea. My noble friend
will be aware that the Montreux convention governs maritime
activity there, and that has been deployed by Turkey.
(Lab)
My Lords, was not the most welcome outcome of the Madrid summit
NATO’s agreement to admit Finland and Sweden? Far from weakening
NATO, Putin’s actions have strengthened it. Alongside that, is it
not clear that we need to review the cuts to tank numbers, cuts
to C130 transport planes and cuts of 10,000 troops? Is the chair
of the Defence Select Committee not right when he says that 2.5%
of GDP on defence spending by the end of the decade is too
little, too late?
(Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, people will have varying views on the
appropriate percentage of GDP to spend on defence. We have laid
down a clearly structured plan based on the integrated review and
the defence Command Paper, and we regularly make available
progress reports—for example, our annual review of the equipment
plan—on where we are in the delivery of all that. We constantly
assess need and identify and assess threat. We try to make sure
that the two are aligned and that we meet the one with the other,
and that is a sensible way to proceed.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, there is a theme on all sides of your Lordships’ House
that perhaps 2.5% is insufficient—or at least can be overtaken by
inflation, which is looking to move to double digits, and the
exchange rate, which has gone down yet again today. What work are
Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the 2.5%, or
whatever is spent on defence, will be adequate for everything the
Government claim they will achieve?
(Con)
As I have indicated to the Chamber, there is a regular assessment
by the MoD of both the threat we have to meet and the means by
which we meet it. For example, the equipment plan—a massive
plan—is kept under constant review to ensure that it is
delivering the capabilities required to let us deliver our
strategic outcomes. Major changes are normally undertaken as part
of a formal government-led review process, but the MoD conducts
an annual review to ensure that capabilities are not just being
delivered but are still the right ones to meet the evolving
threat.
