The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps) With permission,
Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement updating the House on the
Government's commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% this
decade. In my speech at Lancaster House in January, I warned that
we were entering a much more dangerous period in the world and I
made the case for a national conversation about defence spending.
Since then, Putin has stepped up his attacks on Ukraine, China is
increasingly...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Defence ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement updating
the House on the Government's commitment to increase defence
spending to 2.5% this decade.
In my speech at Lancaster House in January, I warned that we were
entering a much more dangerous period in the world and I made the
case for a national conversation about defence spending. Since
then, Putin has stepped up his attacks on Ukraine, China is
increasingly assertive, and tensions have escalated in the middle
east culminating in Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel 10 days
ago conducted in parallel with the proxies Iran has nourished
around Israel's border in the middle east, including of course
the Houthis who continue to hold global trade hostage in the Red
sea.
Since January, the world has become even more dangerous, not
less, and we continue to ask more of our courageous and
professional armed forces. Our sailors have served under constant
risk of attack in the Red sea, helping to protect international
shipping and our own cost of living. We have bolstered our Royal
Air Force presence in the middle east, enabling Typhoon crews to
intercept Iranian drones and missiles recently fired towards
Israel. And around 20,000 of our personnel from all three of our
services, with a huge inventory of naval, air, and land assets,
have been active around Europe as part of the largest NATO
training exercise since the cold war. In short, we increasingly
need our armed forces, and we increasingly are asking more of
them.
So yesterday the Prime Minister committed to hit spending 2.5% of
GDP for defence by 2030. It means we will invest an additional
£75 billion into defence over the next six years, and that will
be funded in full without any increases in either borrowing or
debt. This represents the biggest strengthening of our national
defence in a generation and, as the NATO Secretary-General said
yesterday, it will ensure the UK remains by far the largest
European defence spender in NATO, and it means we are the second
biggest NATO spender overall.
It will provide a very significant boost for UK defence science,
innovation and manufacturing. It will make our defence industries
more resilient and bigger. And it will mean we are able to
restock some of the global supplies required in order to continue
to ensure that we are both able to provide our own armed forces
and those in Ukraine and be a competitive export sector. We also
recognise the important role defence plays in our national
resilience by developing a new plan that for the first time
brings together the civil and military planning for how we would
respond to the most severe risks that our country faces.
Our additional £75 billion on defence is also enabling us to ramp
up that support for Ukraine. Members on both sides of the House
will share the Government's concern about the warnings President
Zelensky has been issuing, and his most senior generals have
confirmed that their the ability to match Russian force is
increasingly difficult. So, as NATO partners, we are looking at
each other to see that leadership.
The UK Government have stepped forward: we are providing the
alliance with the decisive leadership demanded in this knife-edge
moment of this existential war. This week we have committed an
extra £500 million of military aid to Ukraine for this year,
bringing our total package to £3 billion. In fact, our total
since Putin's full-scale invasion is now more than £12.5 billion,
£7.5 billion of which is in military aid.
In addition, we have provided NATO partners with leadership by
delving even deeper into our own military inventory, to give
Ukraine our largest package of equipment and support to date. The
support announced this week includes: millions of rounds of
ammunition; 1,600 key munitions, including air defence and
precision long-range missiles; over 400 armoured, protected and
all-terrain vehicles; support with logistics to support and
bolster the frontlines; support to get the F-16 pilots who have
trained in the UK into the air as soon as possible; and a further
60 boats to help Ukraine strengthen its remarkable grip over the
Black sea, including offshore raiding craft and dive boats.
Our £75 billion defence investment will help Ukraine get back on
to the front foot. Coupled with the reforms that we have
introduced to make procurement faster and more effective, it will
put our defence industrial base on a war footing. It will fire up
the UK's defence industry with an additional £10 billion over the
next decade for munitions production. That will bring our total
spend on munitions to about £25 billion over the same period.
We are delivering for those who serve to guarantee our freedoms
as well, with over £4 billion to be invested in upgrading
accommodation to build new living quarters for our personnel over
the next decade. We are also working seamlessly with key allies
to strengthen our collective deterrence and develop new,
innovative capabilities. Just last month, I was in Australia with
our Australian and US partners to advance our AUKUS programme,
which will develop and deliver a range of cutting-edge kit in
addition to the next generation of nuclear-powered submarines. At
the end of last year, I was in Japan to advance our global combat
air programme, which is the development of the sixth-generation
fighter jet with Italy and Japan.
Just last week I was in Telford to see the first fully British
tank for 22 years coming off the production line. That is just
one strand of our Future Soldier programme to make our Army more
integrated and much more lethal. Of course, defence already
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, with real quality to
them, in the UK, including over 200,000 directly in the industry.
Our additional £75 billion will open up many more opportunities
in regions up and down the country.
This is a turning point in UK defence. We must spend more because
defence of the realm is the first duty of every Government. We on
the Government side of the House recognise that fact. But while I
want to see peace and international order being restored, I am
also absolutely convinced that it is hopeful thinking—even
complacency—to imagine that we can do that without ensuring that
we are better protected. The best way of keeping a country safe
and protecting our way of life is deterrence: being prepared;
being clear-eyed about the threats we face; being clear about our
capabilities; backing UK defence science, technology and
innovation; carrying not just a big stick, but the most advanced
and capable stick that we can possibly develop, and yes, using
our military muscle alongside our allies.
Our investment in our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent makes
would-be adversaries think twice. We on the Government side of
the House have not come to the conclusion that our nation's
nuclear deterrent is there because an election is approaching; we
have always believed in our nuclear deterrent.
This is an additional £75 billion boost for our forces. In the
build-up to the NATO summit in Washington, I will do all I can to
get alliance members to follow our lead and bolster their armed
forces, strengthen their industrial base, invest in innovation,
maximise their military deterrence and, most importantly of all,
maximise their support for Ukraine. In a more dangerous world,
where we face an axis of authoritarian states, 2.5% must become
the new baseline for the entire alliance. If we are to deter,
lead and defend, that is what is required of us. I commend this
statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
12.50pm
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his
statement. There is much to welcome in it and more widely today,
with the US Congress finally passing the Bill for more military
aid to Ukraine and the Prime Minister finally making a multi-year
commitment to UK military aid beyond this year.
We face a much more dangerous world. British forces are in
action, defending international shipping in the Red sea,
reinforcing NATO allies on the Russian border and protecting us
all 24/7. They are respected worldwide for their total
professionalism. They require our support from all sides of this
House. We welcome the new commitments on funding for Ukraine and
to build up stockpiles, to boost defence exports, to prioritise
domestic defence production and to set up new strategic
headquarters in the MOD—all plans I have argued for in this
post.
The Secretary of State is right to say that the first duty of any
Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe.
Labour will always do what is required and spend what is required
on defence. The last time the UK did spent 2.5% of GDP on defence
was in 2010, under Labour—never matched in any one of the 14 Tory
years since. Two weeks ago, the Labour leader said that we want a
fully funded plan for 2.5% of GDP on defence.
We share the same ambition as the Government because we must do
more to deal with the growing threats. We want it to be fully
costed and fully funded, and set out in the Government's baseline
budgets. This 2030 target is not; it is in a press release. Why
was the 2030 plan not in last month's Budget, or any of the other
five Budgets and autumn statements since the Government first
promised to spend 2.5% by 2030, two years ago? None hit 2.5%;
none reversed the real cuts in day-to-day defence spending; none
matched Labour's record in Government. If this 2030 plan had been
in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly
costed and fully funded. Where is the additional money coming
from? How much is coming from which other research and
development budgets? How much is coming from cutting how many
civil servants, and in which Departments?
The Government have tried this trick before, in the 2015 defence
review. Ministers pledged to cut 30% of MOD civil servants in
order to make their defence spending plans add up. Civil servant
numbers did not go down—instead of going down to 41,000, they
went up to 63,000. The Secretary of State mentioned an additional
£75 billion five times in his statement. Over the next six years,
the Government's official spending plans are based on 0.5% real
annual growth in core defence spending. Why has he invented his
own zero-growth baseline to produce this fake figure, claiming an
extra £75 billion for defence? The public will judge Ministers by
what they do, not what they say. Over 14 years, they have
hollowed out our armed forces; they have cut the Army to its
smallest size since Napoleon; they have missed their own
recruitment targets each and every year; they have allowed morale
to fall to record lows; and they have wasted at least £15 billion
on mismanaging defence procurement.
Everyone recognises that defence spending must rise to deal with
increasing threats. The Opposition have no access to classified
threat assessments or military advice, so if we are elected to
government we will conduct a strategic defence review within our
first year to get to grips with the threats we face, the
capabilities we need, the state of the armed forces and the
resources available when we get to open the books. That is how
Labour will manage the requirements for strong national security
and the responsibility for sound public finances.
The Defence Secretary clearly likes Labour's plans for defence,
because so much of them are now Government policy. But there is
still no Tory plan to reinforce homeland protections with a new
strategic review; to fulfil NATO obligations in full, with a NATO
test on our major programmes; to renew the nation's contract with
those who serve with an independent forces commissioner; and to
make allies our strategic strength with a new EU, French or
German defence agreement. With threats increasing and tensions
growing, we must make Britain better defended. With Labour,
Britain will be better defended.
Let me start on the areas that I agree with. The right hon.
Gentleman mentioned how much we welcome the US Congress putting
$60 billion into the defence of Ukraine. We warmly welcome that.
As Churchill was reputed to have said, America usually gets on
and does the right thing when it has exhausted all other
alternatives. It took a long time, but we have got to the point
where that money will go to Ukraine. That is very welcome across
the House.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he welcomes today's
announcement, but then spends all his time explaining—or rather,
avoiding explaining—why Labour is not backing 2.5%, which has a
schedule, a timescale and figures that have been published and
are in the document produced yesterday and laid in the Library.
He says, “Judge us by our action, not our words.” We will,
because 11 Members of the Opposition Front-Bench team voted
against Trident. It is no good for him and the Leader of the
Opposition to go up to Barrow and to claim that they are all in
favour of the nuclear defence, because they stood on a platform
with a leader who wanted to scrap Trident, pull us out of NATO,
and turn the army into a peace corps.
The Opposition tell us, “Judge us on our actions.” Where is the
shadow Foreign Secretary, who voted against Trident? Where is the
shadow Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Communities
Secretary, who voted against Trident? Neither is there on the
Front Bench. Presumably neither is in full agreement with the
right hon. Gentleman. When it comes to the defence of the realm
and defending this country, the Conservative party has always
believed in our nuclear deterrent. We are upgrading it and making
sure it is fit for purpose. Neither supports the 2.5%, as the
House will have noted.
It is fine for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch
Box and talk about yet another review. If the problem were having
defence reviews, there would be no issues at all. The last thing
this country and armed forces require is yet another
review—delay, disruption and obfuscation.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Sir (Horsham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are continually
asking more of our armed forces, as the Defence Committee's
recent report made clear. In that context, I greatly welcome the
announcement and the increased investment. We want it to unleash
a triple whammy in which our industrial partners also seize the
opportunity to invest heavily in capital equipment and R&D,
and in which our NATO allies see this as a new benchmark to which
those who do not already can aspire and meet. What are we doing
to ensure that we not only make the investment but achieve that
triple whammy?
My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee is
absolutely right on the investment point. I spoke to my opposite
number, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, yesterday evening
about how it will help to galvanise NATO in particular to make
greater investment. When we go to the NATO summit in Washington
for the 75th anniversary, the new baseline will be 2.5%, rather
than the 2% one set by the UK in 2014, which 18 or so of NATO's
32 members have now reached. That investment sends a very
important signal to the whole defence industrial base. That is
why it is critical to set out the plan and stick to it, and agree
to reach 2.5% by 2030.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State clearly has a herculean task to find £75
billion, so let us seek clarity on where it may be found. I
welcome the investment if it is in capability. I agree with the
shadow Secretary of State on why it was not in the Budget. I
think we all know why: it does not stand up to scrutiny. Let me
also welcome the Secretary of State's investment in Ukraine, on
the back of the US commitment. I have to say to our US colleagues
that it was long overdue. Let me ask some specific questions. It
is the duty of Opposition to challenge Government, and we will
have our differences.
With no increase in borrowing or debt, the implication is that
there will be deeper cuts to other public services. If the
Government have assumed a baseline with spend frozen in cash
terms as of GDP, as I think was alluded to by the shadow Defence
Secretary, it comes nowhere near £75 billion. As I come from a
services family, I wonder if the Secretary of State will commit
to a direct increase in spend on accommodation, training and
recruitment as part of this proposal, given that we are at a near
Napoleonic decline on the frontline and have pushed members of
the armed forces into food banks and near penury?
The Secretary of State and I will, of course, disagree on the
nuclear deterrent, but I wonder if he will answer one specific
point while he retains it. The nuclear enterprise has been
exposed as unaffordable in the latest report by the National
Audit Office. What assurances can he give the House that the
nuclear deterrent will not continue to cannibalise the Ministry
of Defence budget and, specifically, the £75 billion he has
proposed today?
The first thing I should point out is that page 20 in the annex
of the document before the House describes the uplift in the
defence budget. We have headlined it as £75 billion. In fact,
when we go through and add up the individual amounts year on
year, it reaches £77 billion of expenditure. Members can see
there exactly how we will get to it.
Secondly, it is fully funded. I know the Labour party does not
like the idea, but we will remove 72,000 civil servants from the
system, not because we do not think they are good
people—fortunately, with low unemployment we know they will be
gainfully employed elsewhere—but because we want to get back to
the size of the civil service we had before covid, before it
expanded greatly. We see no reason to continue to run a civil
service with 70,000 additional people each year, when that money
could go into the defence of the realm.
The hon. Gentleman asks about our commitment to our armed forces
personnel, their families and their accommodation. He may have
missed it in my statement, but I mentioned £4 billion that we
will now invest in their accommodation and conditions over this
period, thanks to this big uplift. He will be aware that last
year there were a lot of problems with leaks and boilers not
being fixed for considerable periods of time. There have not been
those stories this year, because we got on top of that with £400
million and by making sure that contractors are doing their
job.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have our differences on
things like nuclear deterrence, but if there is one thing that
benefits Scotland in particular, I would suggest it is what goes
on at Faslane, with the extraordinary high-quality jobs it
produces and the proud part it plays in this nation's
defence.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
The main reason why this welcome uplift has come when it has is
Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State
agree that if Russia and Putin are seen to fail in Ukraine, the
threat to NATO will be put back for at least a generation?
Conversely, if they succeed, the threat to NATO will intensify.
Will he therefore do everything he can to persuade our allies,
especially certain parts of the United States' new political
establishment, that the success of Ukraine is essential for the
peace of Europe and, indeed, the peace of the world?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although this is £75
billion and although it takes our budget to 2.5% of GDP, that is
a fraction—a fraction—of what it would cost if Putin were
successful in Ukraine. There is no chance he would stop
there—none. Other autocrats elsewhere would look at that and
exploit the idea that all they have to do is outwait the west and
we will get bored of it—through some form of attention
deficit—and give up defending the things we said we would never
stop defending. That, in the end, would cost us all a huge amount
more.
Mr (North Durham) (Lab)
May I first of all congratulate the Secretary of State on his
stellar used-car salesman act, which we have become used to? On
26 March, he appeared, along with officials, before the Defence
Committee. His strategic finance director confirmed that next
year, when we take Ukraine funding out of the budget, the defence
budget falls. Can he tell the House how he reconciles that fact,
which was confirmed by his own officials, with his claim today
and the Prime Minister's yesterday to be putting the country on a
war footing?
I am really sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cheapens what is
a very important discussion about the defence of the realm with
such a ridiculous remark. We should all come here in the right
spirit to discuss these important issues, given the subject
matter. He asks about Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of what our
armed forces and this country are having to deal with. We do not
ask America to strip out its help to Ukraine, in the same way
that we did not ask it to strip out its help to Afghanistan or
Iraq, because it is part of the core defence budget. Yesterday—I
did not mention this in my statement, and perhaps on this basis
the right hon. Gentleman may be forgiven—we also said that our
enhanced amount of money for Ukraine is not now just for this
year, but we are going to carry on doing it every single year
into the future. So, yes, it is part of our core expense.
Mr (Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for obtaining this massive £75
billion increase in defence, which theoretically would allow us
to buy 20 new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. At the
risk of upsetting our excellent First Sea Lord, we are not likely
to do that, but we are putting our defence industry on a war
footing. Can we do the concomitant thing and create a war reserve
of equipment with older Typhoons, older warships and older
armoured vehicles, so that if we had to fight at short notice we
would have enough equipment to do it and so that we can tell our
adversaries that when we say, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” we
actually mean it?
I thank my right hon. Friend not just for his words, but for his
constant campaigning on this subject. Those of us who have been
subject to him in a Select Committee know that he knows his
facts, knows what he is talking about and has done as much as
anybody to ensure that this uplift is happening. I can confirm
for the House that we will not be using the £75 billion for 20
new aircraft carriers.
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what we
could do with older equipment. I have to say to him that right
now, I am much more minded to send that equipment to Ukraine.
That is why, yesterday, I pulled together the biggest donation
package to date, in what is now the third year of the war, of
equipment to Ukraine. For the time being, I think we will be
sending it in an easterly direction.
(Halton) (Lab)
Can I ask the Secretary of State what he believes a war footing
is?
Very simply, Ukraine has taught the world a great deal about
this. When it comes to, for instance, producing sufficient
munitions to restock the Ukrainians' supply, it is very
difficult—in fact, impossible—to do that instantaneously. When
there is global competition for 155s or other missiles, we want
to ensure that our own industrial defence estate is able to
produce such items by telling those in the industry that they are
on a war footing. By putting in £75 billion more and, critically,
naming the date by which we will get there, we will put them on
that war footing.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his stalwart stubbornness in
securing this important increase in defence spending. He and I
both know that much more money is needed, but this is a step in
the right direction. He is off shortly to meet NATO members, and
I fear that he will have a great deal of work to do. For example,
only two NATO members are prepared to open fire on the Houthis in
the strait of Hormuz, one of the major trade routes for NATO and
the west. Does my right hon. Friend feel that there will be a lot
of work for him to do when he goes to meet those NATO members and
asks them to step up and spend 2.5% on defence, as they should do
and as we are going to do?
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. He is right
to point out the need to be prepared to use the abilities that we
have. Ours is one of the only countries with both the global
reach and the desire and preparedness to use those abilities,
which is why we have ended up defending ships in the Red sea from
the Houthis. I can report that a specific incident along those
lines has taken place today, with our armed forces in action, and
we can be very proud of everything they do for us.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the right hon.
Gentleman's statement about increased defence spending, although
it relates to a time six years hence rather than being specific
about funding in the intervening years. Eighteen of the 32
members of NATO are still not spending even 2% of GDP on defence,
including France, Spain and Italy. Encouraging them to spend more
is not so much about fairness as about persuading sceptics in the
United States that North America should remain engaged in Europe.
Leverage at the NATO summit in July will come too late. What
additional commitments did the Secretary of State and other
Ministers obtain from our allies before announcing the 2030
pledge?
First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it starts this year—the
half a billion pounds is in this year's budget. We have opted to
give that money directly to Ukraine, in addition to the money
that we are already gifting it, bringing the total to £3
billion.
Secondly, let me gently say that I do not think I have ever heard
Liberal Democrats argue for more defence spending, but I strongly
welcome the hon. Gentleman to the cause. I agree with him
entirely that 2%—which we ourselves set back in 2014—is no longer
the baseline that we should be working to, but I gently point out
to him that the reason it has taken some time to replace Trident,
and in particular the submarines, is that there was a short
period under the coalition when we could not get our Liberal
Democrat partners to agree to get on with the job.
Sir (Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
May I, in passing, pay tribute to the late ? He voted for the renewal of
Trident, unlike many on the Labour Front Bench, and he would have
understood that deepening our defence capability in the
conventional forces is a vital part of the deterrence that NATO
provides for the security of Europe. I commend my right hon.
Friend and the Government for leading the way on this, and
setting an example through leadership.
I thank my hon. Friend and add my condolences to those already
conveyed by others. was a great statesman with
really innovative ideas about welfare reform, which it took this
Government to enact, and he is a great loss to us all.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about our leadership in NATO
in getting to 2.5%. I was talking about that to the
Secretary-General of NATO yesterday. We must ensure that 2.5% is
the new level at which people operate. If they did—if everyone
joined us at 2.5%—there would be £135 billion per annum more in
the collective NATO budget, which would make a huge
difference.
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
Labour is absolutely committed to reaching 2.5%, and we welcome
the additional £500 million for Ukraine, but time is of the
essence. What is the Secretary of State doing to speed up the
delivery of much-needed military supplies to the frontline in
Ukraine?
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady's comments, and I hope very much
that those on her Front Bench, who have not attached themselves
to the timeline that she urges, have listened closely to what she
has said. As for the delivery of items to the frontline, we will
be very fast; we will deliver in a matter of days or weeks quite
a lot of the items outlined in the very extensive package
announced yesterday, although they come in a number of different
forms and some, by their physical nature, will take longer to
deliver than others.
(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale
and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the announcement, and indeed the decision that has
finally been made in the United States. Can my right hon. Friend
confirm that investment will go into not just technology, but the
logistic, the warehousing and the background facilities here in
the UK—such as those at MOD Longtown, a very important employer
for my constituency—to ensure that our frontline forces are
supplied with the best kit that they could possibly have?
My right hon. Friend can certainly have that reassurance. We know
that such support is extraordinarily important to the running of
truly lethal and effective armed forces.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
In every year since 2010, the Government—along with their Liberal
Democrat partners—have missed recruitment targets, and The Times
has warned that Army numbers could fall to 70,000 full-time
equivalents. What is the Defence Secretary doing to ensure that
those who wish to serve and defend our country are not put off by
the broken recruitment system?
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that in January and
February we had an eight-year high in the number of applications
for the Army, which was reflected in the other services. I agree
that we need to be much more effective in getting applications
all the way through the system. It takes too long, and the
procedures are too disparate. People are having to turn up for an
initial interview, go away and then come back for a medical. Why
not do all those things at once?
However, other measures are really helping. There has been a pay
increase of nearly 10% for the less well-paid members of the
armed forces in the last year, which has helped with recruitment,
and people seeing our armed forces involved in so much action has
also helped. The Minister for Defence People and Families is
spending a great deal of time ensuring that the many
recommendations—67, I think—in the Haythornthwaite review are
implemented as quickly as possible.
Mr (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the many voices that have called for some time for an
increase in defence spending, and we welcome this announcement. I
suspect that, privately, the Defence Secretary was hoping that
this day would come as well, and I congratulate him on the work
that he has done behind the scenes to ensure that this funding is
secured.
State-on-state conflict has returned in Europe, and the world is
more dangerous, more contested and more polarised. Will the
Defence Secretary therefore expand a little on the consequences
to UK security and to the UK economy if Russia wins? Before
rushing in to spend these increased funds, will he recognise the
need to consider the full spectrum of threats and warfare that we
face, so that money is wisely spent?
My right hon. and gallant Friend has been a very important part
of ensuring that we got to where we are today, but I had not
realised that I had been keeping my own desire to reach this
point quite so secret. He is correct in saying that the
implications of Russia's winning this war would be horrendous.
The cost of what this country had to put up with because of
covid, for example, would seem small in comparison with the cost
of what could happen if other autocratic states decided to take a
chunk of other people's land; that could have a direct impact on
our economy.
This is not, in my view, money that we are spending; it is money
that we are investing in our security, to ensure that Russia and
other despotic leaders like Putin never think that they can try
it on with us. We will be investing it extremely wisely in many
programmes with which my right hon. Friend and other Members on
both sides of the House are familiar, as well as in innovative
new areas such as the DragonFire.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for the urgent support for
Ukraine, which is much needed just now? However, the Institute
for Fiscal Studies pointed out that in the Chancellor's Budget,
there was a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the
Labour party on following the fiscal rules when it came to saying
where £20 billion-worth of cuts to public services would come
from. Today's announcement adds up to another £9 billion of cuts
to public services. Can he explain where those cuts will be
made?
We have already laid out the fact that this plan is fully costed
and funded. As I have mentioned to the House, we have said that
we will reduce the size of the civil service by 72,000. That is
not a one-off cut; it is money that is not being paid each year,
and will help to fund defence. There are also some other things
that the Chancellor will no doubt wish to get into. I do not know
whether the hon. Gentleman has taken a look at page 20 and the
annexe, but he will see that this is all set out.
Sir (Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I absolutely welcome this very important investment in defence.
As my right hon. Friend says, the world is a changed place, and I
am sure that he would agree that defence is indeed a public
service. On the extra funding and the projects that he has
announced, may I ask him to make sure that he says to the
Treasury that the programmes should be fully funded? This should
not just be capital investment. The Treasury has a habit of
saying, “The capital investment is fine, but let's not worry
about revenue.” The projects will need revenue, so will he make
sure to have those conversations with the Treasury?
My right hon. Friend makes a very clear point, based on his
experience of the Department. We have to make sure not just that
we fund the capital, but that we have the resource to run the
equipment. He raises a very important matter, and this budget
enables us to ensure that this is done properly.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the increase to 2.5%. The world has definitely
become a more dangerous place over the last 14 years. I can only
suppose that the announcement was not made in last month's Budget
because it would have come under scrutiny from the Office for
Budget Responsibility, but could the Defence Secretary say
exactly what proportion of the 2.5% will be spent on
cyber-security and armed services personnel?
I should point out to the House that we have always said that we
would do this when conditions allowed. Inflation fell to 3.2%
last week—down from over 11%. Ten days ago, we saw Iran fire
hundreds of missiles at a democratic state, and we were partly
involved in the collective defence. It is therefore true to say
that the world is showing itself to be even more dangerous. We
have reached the point where we are seeing growth back in the
economy and inflation falling, so now is the right time to do
this. The hon. Lady asks about the sums of money that will go
into, for example, cyber or space. I do not have those figures on
me. I would be very happy to write to her with an overview,
because it will take a bit of collation to work that out exactly
from the existing budget. Quite a lot of what happens in
strategic command, which covers those areas, crosses over into
other parts of the armed forces, so it is not a simple question
to answer.
Mrs (Meon Valley) (Con)
This is a very welcome statement, so I thank my right hon.
Friend. He mentioned the Haythornthwaite report. When will we get
an update, particularly on the plan to spend the £4 million
investment in service families accommodation?
Very soon.
(North Down) (Alliance)
I accept the need for additional defence spending, but may I ask
the Defence Secretary for reassurance that the Government's
strategy for UK and global security going forward will have an
appropriate balance of hard and soft power? By that I mean
ongoing investment in diplomacy, humanitarian assistance,
international development—potentially including the restoration
of the target of spending 0.7% of gross national income—and,
indeed, support for the international rules-based order.
I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is
something that we in the MOD are always looking to do. We have
just made our seventh or eighth drop of food aid into Gaza, using
the RAF. We are working with the Americans on other solutions,
including the pier, and I work very closely with the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office. Indeed, I used to be a
Minister in the former Department for International Development,
so I am well aware of the issues he raises. The MOD will always
look to assist, with our armed forces, wherever we can; we often
combine hard and soft power.
(Bracknell) (Con)
This has been a good week for defence, and I commend the
Government on their commitment to 2.5%, but the issue is how we
spend it. Could the Defence Secretary confirm to the House that,
rather than our focusing on exquisite exclusivity or—heaven
forbid—indulging single service bad behaviour, the money will be
spent on plugging capability gaps, better operating the platforms
that we have, and ensuring that our forces have the activity,
resilience and sustainment to maintain and enhance their
world-leading and persistent global posture?
That is an excellent question. The Minister for Defence
Procurement has done an outstanding job on a publication that I
recommend to everyone in the House: “Integrated Procurement
Model”. It is much more exciting than it sounds. That new model
has already been responsible for bringing forward the procurement
of the DragonFire by five years. Rather than our trying to create
exquisite, unbelievably complicated and never-quite-right
equipment, the model will bring equipment into the field and
allow it to be spiralled and developed further. My hon. Friend is
absolutely right: we will use this money much more intelligently
to make sure that we get kit into the field, and expand and
improve it from there.
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
While I welcome the increase to 2.5%, the modus operandi of this
Secretary of State is to come to this House and announce billions
of pounds of investment to get people salivating about it, only
for it to never happen. Look at Northern Powerhouse Rail and High
Speed 2. We know it, the country knows it and the brass knows it.
The Times reports that we will fall to below 70,000 full-time
equivalent troops. Where will we be with boots on the ground in a
year's time?
The way for this not to happen is for the public to vote for the
hon. Gentleman's party, because I have not heard this afternoon
that the Labour party is committed to making it happen. If people
want 2.5% by 2030, they should vote Conservative, because that is
what we will give them. I think I will leave it there.
Sir (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Con)
I add my tribute to the late , who was an extraordinary man
and a great parliamentarian.
In welcoming the announcement of an additional £75 billion over
the next six years, which is much needed, may I urge the
Secretary of State to consider the potential for a fifth
successor-class submarine? I note that the patrol times for the
Vanguard class are approaching 200 days, which is not
sustainable, and it is vital that we give ourselves as much
operational capacity as we can with our deterrent.
We will always keep a very close eye on how we ensure a constant
at-sea nuclear deterrent. I can confirm that it has been at sea
every single day for 54 years, and we do not intend to have that
stretch broken. Quite what that requires is a matter for defence
study. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are committed to
delivering four Dreadnoughts, which will be far more modern. Like
any modern piece of equipment, they are likely to have greater
reliability as well. We will not let this country down when it
comes to our nuclear deterrent. As I said in my statement, we are
not doing this just because we are approaching an election. We
have always believed in our nuclear deterrent, and we always
will.
(East Lothian) (Alba)
Even Winston Churchill recognised that modern conflicts are
fought by people, not armies. That is why world war two was the
genesis of the NHS and the welfare state. However, while military
spending is increasing, public services are collapsing. Is it not
as important to wage war on poverty at home as it is to prepare
for war abroad? If there needs to be an increase in military and
defence expenditure, surely it should come from the cancellation
of the failed Trident project, which is impoverishing military
services, rather than from public services. Why should the people
pay for the Government's wars?
I could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman more strongly. Even
in my time as Defence Secretary, there are decisions that I have
made that, if we had not had the nuclear deterrent, I would have
hesitated in making. It protects us every single day in ways that
are not always immediately obvious to everyone. The idea that by
not investing in our defence we would somehow be safer, and that
somehow all that money would be available to invest in all these
other public services, is to misunderstand the first principle of
every Government: we are here to defend the realm, without which
there would be nothing to pay for internally, because we would
not be safe externally.
Sir (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the 1930s, a wise Government ensured that RAF airfields were
upgraded and improved, and that saved us from extinction in 1940.
If we are to be on a war footing, will the Secretary of State
remind the Home Office that it is its duty to maintain the best
runway in Europe, the 10,000-ft runway at RAF Scampton, instead
of letting it rot, as it is at present? If the Home Office is
incapable of doing that, will it hand it over to Scampton
Holdings as soon as possible—as we have argued for 15 months—so
that it can be used, improved and available for a future
emergency?
My right hon. Friend is speaking to the converted. As a keen
pilot, I agree with him entirely. In fact, this usually works the
other way around, but I will offer him a meeting so that we can
discuss RAF Scampton and its long-term future, rather than the
short term, in more detail.
(Wellingborough) (Lab)
Coming from a naval family, it is important to me that Labour is
also wanting to reach 2.5%. Our ambition is no less than that of
the Government. The Defence Secretary has said that this defence
spending increase will be funded in part by big cuts in the
number of civil servants. How much of this cut will be in the MOD
civilian workforce, and will the Royal Fleet Auxiliary be
exempt?
I welcome the hon. Lady's support for this package and for the
2.5% and gently suggest that conversations with those on her own
Front Bench would be important at this point. It is in the
interest of national security that both sides sign up to 2.5% by
a deadline, which we note this afternoon has not happened. She
asked a specific question about the reduction. In the MOD, it
would be a 10,000 reduction by 2028. To be clear, that is a
reduction from about 60,000 to 50,000. I personally believe that
is exactly the right thing to do if it helps to pay for our brave
men and women in the armed forces out in the country. Less
bureaucracy and more action—I think that is a good thing.
(The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to
Shropshire, which he referenced, and also to welcome his
statement and the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday. This
is record investment into UK defence, which will be very welcome
in Shropshire. Would my right hon. Friend like to take this
opportunity to put on record his thanks to all those that work in
uniform and the civilians at RAF Cosford, at MOD Donnington, at
Babcock and at RBSL— Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—which he
recently visited? Can he confirm that the UK's and Shropshire's
defence is secure with this Government?
I warmly join my right hon. Friend in sending exactly that
message. As he says, just last week I was looking at the first
prototypes of the Challenger 3 coming off the production line in
his patch. My only regret was that I was not able to see him at
the same time.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
My written questions this week have uncovered another worrying
increase in nuclear safety events at nuclear weapons sites in
2023, with the first category A safety breach in 15 years at
Faslane and the highest number of category B incidents since
2006. Category A incidents are defined as those that have an
actual or high potential for radioactive release to the
environment in breach of safety limits. A former chief adviser to
a Prime Minister has described our existing nuclear stock as
“rotting” and “a dangerous disaster”. Can the Secretary of State
tell us how much of this extra spend will go towards ensuring
that, at the very least, existing nuclear sites do not
deteriorate further, threatening the health and safety of armed
forces staff and surrounding populations?
I am pleased to report to the hon. Lady that our defence
standards, particularly when it comes to our nuclear estate, are
extremely high. Whenever an issue is found, it is properly and
thoroughly investigated. She is right to say that it is important
that we continue to invest in that. This money is good news:
every bit helps and we want to ensure that it is spent
appropriately. As it happens, we fund the nuclear estate
appropriately, but this money will help to ensure that is put
well beyond doubt.
(North Wiltshire) (Con)
This is a very welcome announcement. There are no strings
attached, and a guaranteed move to 2.5% of GDP sends a powerful
message to two groups of people: our NATO partners and our
adversaries around the world. Does the Secretary of State agree,
however, that the powerful message is undermined by what I can
only describe as the mealy-mouthed response from the Labour,
Liberal Democrat and Scot Nat Front Benches? If they will not
support what we are doing, what sort of message does that send to
Putin and to other enemies? Surely what we want now is
cross-party consensus: it must be 2.5% and Labour must side with
us on it.
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the reservists
based in Croydon, who, among many roles, have been in Estonia
helping to keep us all safe? Labour wants to reach 2.5%, but my
right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary has asked why
there is no budget line or fully funded plans for the
announcement. This appears to be a bit of a pattern across
Government. Only yesterday, I learned that a £1 billion
announcement made about carbon capture and storage several years
ago still appears nowhere on a Treasury budget line. If the
Government play so fast and loose with our public funding, how on
earth will the Secretary of State deliver the economic stability
on which our defence spending relies?
I encourage the hon. Lady, and all Opposition Members, to have a
closer look at what we announced yesterday. This is a fully
funded announcement. We have explained where the money will come
from. We have set out in tables that you can go and read, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the funding for the £75 billion. It is true that
a choice exists that Labour Front Benchers need to talk not only
to their Back Benchers about—because they will not agree with
increasing to 2.5% by 2030—but unfortunately to many on their
Front Bench as well. They will need to talk to 11 in
particular—the ones who have voted against Trident, some of whom
wanted to leave our nuclear deterrent behind and possibly even
leave NATO as well. Conservative Members are, however, entirely
united in the idea of spending 2.5%, setting a date for it now,
setting out how that spending will work and making the choices to
get there.
(Rushcliffe) (Con)
I strongly welcome this investment, which rightly recognises the
increasingly unstable world in which we are operating. Many of
our military capabilities are powered by advanced
semi-conductors, and recent years have shown how fragile these
supply chains can be. Will the Secretary of State set out what
the Government are doing to develop strong alliances focused on
securing our supply of that vital component?
My hon. Friend is right. As Business Secretary, I took the
decision on Newport Wafer Fab, which highlighted to me the
importance of our own supply chain for advanced semiconductors,
particularly in the defence realm. That is one reason that, in
the plan we published yesterday, we have committed to a new level
of 5% of R&D for defence, to ensure that we are not only
researching and developing but, through the expansion of the
military capability in the industrial base, producing the things
that we need for our armed forces.
(West Lancashire) (Lab)
Labour wants to reach 2.5%. I do not know how many more Labour
Members need to say that before it gets through. If anybody was
listening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and
Dearne (), the shadow Secretary of
State, also said that clearly in his contribution. The Secretary
of State said repeatedly on the media round this morning, and in
the Chamber, that on page 20 we can find the fully costed plan.
Bearing in mind that there is no mention on page 20 of how the
2.5% will be reached through the cuts to the civil service that
the Secretary of State has described, and that the entire civil
service budget is only £16.6 billion, where is the fully funded
plan? It is not on page 20.
The hon. Lady once again asserts that Labour wants to reach 2.5%.
Labour cannot just assert it; it has to will the means to get
there. I did not hear that from the Labour Front Bench in
response to this statement or yesterday's announcement. As in all
normal cases, and particularly spending reviews, the Treasury
will set out all the numbers going forward, but the fact of the
matter is that the figures published yesterday show £77 billion
more being spent from this year through to the end of the decade,
in part paid for by removing 72,000 civil servants from the
system so that we get back to where we were before covid. If
Labour does not want to follow that approach, it could follow
another, but the hon. Lady cannot just assert that Labour agrees
without explaining how it will do it.
(Ludlow) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests.
I also warmly welcome the increase of defence spending to 2.5% of
GDP, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime
Minister on the leadership role they are providing to NATO. On
where this extra money will go, will my right hon. Friend
elaborate a little more on the balance between meeting the
existing challenges in the equipment plan and introducing
innovative new capability through the new procurement model that
he commended to the House earlier?
We will both ensure that we deliver the things that we have said
we will deliver. In a changing world, with the threat of Iran,
Russia, a much more assertive China and a nuclear-armed North
Korea, we are adjusting our programme to ensure that it does what
is required.
New innovations, as my right hon. Friend will have gathered from
my comments about spending 5% of GDP on R&D, are very
important to us. We can now see how, in an asymmetric war,
Russia's entire Black Sea fleet has been made inoperative by a
Ukrainian navy that has no fleet at all—a ghost fleet. We need to
consider how we do all that, and this money will be used wisely
in that context.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the
Government for their clear commitment to 2.5%. I also thank them
for committing an extra £500 million of aid for Ukraine, which is
important. The Secretary of State and the Government are setting
a target for the rest of NATO to follow, and I hope it will.
I very much welcome the news of an increase in defence spending,
which my party and I have pushed for, but how much of the
increase will be feet on the ground and how much will be enhanced
cyber-security?
We are sticking with the defence review and refresh, which set
out the exact personnel numbers. I think it is 188,000 across all
three services. I have explained the extent to which new
technology is helping to shape our thinking, but so are the
lessons from Ukraine, particularly on the need to have munitions
and larger stockpiles available.
There are, of course, many excellent locations, including in
Northern Ireland, where more munitions and missiles are being
created as we speak, with about an eightfold expansion. I look
forward to visiting some of those who will enjoy the additional
£10 billion, bringing the total to about £25 billion, over the
next few weeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame )
Order. I am anxious to ensure that all colleagues get in, but I
urge brief questions so that the Secretary of State can give
brief answers.
Mr (Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I chair the 1922 defence committee, and the Secretary of State
will know from Prime Minister's questions that the whole
Conservative party welcomes this announcement, but may I suggest
that the message from the Government would carry so much greater
resonance globally if the official Opposition also signed up to
it? I am a former member of the armed forces, so I can assure him
that the country speaking as a whole—the official Opposition and
the Government together—carries much greater weight
internationally for the good of the country.
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. We have seen how
that has worked with Ukraine, and I am sorry that it is not
working today with the timeline to get to 2.5%. I am afraid it
proves, once again, that this country's safety is in the right
hands when Conservatives are in power.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
I echo the words of the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens
Stoltenberg, who said after yesterday's defence spending
announcement that
“once again, the UK is leading by example.”
In the light of the £500 million support package for Ukraine—and
having seen the awful pictures of missile attacks on Ukrainian
cities, including the destruction of the TV tower in Kharkiv in
the past 48 hours—can my right hon. Friend confirm that the
much-needed ammunition and missile systems will be in Ukraine as
soon as possible, to aid its fight against Russian
aggression?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, both about what the
Secretary-General said about how we are leading NATO in this
regard, and about the absolute importance of our being there for
Ukraine. We cannot afford for this war to be lost, and it will
not be lost. I will make sure that he receives the comprehensive
list of the items that we will now be supplying.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
It was widely reported some months ago that my right hon. Friend
and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities had written to the Prime Minister setting out their
concerns about the future of Scunthorpe's blast furnaces. For all
the reasons he has stated today, this is more important than
ever, so I commend him for his foresight prior to his current
role. Will he consider the importance of good-quality,
British-made steel to our nation's defence capabilities?
I well remember my hon. Friend's pretty much constant lobbying.
She is a great champion for her steelworks, and her comment about
the importance of using British steel in British defence is taken
on board.
(Gloucester) (Con)
We should all be grateful that today's statement absolutely
answers the widespread assessment of the increased risk in the
world. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he, the Foreign
Secretary and the Prime Minister are discussing contributions
with our European NATO partners? How important is our commitment
to NATO both to the current US Administration and to any future
US Administration? Lastly, does he agree that private sector
innovation—Roke has recently opened an office in Gloucester—will
be an important part of our defence procurement?
My hon. Friend is right about ensuring that we use this
announcement to persuade other NATO members to do the same thing.
I was proactively speaking to and texting my colleagues
throughout NATO and beyond on this just yesterday, and I received
very encouraging responses. I look forward to hearing more about
the company in his constituency.
(Warrington South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Ministers on the work
they have rightly done to reform defence procurement, given the
significant increase in spending announced by the Prime Minister.
How will these changes ensure that our military forces receive
equipment more quickly and, in particular, how will they benefit
British manufacturers by offering global export
opportunities?
The integrated procurement plan, brilliantly created by my hon.
Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, has ensured that
exports and exportability are a key part of the contract. I have
mentioned how we have already used this model to speed up the
production of DragonFire.
We are also using the integrated procurement model to make sure
that we do not over-spec things, so that they do not become
like—
Mr Francois
Ajax.
I was not going to say Ajax, but I will say it now. Ajax was
over-specced to the point where it became a very delayed project.
Fortunately, it is now back on track.
(Stroud) (Con)
Stroud constituents will welcome the Prime Minister's boost for
defence spending and ongoing focus on the dangers that we all
face. The Stroud district is blessed with many strategically
important businesses, such as Steller Systems, which I was with
on Friday, Retro Track & Air and Impcross, to name but a few.
These are innovative, nimble and agile companies doing
extraordinary things. On behalf of the small and medium-sized
enterprises and the small family businesses that are playing
their part in protecting our country and others around the UK,
will the Secretary of State confirm that SMEs will get their fair
crack at contracts and that the bigger boys will pay them on
time, to keep them alive for the benefit of all?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I predict that companies in
Stroud will do very well from this if they are producing
innovative and useful equipment for our armed forces. I take on
board her point about small and medium-sized enterprises. When I
was running my printing business and companies paid late, it
would put huge pressure on cash flow. One of the great things
that this Government have done is speed up the necessity for
large organisations, particularly the primes, to pay properly and
on time.
(Dudley North) (Con)
It is great to hear the Secretary of State's announcement about
the £75 billion investment. Does he agree that it sends a clear
signal to our brave armed forces that the party in government
backs them, to the country that we back defence of the realm, and
to companies in our supply chain up and down the country,
including those in my constituency, that we back job security? It
also exposes the Opposition as having no plan at all for
defence.
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Prime Minister made
the announcement yesterday in front of British troops, who are
out in Poland doing incredible work. The reassurance of the idea
that there is a period of time leading up to 2.5%, with the first
increase coming immediately, really helps them to do their job,
because they know that they are wanted and trusted, and that we
honour their work. I agree with the other comments he made. It is
a shame that there has not been an entirely cross-party welcome
for the announcement.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement. The Secretary of State was
kind enough to call in on me in Wolverhampton North East last
week, and I spoke about the importance of aerospace to my local
economy, with companies like HS Marston Aerospace, Collins
Aerospace and Moog. How can he ensure that those companies
benefit from the highly skilled, well paid jobs that this uplift
in spending will bring? Does he agree that industry needs the
certainty of cross-party agreement in order to make those
investments, and that the Labour party needs to step up?
I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.
She did indeed tell me about the defence companies that are so
vibrant in her area. The future looks incredibly bright for them,
given the amount we are investing and the fact that defence is
typically an extremely well-paid profession. There is enormous
ability for apprentices and graduates to be recruited, so her
constituents will be happy about the announcement.
Dr (Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on
the welcome announcement that defence spending will be increased
to 2.5% of GDP, and on their leadership on funding and support
for Ukraine. For the sake of freedom, democracy and global
safety, it is so important that Ukraine prevails. The
announcement shows that it is our Conservative Government who
will protect our nation and stand with our allies in the face of
increasing international threats. Will the Secretary of State
confirm that this sensible linear increase in funding for defence
will help our defence industry to ramp up production in parallel,
meaning that our armed forces will be supported, capable and
resilient, and be able to keep us and our allies safe?
I absolutely can confirm that. One of the features of the way
that we have done this is to create a straight line from next
year to 2030, to ensure that industrial capacity can ramp up with
certainty behind it. I am pleased to confirm that the answer is
yes.
(Devizes) (Con)
The Chief of the Defence Staff from Estonia was in Salisbury
plain, in my constituency, last week. He told us that his country
has 40,000 men and women in its army reserve, ready to serve at
24 hours' notice; I call that being on a war footing, given that
Estonia has a population 50 times smaller than ours. I am not
proposing that we try to replicate that—proportionally, that
would mean a 2 million-strong reserve—but will he consider using
some of the money to boost our important reserve force?
My hon. Friend will know that we are twinned with Estonia through
NATO and we provide protection to it. Estonia is very much on the
frontline with Russia, in a way that we are fortunate not to be.
We currently have 30,000 reserves. Rather than use them, we can
use the many other things we bring to NATO and to Estonia's
protection, including the ability to provide personnel and
equipment, which we do on regular basis.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on the work he has done in setting
the new 2.5% baseline. It will reassure our allies, send an
important message to our adversaries and strengthen our
industrial base. I thank him for the part he played in securing
£220 million for Barrow, as a result of the Team Barrow project,
securing our future and easing delivery of Dreadnought and
SSN-AUKUS. Barrow shipyard is not alone in delivering the
submarine enterprise, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that
some of the £75 billion will be spent on other key sites, such as
Faslane, Devonport and others?
I absolutely can confirm to him that it is intended to benefit
sites across the country. In the document we published yesterday,
a map on page 10 shows how the different areas and regions of the
country will benefit, not just in our nuclear estate but
throughout the defence estate. There is not a constituency that
does not benefit from the £75 billion announced yesterday. My
hon. Friend welcomes the announcement and it is time for others
to follow that lead.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
I add my own tribute to the late Lord Field. He took the time to
talk to me when I was a Conservative councillor about a concern
we shared for the weakest and most vulnerable in society, which
reaches across the aisles of the House.
There is no doubt that the international threat is developing and
the world is a more dangerous place, so I welcome today's
statement. What I hear is an investment in the armed forces that
we need, not necessarily the armed forces we have. Does my right
hon. Friend share my concern that the statement from the
Opposition that they are planning to conduct a review is verging
on the careless, in that it gives comfort only to those who seek
to do the UK harm?
My hon. Friend is right about the armed forces that we need, not
the armed forces that we have. We want our armed forces to be
lethal, quick, agile and capable, which is why it is so important
that we invest this £75 billion. He is also right to point out
that to have yet another review is simply to invite chaos and
delay at exactly the time our adversaries are looking at us,
hoping that we do not get on with the job of delivering an extra
2.5% of GDP in funding, which would play into their hands.
(Blyth Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the announcement of 2.5% in
defence spending by 2030. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge
the fantastic effort delivered by our reserve forces, which I had
the pleasure to see for myself in Northumberland last
Saturday?
I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. There are many members of
the reserve forces in the House, including the Minister for
Defence People and Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for
South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We thank all members of the
reserve forces for their service and for the time they give, and
we thank their employers, who allow them to take the time to be
reservists. We are grateful for all they do.
|
