Remembrance and Veterans
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our brilliant Royal Marines on their 360th anniversary.
This timely and important debate coincides with Mr Speaker’s official opening of the constituency garden of remembrance earlier today. It marks the point where, as a House, we pay tribute to all those who serve and have served our country, particularly those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
As we approach Remembrance Day, I thank the Royal British Legion and charities across the UK that ensure that our collective memory of the fallen never fades, while providing invaluable services and support to today’s veterans. I am also proud of the previous Government’s record on veterans, which my colleague, the shadow Veterans Minister, will cover in his closing speech. The focus of my speech is primarily on the remembrance part of this debate.
I believe that politicians best honour the fallen by never forgetting the lessons of the wars in which they fought. This means never being complacent about the threats we face and doing everything possible to strengthen our deterrence, so that this country is never again embroiled in the senseless slaughter of existential war. It must be obvious to all of us that the threat of such a war looms larger over our continent than it has for many years. To that end, and I say this with respect to the Secretary of State, it was profoundly ill-judged of him to suggest, at a time when deterrence is of paramount importance, that Britain is not ready to fight a war. I reassure the British public, millions of whom will soon wear their poppies with pride, that our armed forces remain among the best in the world. After all, it would be wholly unrealistic to expect this nation to fight Russia single-handedly. The challenge is to be ready to fight and deter as part of NATO, and no one should be in any doubt of the outsized scale of our contribution to the alliance.
First and foremost, we unambiguously and unflinchingly offer our 24/7 nuclear deterrent for the defence of all European NATO allies, and we are incredibly proud to have delivered a continuous at-sea deterrent every day since 1969. Moreover, during NATO’s Steadfast Defender exercise earlier this year—its largest such exercise since the end of the cold war—we led the way with 20,000 service personnel, eight warships and submarines and an aircraft carrier, plus tanks, artillery, helicopters and Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft. That is not the contribution of a nation unable to fight.
As we prepare to look back and remember past conflicts, the most important example of our readiness is not an exercise but a real-world war that is happening on our continent today. When it comes to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the UK, under the previous Government, played a singular leadership role, which started before the Russian tanks rolled in. Since 2014, we have trained thousands of Ukrainians to fight and we provided crucial anti-tank weaponry before the invasion commenced. That helped the Ukrainians to defy expectations and stay in the fight. Surely we can all see that, had Ukraine fallen early, the world would have been an even more dangerous place, with our adversaries emboldened and with NATO’s borders potentially threatened.
As the previous Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, revealed, President Zelensky has said that the UK, more than any other nation, has been responsible for helping to ensure that the majority of Ukraine remains free, more than two years after Russia’s main attack. Far from talking down our armed forces, we should be extremely proud of the role we have played in supporting Ukraine’s fight for freedom.
That said, of course we have our challenges. First and foremost is the need to replenish munitions, not least after gifting so many to Ukraine. That is why, in April, we set out a fully funded plan to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, paid for by reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size and prioritising £10 billion of additional funding for replenishment.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Does the shadow Minister think that the Conservative party is missing the point of this debate by seeking to score political points?
James Cartlidge
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman misses the point of my speech. As I said at the beginning, I am here to talk about remembrance, and I sincerely believe that the best way to honour the fallen is by learning the lessons of the past. That means always standing up for our country and ensuring that we have the strongest possible deterrent. That is why, with a Budget on Wednesday, it really matters that we talk about defence spending in this debate. This is a matter of supreme national interest.
As we prepare to remember all those lives lost serving in our Navy and merchant fleet, this replenishment would have addressed key emerging threats to our naval ships that have been exposed in the Red sea, such as by funding DragonFire laser procurement to tackle drones and upgrading our Sea Viper system to combat ballistic missiles. People may think that that is not relevant, but after all the tragedy we saw when we lost those ships in the Falklands we should be doing everything possible urgently to procure systems that can help to defend our ships against these emerging threats.
Another key challenge is retention. We know that we need to do everything possible to support those who serve in our armed forces today. Two days from the Budget, I hope that the Secretary of State has read today’s warning in The Times online that hundreds may leave the armed forces because of the Government’s education tax. The article quotes the many service personnel who have emailed me with their concerns, such as the wife of an Army major who writes:
“The extra 20% will make things extremely difficult, and we fear we will have to choose between my husband’s career or our daughter’s education.”
Labour should not be forcing thousands of military families to make so stark a choice when we cannot afford to lose such experienced personnel, and when it costs almost £48,000 a head to train just one much less experienced replacement.
Finally, there is the key issue of accommodation. I am proud of the additional £400 million that the Conservative Government injected to help address damp, mould and the many other problems that routinely affect our military homes. However, as someone with a background in housing before entering Parliament, it was clear to me from day one as the Minister responsible for the defence estate that we had to do something far more radical, given the inherent structural problems with so much of our service accommodation.
That is why I built on my predecessor Jeremy Quin’s work to put the wheels in motion so that, subject to negotiation, we could buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes. If we really want homes fit for heroes, as I am sure we all do, I strongly believe that we need a complete rebuild of the defence estate, rather than year-to-year sticking plaster solutions. It could be one of the country’s most exciting regeneration projects, but it requires ownership to be fully restored, and that means Annington. Of course, Annington is an area of considerable legal and commercial sensitivity, so I do not expect a direct answer, but I hope the Government will continue to build on my considerable work in that area.
If we are truly to honour the fallen, we must do everything to avoid future conflict by having the strongest possible deterrence. I have huge respect for the Secretary of State, but I believe it was a mistake to say that we are not ready to fight. We now need to see whether he is ready to fight for our armed forces. We need two things in Wednesday’s Budget: a VAT exemption on school fees for forces families, and a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence so that we can urgently replenish our munition stocks to war-fighting levels. Those who serve our country deserve no less.
Ukraine
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I offer my condolences and those of Opposition Members to the family and friends of Corporal Christopher Gill, who we understand tragically lost his life during a training exercise recently. We understand that he served his country for 13 years, including in Afghanistan, and more recently volunteered to train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK.
Having visited Salisbury plain last May to see Operation Interflex, I know that we should be grateful to all our service personnel, including Corporal Gill, who have played such a huge role in training the Ukrainian armed forces so that they can continue to fight and defend their homeland. That fight goes on, and we continue to offer all support to the Government for that, as well as standing by the Government, people and armed forces of Ukraine.
We therefore warmly welcome the G7 joint declaration and funding announcement, but we share the Government’s concerns in relation to North Korea. I have lost count of the many times that Vladimir Putin has accused us and our allies of so-called escalatory action in our support for Ukraine, but today we are considering the very real threat of North Korean combat troops being sent to support Russia’s illegal invasion. Let us be in no doubt: any potential agreement between Putin and Kim Jong-un to have North Korean boots on the ground in Ukraine at all—let alone in the numbers that have been reported—would be a major escalatory ratchet by Putin himself.
After all, as the Secretary of State confirmed, Russia has already procured munitions and ballistic missiles from North Korea. The transfer of those weapons in the first place was not only completely unacceptable, but a blatant violation of the UN sanctions that Russia itself voted for. The transfer of North Korean weapons and now the threat of combat troops show weakness and desperation, not strength, on Putin’s part, as the Secretary of State said. Above all, this raises the question of what Putin is offering North Korea in return, but we should not be deterred and must respond.
We took decisive countermeasures to help constrain the transfer of weapons between North Korea and Russia. The Conservative Government imposed sanctions on the arms-for-oil trade between Russia and North Korea, including asset freezes, travel bans and transport sanctions. The new Government, in turn, must now respond to this latest threat of combat troops. Can I press the Secretary of State to look at how the UK should respond in the round? Yes, we need to look at the diplomatic tools we can use to disrupt co-operation between North Korea and Russia, but we also need to urgently look again both at our military aid to Ukraine and at the freedom we offer it to use the munitions that we supply, particularly long-range missiles.
Given the need to continue providing further capability to Ukraine, we welcome yesterday’s announcement that the UK will contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme for Ukraine. The Conservative Government were a vocal advocate for mobilising frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. We strongly welcome the additional funding. When will the money be made available to Ukraine, and over what term? The sooner those funds are mobilised, the better. When exactly will Ukraine receive the funding?
Finally, we have spoken many times of the reality that we are facing not just Russian aggression, but a broader authoritarian axis that ultimately threatens the UK. We have seen that explicitly with Iran and the Red sea, and now we see it coming ever closer to home with the prospect of North Korean troops deploying in a European theatre of war. Surely that strengthens even further the argument that the Government need to deliver on their supposed cast-iron guarantee to spend 2.5% on defence. As the Secretary of State failed to answer me at Defence orals, can I once again press him to confirm that he is fighting hard, with the Treasury, to deliver a clear pathway to 2.5% in the Budget at the end of this month?
John Healey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Corporal Gill. I will pass them on to his widow and make sure that his family are aware of them and of the sentiments of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman is right about the enormous contribution that Corporal Gill made, including to the Interflex training programme, which I was proud to be able to commit to extending throughout 2025. The Chancellor and I visited the programme together on Sunday; we met Colonel Boardman, the commander of Operation Interflex, and the officers and soldiers of 3 Scots, together with instructors from Kosovo, Australia and Sweden, illustrating the way the UK is leading a multinational effort to support Ukrainian soldiers.
The hon. Gentleman is right and I suspect that there is unanimity in the House on concern about the developments in Russia and the growing alliance with North Korea, and that it is united in its determination to take the action required to respond and united in recognising that we must do so alongside NATO and other G7 allies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new loan funds available for Ukraine through the proceeds of the interest on frozen Russian assets. We expect those to be available and in Ukraine’s hands from early in the new year, which will put the UK ahead of many other nations participating in the scheme.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we remain totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We must do this to meet the threats that this country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed the commitment to set out a clear path to 2.5% in our first week in Government at the NATO summit in Washington. I gently say again to the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under a Labour Government, and that that level was never matched in any of the 14 Conservative years since.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I associate all of us in my party with your comments about the late Alex Salmond.
The most important point about the SDR is that it must not be used as an excuse to delay increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP. In September, in answers to written questions, the Department said that it would set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence “as soon as possible”, but last week, at the Dispatch Box, in his middle east statement, the Prime Minister said that the Government would go to 2.5% “in due course”. We all know that there is a massive difference between the two, so which is it?
John Healey
The Government are totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence to meet the increasing threat the country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed that in his first week in office, when he and I were together at the NATO summit in Washington. Of course, the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that level was not matched in any one of the 14 years in which the hon. Gentleman’s party was in power.
James Cartlidge
That is a concern. In 2010, just to remind the House, the black hole in the defence budget was bigger than the defence budget, and we were left a note saying that there was no money left. It is significant if the wording is no longer “as soon as possible” and is now “in due course”. It is in the national interest to go to 2.5% because of the threats we face as a country. If the Secretary of State told us now that he was fighting hard with the Treasury to go to 2.5% in the Budget at the end of this month, he would have our full support. Is that what he is doing?
John Healey
Fourteen years, Mr Speaker, yet the Conservatives produced their unfunded plan for 2.5% on defence only four weeks before they called the election. It was the hon. Gentleman’s former boss, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who told the truth about their record in government when he said to the House:
“we have hollowed out and underfunded”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 18.]
our armed forces since 2010.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Thousands of children of armed forces personnel face unaffordable increases to their school fees because of this Government’s ideological decision to charge VAT on education. That could have the perverse effect of forcing experienced personnel to quit the service of their country just when we should be seeking to maximise retention. Will the Minister therefore confirm that children of armed forces families will be exempt from the new VAT rise, and furthermore that that exemption will apply from January when the new tax kicks in?
John Healey
We recognise the extraordinary strain that is sometimes placed on the family of armed forces personnel, including their children. That is why the continuity of education allowance—an important part of the package that reflects and respects the service—is in place, and it is why we are looking very closely at options to ensure we continue with that.
Ukraine
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement, and for the briefings he has provided to me and all parliamentary colleagues. I associate myself and my party with the condolences he expressed regarding the tragic death of Lieutenant Leyshon.
As we have confirmed previously, I reiterate without reservation that, as Labour did when in opposition, we will continue to do everything possible to support the Government over Ukraine. We remain steadfast in our total condemnation of both Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and his conduct of the war, during which he has shown no regard for human life, even, it would appear, that of his own service personnel, with losses now at terrible levels on all sides. Indeed—this was one of the Secretary of State’s most striking points on the operational situation—it is an extraordinary testament to the brutal disposition of the Putin regime that their strategy continues to rely on the mass sacrifice of infantry personnel.
That said, the Secretary of State is surely right to remind us that, despite the extraordinary naval success Ukraine has enjoyed in the Black sea and the surprise incursion into Kursk that has thrown Putin’s regime into confusion, Russia remains a formidable foe and nothing at all can be taken for granted. On the contrary, it is clear that the UK must continue to do all it can to support Ukraine’s Government, people and armed forces.
On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the role our Government played in showing real leadership in respect of Ukraine. If Ukraine had fallen early, the world would have been in a precipice situation akin to the late 1930s, but we made a huge difference to avoiding that outcome by being the first nation to train Ukrainian troops, the first to provide main battle tanks and, in particular, the first to provide long-range weapons. In August, President Zelensky commented that Britain’s support for Ukraine has slowed down recently. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those comments?
On these Benches, we recognise that a key part of our leadership has been bringing other allies on board, which must continue in key operational and logistical decision making. Nevertheless, we have also shown leadership as a sovereign nation that believes wholeheartedly in Ukraine’s fight for freedom. As such, I confirm that we would have no hesitation in supporting the Government in continuing that leadership were they to confirm that the Ukrainian Government have maximum freedom of operation with regard to all the munitions we have supplied, including long-range missiles.
On the provision of additional munitions and the latest news shared by the Secretary of State, I welcome the announcement of £160 million for air defence missiles to be produced, of course, in Belfast. That underlines the intention we had in government, when the latest round of support commenced, to ensure a maximum degree of benefit for the UK defence sector in our support for Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that remains a top priority and that, as we supply Ukraine with more and more drones across defence, he will ensure that we rapidly learn the lessons of their deployment so that we can build the ecosystem for our own sovereign uncrewed sector?
We agree that supplying Ukraine with arms has been the right thing to do but—and the public feel this very strongly—that must be accompanied by the replenishment of our own stockpiles and platform inventory. A top priority of our funded, timetabled commitment to 2.5% was an additional £10 billion to replenish our munitions. Is the Secretary of State still committed to that extra £10 billion for munitions? Can he confirm that the delay in setting out a clear timetable to 2.5% will not lead to the deferment of any major munitions orders, either this financial year or next?
The Secretary of State spoke of Russian artillery outfiring Ukraine by 3:1, and he knows the crucial importance of industrial output. That being so, does he recognise that we must urgently fire up production across our own defence sector by committing to 2.5% as soon as possible?
Finally, one lesson from Ukraine is the vital importance of maintaining air superiority in battle. In relation to our future combat air capability, I asked the Secretary of State a set of written questions on 29 July on the sixth-generation global combat air programme spending, and he has to date answered only the questions on historical spend, not those on the current financial year. Will he therefore confirm whether his Department will be deferring any spending on GCAP planned for the current financial year?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, his tone and his commitment to continuing to back further military aid to Ukraine, including the £160 million contract for lightweight multi-role missiles that I announced last week. He talked about the “mass sacrifice” of Russian personnel, and he is right. President Putin is a leader who shows contempt for the lives of his own soldiers.
On UK leadership, I have set out to the House my determination to maintain that leadership in the support for Ukraine, and demonstrated how we stepped that up in the first week, in the weeks that followed and last week at Ramstein. In terms of the lessons for drones, their deployment and our work with Ukraine, we are learning those lessons. We need to speed that up. Given the hon. Gentleman’s previous job, he will be well aware of the implications for the way in which we procure and contract for capabilities, both for export and for our stockpiles. On stockpiles, we have—as he will also know—so far spent £1 billion in the UK on replenishment. We have plans to build that, because we need to boost not just production, but the productive capacity of UK industry, so that we are capable of demonstrating that it can be scaled up in the face of future threats in a way that is not apparent at present.
The hon. Gentleman asks about long-range missiles. I have to say that only Putin benefits from an open debate about those sensitive issues, and I will not comment on operational discussions. There has been no change in the UK’s position. We continue to provide military aid to Ukraine, as I have set out, to support its clear right to self-defence and in line with the operation of international humanitarian law.
On the question of 2.5%, we will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The last time the UK spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, when I last stood at this Dispatch Box as part of the previous Labour Government. In 2010, the Conservatives cut defence spending: they never matched 2.5% in any of their 14 years in office. My priority will always be to ensure that this country is well defended. In the face of growing threats, we will do more to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Foreign Affairs and Defence
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—although I must say that I have never confused him with Jeremy Thorpe—and to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I respond to the Gracious Speech debate.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made speeches today, but I pay particular tribute to all those who made maiden speeches. The time limit means that I cannot go through those contributions in as much detail as I would like, but I will briefly congratulate all those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) spoke passionately about diversity, and adds to it with her strong Irish heritage. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is surely the first ever MP to have worked as a sewer baiter. My twins had their 10th birthday during the election campaign, so I know how the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) feels. It is painful, but it gets better—don’t worry. I wish him and his family well.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point of order earlier about energy infrastructure. Pylons have also been proposed in Suffolk, and I agree with her that there are other options; we are saying to the Government that we want to see them. I am grateful for her very passionate maiden speech. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) will, I am sure it is fair to say, be a doughty champion for his constituents.
It is brilliant to have, in the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), a former member of the Royal Air Force in Parliament, especially in the current context. I was passionate about the global combat air programme when I was Minister for Defence Procurement—it shows the importance of our maintaining combat air competitiveness. I hope that he will contribute to the debate next Wednesday.
I was grateful to hear the cut and thrust of Scottish colleagues, including the hon. Members for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) and for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who certainly punched above his weight in his maiden speech.
Arguably, we did not hear enough about rural matters in the King’s Speech, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) certainly made up for that. She will clearly be a passionate advocate for farming and the environment in her constituency. I am grateful for all those maiden speeches, and I hope that we will hear much more from those colleagues in future.
Turning to defence matters, may I welcome the new foreign affairs and defence ministerial teams to their positions? As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said, we will work with them where it is in the national interest—especially on supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes—as they did when they were in opposition. We welcome the cross-party spirit in which the Secretary of State for Defence set out his plans for a strategic defence review. We look forward to working with Lord Robertson, for whom I have the greatest respect, in a constructive and collaborative manner.
May I thank the Secretary of State for paying tribute to the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, both of whom I had the privilege to work with as Minister for Defence Procurement? They can both be rightly proud of the enormous contribution that they made in supporting Ukraine, but they had something else in common: they were not afraid to make the unambiguous case for higher defence spending, and most importantly, they were successful. It helped that they had a Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, oversaw the largest spending review increase for defence since the cold war, and ensured that we went into the general election with a credible and fully funded plan to increase our defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.
Although I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have said that they are committed to 2.5%, we have nothing but uncertainty over their timetable. Indeed, this morning I was interviewed by Kay Burley of Sky News. She put it to me that the Government’s timetable is to reach 2.5% by the end of the Parliament—so 2028 or 2029. I said that that was not what I understood the public position to be, but she told me that she had been informed privately by the Government that that was the timetable, so I would be grateful if they confirmed now, in Parliament, what exactly the position is on this matter of great sensitivity.
Let me explain why the timetable for 2.5% really matters. When the previous Prime Minister announced that we would commit to 2.5%, he stated that his top priority was to replenish our munitions. That 2.5% figure enabled us to commit £10 billion of extra funding over 10 years to fund munitions, and it is a fact—I know this—that without a clear pathway to 2.5%, the Ministry of Defence would have had to make substantial cuts or deferments to programmes in order to afford that necessary replenishment of our munitions. That is why it is so significant, and why we need to know exactly what the position is. Is Kay Burley correct that the Government have told Sky News that they have a timetable for reaching 2.5% by 2028 or 2029? If not—if there is no timetable for 2.5%—how is the MOD going to fund its munitions strategy? Will those orders for shells and missiles for the Army, Navy and Air Force actually be placed this year? If not, what will be the impact on our world-leading defence sector, and above all, what will be the impact on our warfighting capability as a nation?
Without a clear pathway to 2.5%, what will be the immediate impact on the Department’s finances? Will the MOD continue to invest in cutting-edge capability such as directed energy weapons and hypersonics? That 2.5% would also have stabilised our two biggest defence programmes in light of the inflationary funding pressures that followed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This is all open and in the public domain—the Public Accounts Committee was talking about it in the lead-up to the general election. I am talking about the nuclear deterrent and the global combat air programme, our absolutely essential sixth-generation fighter programme. I am delighted that we now have consensus between the Government and ourselves on both the nuclear deterrent and GCAP, but can the Government confirm that delaying 2.5% will have no impact on the funding elements of either of those two major programmes? Can the Secretary of State or the Minister responding also confirm that the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review will conclude entirely before the next spending review commences, so that that review is threat-based, rather than forced on to the financial back foot by Treasury considerations?
Of course, if the Government’s public position is that there is no timetable to 2.5%, they will inevitably point to the old chestnut of the public finances being worse than feared, justifying the inevitable cuts or deferments of programmes that follow. I have the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, but we did hear some of that in his opening remarks. I am afraid that that excuse will not wash, though. Inflation is at 2% and on target; the economy is growing at a healthy rate and ahead of our competitors; wages are rising; unemployment is almost half what it was in 2010, when we took power; and the deficit is forecast to fall to just over 1% of GDP by the end of the current forecast period. [Interruption.] Labour Members chunter. They talk about missions; when we came to power, our mission was to save this country from bankruptcy, because once again, the socialists had run out of other people’s money.
The forecast deficit in 2010 was heading well north of 10%, so we did the right thing: we had to take difficult decisions, and we restored our public finances. Because of that, when the pandemic struck and the energy support had to be put in place, we could afford that enormous support. We are proud of that—proud of furlough, of saving those jobs and those businesses in every constituency. We did it because of those difficult decisions after the mess Labour left us in 2010. [Interruption.] Labour Members talk about the previous Prime Minister but one, but our strong economic legacy cannot be used to pray in aid a cover for cuts and deferments. [Interruption.] They quibble when we talk about a strong economic legacy. How else can we describe low unemployment, inflation at 2%, a low and falling deficit—half what it was when we took over from them—or the highest growth in the G7? That is a fantastic inheritance. Far from being an excuse for the cuts that the Government will have to come to, those are the features of the very improvement in economic conditions that made our pre-election commitment to 2.5% financially credible and deliverable.
We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s staunch support for NATO, as evidenced in Washington, and we want him to succeed on his pledges to strengthen Britain’s defence. That is in our national interest, but it is actions that matter and by which the Government will be judged, and deferring and delaying 2.5% offers nothing but uncertainty to our armed forces at the worst possible time. If the Government have a private timetable to reach 2.5%, they need to share it; if there is not one, I urge the Secretary of State to persuade the Prime Minister and his Treasury colleagues to think again, because in this more dangerous world, higher defence spending is a matter of the utmost urgency for Britain.