Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Reed and John Healey
Monday 30th June 2025

(3 weeks, 1 day ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed Portrait David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

On defence spending, is not the truth that Labour’s promise to reach 3% of GDP, let alone 3.5% or 5%, is just smoke and mirrors, because there is no actual plan to pay for it? How can the Government claim that they will properly invest in our defence and keep the country safe when they cannot even deliver the limited savings they have promised on welfare? So I ask the Secretary of State: where is the money coming from?

John Healey Portrait John Healey
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to the Conservative Front Bench team, alongside his two very distinguished colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I gently say to him that, since the election, his colleague the shadow Defence Secretary argued 13 times for 2.5% by 2030. He only changed his tune after February, when the Prime Minister showed how it was going to be funded and said that we would do it three years earlier, in 2027. We have shown how we will raise the extra funding for this record increase in investment in defence since the end of the cold war. We have shown exactly how it is costed and exactly how it will be funded in this Parliament, and in the next Parliament we will do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Reed and John Healey
Monday 18th November 2024

(8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed Portrait David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

T8.   Could I ask for a progress update on the recruitment for a national armaments director, the creation of a military strategic headquarters, and the release of the defence industrial strategy, and crucially, will they all be in place and established in time to contribute to the recommendations of the strategic defence review?

John Healey Portrait John Healey
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Defence team—it is good to see him asking questions. The short answer is yes.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Debate between David Reed and John Healey
Monday 11th November 2024

(8 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

John Healey Portrait John Healey
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right. Time and again surveys of armed forces personnel show that poor-quality housing, which would be intolerable in civilian life, is cited as a reason for low morale and an intention to leave the forces early. This is an underlying problem that we will fix. We will not be able to do that overnight but we are determined that we will provide the accommodation and housing that our heroes in uniform have a right to expect.

David Reed Portrait David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I completely agree with the Defence Secretary that defence spending must increase to meet the threats we face. Given that the threats are visible and increasing, I found myself nodding in agreement with Admiral Lord West’s recent Guardian article, in which he said we should be bold and move directly to spending 3% of GDP on defence. Does the Defence Secretary agree with his revered Labour colleague’s assertion? If not, why not?