Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James MacCleary and Dan Jarvis(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
As our brave Ukrainian allies have halted the advance of the Russian army, Putin has resorted to expanding his air campaign against Kyiv and other Ukrainian civilian targets. His growing barbarism is matched only by his desperation. The UK is rightly proud to have led the world in supporting Ukraine and punishing Putin for his aggression, but we must now turn the screw further. I welcome the new sanctions announced today by the Foreign Secretary, but the lifeblood of Putin’s war economy is the sale of oil, gas and coal to the world. The Liberal Democrats believe that there should be no legitimate routes to market for Russian fossil fuels, so, ahead of tomorrow’s NATO summit, will the Secretary of State and colleagues in the Foreign Office ask the Prime Minister to work with our allies to ban the provision of all maritime services for the export of Russian oil, oil products, gas and coal?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of support for Ukraine, and while it does appear that we in this House are unable to agree on the defence investment plan, I hope that we can agree on the importance of supporting our allies in Ukraine. My first call as the new Defence Secretary was to my opposite number in Ukraine. In my first weekend in office, we interdicted the Russian shadow vessel, and in my first week, we provided £752 million of support for Ukraine. We need to keep going with that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of the NATO summit; I will work with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we tighten the screw.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is clear that the Government’s defence investment plan is not fully funded. It adds little more than a sticking plaster to the gaping holes left in our armed forces by years of Conservative cuts. We need to rapidly regenerate our military and make it ready to deter and, if necessary, fight and win the wars of the future. That requires innovative thinking, both on the capabilities we need and the ways to raise the money to pay for them. As the Secretary of State well knows, the Liberal Democrats have proposed defence bonds. That idea has received support from Andy Haldane, the former chief economist to the Bank of England, who is now reportedly an adviser to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). Have the Secretary of State or his colleagues spoken to Mr Haldane about a defence bonds scheme? If not, will he commit to doing so?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the DIP, not least because it included £20 billion to rapidly increase the Army’s lethality and nearly £64 billion of investment in the UK’s nuclear enterprise. In addition, the defence investment plan will create up to 60,000 good, skilled jobs across the country. On his specific point about bonds, the United Kingdom is working with our allies to establish a mechanism to improve defence financing, joint procurement and industrial capacity. We will look closely at his suggestions for how we can do things differently, but I hope he will understand that there is a commitment from this Government to invest the resources we need over the longer term. We will of course look closely at how best we can do that.
Defence Investment Plan
Debate between James MacCleary and Dan Jarvis(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, albeit 14 months late and one Defence Secretary later.
The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in the technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to deal with the threats we face. However, let us be clear: this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of Conservative neglect, Britain needed a Government willing to match the scale of the challenge. Instead, we have had months of delay, and we now have a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required. In particular, it is hugely concerning to see how little is allocated to air defence. It is hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the strategic defence review, and inadequate to protect our islands and, indeed, our allies.
The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030, yet the architects of the strategic defence review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, have both made it clear that the current funding is not enough. Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement on offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, yet the new Defence Secretary claims it is enough. Were both the experts and the former Defence Secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe?
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing, so it is concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing. If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched budget to another?
The last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty. Between delays to the DIP, a change of Defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming, they have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who looks certain to become Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds. Despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today, can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately need?
Dan Jarvis
I gently say to the hon. Member that, when his party was in coalition government with the Conservative party, defence was cut by 22%. We are all judged by our record and the actions we take, and today’s defence investment plan represents a real-terms increase in defence spending—
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member can shake his head, but it is a statement of truth that this plan, which represents £298 billion of investment over the next four years, represents an increase in real terms of 27% by 2029-30.
The hon. Member spoke about housing. I hope he heard my words earlier about the absolute commitment to ensure our armed forces have a standard of accommodation fitting for the nature of the service they undertake. That is why we have made a commitment of £9 billion over 10 years. I remember living in armed forces accommodation that had not been properly maintained. We have a duty and a responsibility to do so, and that is why we are investing a very significant amount of money.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about defence bonds. Of course, we will look at all suggestions people have about how we can do things differently, but in the end all the money has to be accounted for and we have to be responsible and bring forward a properly costed defence investment plan. That is what we have done; we have brought forward very significant amounts of resource.
The hon. Gentleman said that I claimed it was enough. I think it is slightly unfair of him to characterise my earlier remarks in that regard. I am crystal clear about the fact that today represents a massive investment in our armed forces and in the technology they will be deploying and employing, but that is not to say that we do not need to do more. We do need to do more and that is precisely why I made the point that we need defence spending to be the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.