Defence Spending

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (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.

[Grant Shapps]

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.