Mark Francois
Main Page: Mark Francois (Conservative - Rayleigh and Wickford)Department Debates - View all Mark Francois's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I just do not know what the Opposition have to moan about. We came into government with the abysmal inheritance that we faced, and we chose straightaway to invest more in defence to clean up their mess. We have now gone even further than the NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 by choosing to set our own target of 3% by 2030. That is not just about the future; it is built on our record in our first two years.
Defence spending has gone from 2.3%—
Wes Streeting
In a moment. Just so that we are clear, we have gone from spending 2.3% of our GDP on defence when we came into office to spending 2.7% next year. It is very clear that we are on the right trajectory. That is not a record that they can speak to. I do not know how they can be so shameless—
Mr Francois
If it is true that the Defence Secretary has a plan for 2030, I ask him why the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee said yesterday in reaction to the Budget:
“some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, may I point out that there are many people wishing to contribute? Hopefully his speech will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Wes Streeting
I have been too generous with allowing interventions, but let me take that point head on. I think that is completely unfounded criticism—
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Before I turn to the Budget, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue Holt, whose death Mr Speaker announced to the House this morning. I am a member and former leader of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and I worked with Sue over quite a long period. She was always immensely cheerful and efficient, and her death came as a real shock to us all. I send my condolences.
At least there is one part of the Budget that I welcome: the continuing support being given by this Government to Ukraine. That was initiated under the last Government —indeed, over 10 years ago, long before the full-scale invasion by Russia—and we have continued to maintain it. It is a cross-party matter, so that support is very welcome. One of the reasons it is so important that we support Ukraine is that Ukraine is our frontline, and the threat to Ukraine is not just a threat to that country; it is a threat to all of us. That is why it is essential that we increase our defence expenditure now.
The Chancellor has recommitted to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, but that is still some way off, and we have heard from the Secretary of State for Defence about the immediacy of the threat. It is a matter of some concern that while we are still debating how we will get to 3%, allies such as Denmark, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Norway and Poland are already exceeding that level and planning to spend more. Perhaps one of the reasons we have not yet been able to explain how we will meet the target is that the essential measures to fund it—in other words, addressing the welfare budget—have again been ducked by this Government. We await the outcome of the reviews by the Minister and Alan Milburn, but we have reached a position in which 6.7 million people are now claiming out-of-work benefits. That is creating a situation that is not just unaffordable; it is actually immoral that so many people of working age are out of work and living on benefits.
The situation in this country is that all the economic signals for the long term are heading in the wrong direction. Borrowing is going up. Our national debt already stands at £3 trillion and is scheduled to increase further. Tax levels are the highest in our history. The Chancellor claims that he wants to cut regulation, but we have heard today from the OBR that the Employment Rights Act 2025 will result in unemployment standing at over 5% next year. That situation destroys incentives to work, drives away investment and causes entrepreneurs to leave the country. It is an unsustainable situation, yet nothing in this Budget does anything to give confidence that those things will be reversed.
I will quickly refer to a couple of measures. In the Prime Minister’s first statement to the House, I raised the situation on our high streets, where so many businesses have been hit by not just the increase in business rates, but the increases in national insurance contributions, energy costs and the minimum wage. Although the measure to increase the threshold for business relief is of some small help, it is nothing like sufficient to help those businesses that are struggling to survive. I regret that there was no mention of VAT, a cut to which UKHospitality has identified as a critical measure that could help, because such businesses have to compete with those in countries such as France, Spain and Italy, which levy rates that are half of those here.
I will quickly mention hair salons, which the Chancellor talked about. They often face unfair competition from identical-looking salons next door, where the chairs are rented out and the staff class themselves as self-employed. That is depriving the Treasury of proper revenue while also creating unfair competition. I hope that is something that the Treasury will listen to.
I am sorry that the gambling sector is yet again being used as a cash cow, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. By increasing the tax on gambling yet again, the effect will hit our high streets even harder, because a lot of betting shops are going to be driven out of business.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend has been a staunch defender of Ukraine for many years in this House. Would he agree with what President Zelensky said yesterday, as reported in The Sun, when he advised this Government to prioritise UK defence spending and to do so without further delay? Does Zelensky know something the Government do not?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am extremely grateful to my constituency neighbour for making an excellent point—and for giving me another minute. He is absolutely right that President Zelensky once again has spoken words for the Government to listen to, if only they would. It is absolutely right that we should increase our support for and expenditure on defence.
Finally, my right hon. Friend and I both represent relatively rural constituencies, and I regret that the Budget made no mention of the harm being done to the agriculture sector through the family farming tax, nor did it provide any help to those constituents—I have many, and I know he does as well—who are off the grid and rely on heating oil. They will not benefit from the abolition of the standing charges, yet they have faced huge increases.
Perhaps the only thing to celebrate in this Budget is the fact that the Chancellor did not listen to his Back Benchers who wanted him to go even further, with a wealth tax, a mansion tax and an increase in capital gains tax; long may it continue that he listens to us, not to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I did not hear any comments in the Chamber and it is not a matter for the Chair—I did not hear it.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I caused any offence, I am sorry, but I was reacting to the fact that the hon. Gentleman effectively said that the people on the Conservative Benches could not read, which I humbly suggest is not very polite.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. That is clearly not a matter for the Chair, but a matter of debate. I ask Members yet again to treat each other with the courtesy and respect that we expect in this Chamber.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. Perhaps I can begin on a consensual note by pointing out that yet again, as we are debating these important economic matters, including the defence of the realm, there is no Member of Parliament from the Reform party present. They have taken no part in this debate at all. We know that they do not do Thursday afternoons, and they certainly do not do defence either.
Mr Francois
No, I think it is because they are desperately trying to find someone—anyone—to go to one of their press conferences.
Now, according to the Red Book, working-age welfare spending will increase to £221.5 billion in 2031-32. That is almost a quarter of a trillion pounds and an increase of over £57 billion since 2024-25. The Prime Minister famously said at the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago that
“national security…cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]
That really is a segue to what I principally want to say this afternoon.
What the Chancellor announced yesterday was not a detailed programme for how to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but just a plan to have a plan—which is not really a plan at all. He promised to “begin work”—his words—on how this would be achieved by the time of the spending review next year. The Labour Government have already had two years to answer this question, so why do they need a further year now?
When Labour published the strategic defence review in June 2025, all three authors of the review, led by Lord Robertson, a respected former Secretary-General of NATO, were absolutely adamant that the bill for implementing their recommendations was a minimum of 3% of GDP on defence. Unless and until the Government definitively commit to spending that money, it is very difficult for our armed forces realistically to deter a war with any aggressor, and in particular the Russians—not the Trussians!
At the time of the SDR, we were told that that level of detail would be provided in the subsequent defence investment plan. The House was promised this in the autumn, then by Christmas, then by the new year, then in the spring, and it was finally published only in late June 2026. Nevertheless, when the DIP was eventually published, the Government kicked the can down the road for a second time and still failed to provide a definitive date for when, and crucially how, this country would spend 3% of GDP on defence. Indeed, the then Defence Secretary, now the Chancellor, famously resigned, seemingly on a point of honour, because the Government had failed to give a date for 3%. I have here his resignation letter, dated 11 June, and I quote from it directly:
“After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.”
It is also worth recalling that the then Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned in company with him, partly over this and also because of his very severe reservations about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—a wicked Bill—which he famously described as “unfit for purpose”.
Once the previous Prime Minister then fell, miraculously, having resigned as Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was immediately reincarnated as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, he then found himself with the boot very much on the other foot. Given his understanding of defence, and the solemn terms in which he wrote his letter, it was not unreasonable to assume that, having now seized control of the bridge at the Treasury, he would be ideally placed to meet his own request to name the date for 3% and how to finance it. Otherwise, why did he resign? I am therefore genuinely deeply saddened to see that, yesterday, he failed his own test. All we were given was an offer to produce a plan for 3% in the Government spending review, which will take place next year. In other words, a man who seemingly resigned on a point of honour, when he had the perfect chance to put that problem right, completely ducked it. All that Labour has done is kick the can down the road for a third time.
Our armed forces therefore cannot realistically plan because they do not know how much money they will really have to spend on this nation’s defence, and they are now going to have to wait at least another year before they do. The House need not take it from me; Chris Mason, the political editor of the BBC, in summarising the Budget on the 6 o’clock news last night, said, “The biggest questions this Government still faces, such as the long-term funding of defence, this Budget didn’t answer.”
In fact, it is even worse than that. When the Defence Secretary agreed the SDR, he also signed up with the Treasury for almost £11 billion of efficiency savings. This was a Labour deal—a Faustian pact—between two warring Government Departments, but the effect of those in-year efficiency savings, or “spending cuts” in pub English, is now proving debilitating for our armed forces. The in-year cuts were some £2.5 billion in the previous financial year and £3.5 billion this year, 2026-27.
One of the reasons it took nearly a month to get HMS Dragon to sea was that maintenance cuts occurred under the efficiency savings programme. We now see the vast bulk of the Royal Navy tied up alongside the quayside, partly because of maintenance issues but also to save money. For many months, we had a period in which not a single one of our nuclear attack submarines was at sea. The Minister might intervene and chide me for discussing submarine movements on the Floor of the House, but I am not—I am discussing the absence of submarine movements on the Floor of the House.
We have also seen Army exercises cancelled on Salisbury plain and flying hours reduced for some of our RAF pilots. These are exactly the wrong things to be doing if we are trying to send messages to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, to deter him from further adventurism—for instance, in the Baltic states. Yesterday, the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee—I am afraid I am going to quote him again—excellently summed it up by saying that
“some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.”
He should know.
Yesterday we even learned from the depths of the Budget Red Book that the Chancellor has effectively cut the overall MOD budget by £1 billion in each of the next two years by pocketing reduced spending estimates on MOD pensions for the Treasury, rather than allowing the MOD to retain the cash and spend it on bolstering our defences. The Treasury has described these two £1 billion cuts in the defence budget as an “accounting adjustment”. Well, it is Enron accounting. It is smoke and mirrors, and it only helps our adversaries, not our armed forces.
On defence housing, there is a similar story. I served for some five months on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, and we were told repeatedly that the money for housing would not be raided for short-term efficiency savings. In fact, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak told us in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 18 March:
“The £9 billion has been ringfenced; it has absolutely been secured for defence housing. Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job of making these improvements and getting the job done. We have made that commitment to not just the armed forces community but the nation. We have said it in the House, and we will see it through.”
That is completely unambiguous, so imagine our anger when we then saw a letter from the permanent secretary to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, dated 25 September, which said not only that some £850 million of that money will be deferred to the next Parliament, but that an additional £1 billion of upgrades to single living accommodation for soldiers will be deferred as well. What the Government have done is cut nearly £2 billion of that investment in this Parliament, in a desperate attempt to meet exactly the Treasury-imposed efficiency savings target that, for five months, they swore blind to us they would not do.
The Defence Secretary, who opened this debate, neglected to mention the MOD’s £3.5 billion efficiency savings target for this year. He talks about being ready for war within 1,000 days, while at the same time imposing crippling cuts on the operations and training of our armed forces, who are there to deter war in the first place—si vis pacem, para bellum. The Budget totally failed to answer the question of how the Government will actually spend 3% of GDP on defence, and they are listening in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. This is a dereliction of duty by a Government who will the ends but do not will the means, who talk tough but act weak, who have let down the people of this country and will not defend them properly, and who must be held to account at the ballot box for their abject failure in defence of the realm.
Lucy Rigby
Let me talk now about energy security, because it is part of our national security, too. We are reforming our energy system so that Britain is less exposed to volatility. We will freeze new policy costs on bills, pending a comprehensive cost control framework. We are accelerating investment in the grid and we are procuring clean power only where it lowers bills and can connect properly.
When it comes to our public services, this Government have stabilised spending after years of under-investment by the Conservative party.
Mr Francois
I am sure the right hon. and learned Lady can confirm to the House that she is a Treasury Minister. I have here the press release issued by—the Treasury—which says, “Exclusive. Chancellor John Healey tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy Labour will not bring welfare bill—”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Francois, we refer to him as the Chancellor, not by his name.
Mr Francois
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was reading the press release, but I accept your admonition.
Anyway, it says that the bloke who is in charge of the Treasury has told Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring the welfare bill down in this Parliament and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—to give the right hon. and learned Lady her correct title—has just said that it will. Who is right? Is it the right hon. and learned Lady, or is it her boss? They cannot both be, can they?
Lucy Rigby
The Prime Minister confirmed earlier today that we will bring the welfare bill down as soon as possible. I am very happy to confirm that.
As the Chancellor said yesterday, when it comes to public services we will insist on reform, prioritisation and value for money. That is what resilience looks like: sound public finances, secure energy, strong defence and a state that is able to act when the country needs it to.
As hon. Members have made clear, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), the measures in the Budget will provide breathing room for families and businesses now, while also helping to bring bills down over the long term. We know that energy pressures are not just felt by families but by businesses, too. That is exactly why we are increasing the small business rate relief threshold for retail hospitality and leisure properties, taking around 70,000 more businesses out of business rates altogether. For other businesses in the sector, rates will be frozen in real terms for two years.
We are supporting high streets and the businesses that give them life. We are backing pubs, clubs and music venues. We are reducing the supply-side barriers that firms repeatedly tell us hold them back: energy costs, slow infrastructure decisions, red tape and access to finance. And because of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, all those measures are fully funded.