Mary Glindon
Main Page: Mary Glindon (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)Department Debates - View all Mary Glindon's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
6. What plans he has for the non-equipment defence budget.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
11. What plans he has for the non-equipment defence budget.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The defence budget was set for this Parliament in the spending review conducted in 2010. As I have set out, the budget for financial year 2015-16 will be set in the current spending round, which is expected to conclude in the summer. The MOD’s planning assumption is that the non-equipment element of the budget, about 55% to 60% of the total, will grow in line with inflation—that is, will remain flat in real terms—over the 10-year planning horizon that the Department uses for budgeting purposes.
Mr Hammond
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have right-sized the Army to the budgets we have available, and having taken tough decisions we are in the process of drawing the Army down to its future size of 82,000. That size will allow us to equip and protect properly our service men and women when we ask them to go out and do a very dangerous job on our behalf, and we believe that is the right approach.
Mrs Glindon
Given that the National Audit Office did not confirm the affordability of the equipment plan, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a more detailed summary of the plan with individual funding lines for individual programmes?
Mr Hammond
I remind the hon. Lady that the question is about the non-equipment defence budget. For the equipment budget we have published a plan that is more detailed than anything published previously, and certainly more detailed than any equipment plan published during the 13 years of the Labour Government. We have gone as far as we believe we can without compromising either national security or taxpayers’ commercial interests in negotiating with defence contractors, and I am afraid I cannot offer her any more detail than that already published without compromising those things.