Defence Spending

The Government were elected on a firm commitment to set a path to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Prime Minister has said that we will do so in the spring.

So that my constituents can better understand the Government’s priorities, which does the Minister think that we will achieve first: a deal to lease Diego Garcia for billions of pounds, or spending 2.5% of GDP on defence?

Everyone agrees that we must increase defence spending to meet the increasing threats. This Government are delivering for defence by increasing defence spending, and we have already increased defence spending by almost £3 billion next year.

It is clear that we face increasingly volatile and dangerous global security challenges, which is why the previous Government set a path to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence by 2030. What conversations have the Minister and officials at the Ministry of Defence had with NATO counterparts, particularly from the United States, on increasing defence spending? What implications does he think his party’s lack of timeline for reaching 2.5% will have on the special relationship, given the new US Administration?

This country is at the forefront of defence spending in NATO, and we are ready to increase it to 2.5% of GDP. The hon. Lady talked about the previous Government’s plan for 2.5% of GDP. I have to tell her that that was an election gimmick, announced four weeks before the Prime Minister called the election; the Institute for Fiscal Studies described it as “misleading”, and the Institute for Government described it as “a work of fiction.”

This Labour Government have given our armed services their biggest pay rise in almost 20 years. I have spoken to service personnel in my constituency, and those who are part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They talk about pay, but they also talk about service conditions and support for their families being key drivers of retention. What are the Government doing on those matters?

I am proud to be the Defence Secretary who has been able, this year, to give the armed forces the largest pay rise in over 20 years. I am proud to have been able to do the deal that has seen 36,000 forces family homes brought back into public control, so that we can develop them for the future. This Government will reset the nation’s contract with those who serve and the families who support them.

In my time in the Army, I saw at first hand blokes not getting the kit and equipment that they needed to operate efficiently. It angered me to read this weekend that the previous Administration wasted £5 million on McClaren mudflaps. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will not take the—[Interruption.]

Order. Shadow Secretary of State, you will have the Floor after the next two questions, but I have not called you yet. Come on, Mr Stone.

To return to my question, I angers me that the previous Administration wasted £5 million, when blokes like me did not have the kit and equipment that they needed to operate—[Interruption.] That is a fact. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will put service personnel and our nation’s security first?

Order. I think you need an Adjournment debate.

My hon. Friend speaks from experience in the Rifles, and he is completely right. The issue is not just how much we spend, but how we spend it. The Government are delivering for defence by getting a grip of defence budgets, tackling Ministry of Defence waste and investing in the kit that our frontline service people need. We scrapped the £40 million VIP helicopter deal, we have ended the pointless racing car sponsorship, and we have saved £300 million from an out-of-control consultancy spend.

When the UK persuaded NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2014, just two other countries did so; now, 23 countries do. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time once again for the UK to play a leadership role in Europe by persuading NATO to spend the money it should and keep America part of the alliance?

I do indeed. It is time for the UK and European allies to step up and do more of the heavy lifting. That includes increasing defence spending, so that we can meet the threats that we face, and, as I have discussed with the new Defence Secretary in the US, boosting our defence industry on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the light of the growing threats facing our United Kingdom, it was genuinely shocking to read at the weekend that Conservative Defence Ministers spent taxpayers’ money sponsoring a race car. My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South are livid about the waste of their taxpayers’ money. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that he will continue his actions to root out every aspect of wasteful spending in the Ministry of Defence?

I can indeed. We have to get a grip of out-of-control defence waste and out-of-control defence budgets. I am pleased to have been able to put an end to that pointless racing car deal, which delivered free race-day tickets and MOD-sponsored branded mudflaps instead of the kit that our frontline troops need. Of course, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Minister responsible for that deal—he agreed the contract and told the House that it was a “brilliant partnership”.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

You will know, Mr Speaker, the importance of secure communications, and this is Defence questions, so before I ask my question, may I say that Conservative Members were sent all the Ministry of Defence’s answers to our oral questions in advance? I do not know whether we should be grateful or concerned. We have been forewarned.

I thought that Ministers thought up the answers themselves. You have shocked me.

I thought that it would benefit the House to know that, given the importance of secure communications. I turn to my question, which involves secure communications. It says everything about the Government’s priorities that they are delaying increasing defence spending to 2.5%, but accelerating their terrible Chagos deal, at a cost of up to £18 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister justified the deal by stating that without it, “the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should”. No. 10 later briefed that that was a reference to satellite links. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that there is an operational threat to US and UK military satellite communications at Diego Garcia?

This is a question about defence spending. We have a cast-iron commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that the UK has not spent on defence since 2010, under the last Labour Government. On the Chagos deal, this is a military base that is vital to our national security. The Prime Minister was right to say that its legal certainty had been called into doubt. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. That is why we looked for a deal that would safeguard the operations for at least the next century.

When the Prime Minister said that the base “cannot operate”, he was referring to operations. That implies that there must be some kind of direct threat to satellite communications on Diego Garcia. The world will have seen that the Secretary of State has not defended that position—he is not leaning into it in any way—which makes us think this: given that the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and the previous Defence Secretary Grant Shapps saw the same intelligence and rejected the deal, which has since got worse and more expensive, is not the obvious thing to scrap it, and to spend every penny that is saved on our armed forces?

The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, of course, were responsible for 11 rounds of negotiation on the deal, and the Prime Minister’s point was that a lack of long-term legal certainty casts into doubt the operational security of the base. This deal will secure an operational guarantee for at least a century.