Defence Investment Plan

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)10. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)19. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)The forthcoming defence investment plan has been informed by a range of inputs and perspectives, including those of service chiefs. These contributions have been critical in delivering on the strategic defence review and in enabling the transformation within defence that is necessary as we move towards warfighting readiness.

John GlenI am a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have seen reports that service chiefs are drafting letters to the Secretary of State warning of their concerns about whether enough money is going into defence. When the delayed defence investment plan is produced, will it give clarity on when the Government will reach the critical 3% threshold? To be credible, the plan needs to distinguish between the start of the next Parliament, which will be in 2029, and the end of it, which will be in 2034. If the plan does not do that, no one will take the aspiration seriously.

Luke PollardI know that the right hon. Member has strong views on defence, as do I. As a Government, we are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget: it will be 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The strategic defence review will be implemented by the defence investment plan. That will set out what capabilities we are buying and how we can improve our warfighting readiness. He will have to wait a wee bit longer as the work continues to deliver that plan very soon.

Gregory StaffordWhen Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?

Luke PollardThe strategic defence review was written on the basis of reaching 3%, and that is a key part of how we are increasing defence spending. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been given set lines by his party, but his Government cut defence spending. This Labour Government are increasing defence spending.

Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)The Government’s ambition to repair the damage that the previous Government did to our defence will be made clear in the defence investment plan. The roadblock to our safe entry will not change in reality, but to support our ambition we will need long-term financing vehicles that enable multilateral offers and help us to get the best value for public money so that we can protect this country against Russian aggression. Can the Minister provide us with any information about the work he is doing with other Departments to ensure that vehicles such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank are brought about?

Luke PollardI thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of defence and security being a whole-of-Government endeavour. It is not just about the MOD, which is why we have a renewed and refreshed working relationship with the Treasury, working hand in hand to increase defence spending. The defence investors advisory group, which will publish its findings in the new year, will look at new financing methods to bring more investment into defence, just as we are working more closely with our colleagues across Government to increase our warfighting readiness, improve skills and make sure that defence can be an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.

Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)In the Budget, defence received £25.9 billion for capital expenditure. In comparison, health and social care got £14 billion and housing got £9.6 billion. In the interests of democracy, I am going to put forward a different viewpoint from those we have heard so far. It is a fact that UK citizens are dying because of inequality and poverty, not the threat of another nation launching a nuclear attack against us; should that not be reflected in the prioritising of Government expenditure?

Luke PollardI disagree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the people dying in Ukraine—dying for Ukrainian freedom and for our freedom—because of a Russian war machine, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar loitering over our critical underwater infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the cyber-attacks on our defence infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. Our entire economy is supported by our national security, which is why the Government are investing in it, and we make no apology for doing so.

Mr SpeakerI call the shadow Minister.

David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?

Luke PollardWhat a load of nonsense. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year. We are moving to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence three years before anyone thought it was possible. The defence investment plan will set out what we are investing in and how we are moving towards warfighting readiness and implementing the strategic defence review. If the hon. Gentleman’s Government had put in that kind of investment, we would not be sorting out the mess we are in today. But they did not, so we are.