Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Integrated Review: Treasury Discussions

Monday 7 December 2020 · 6 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the integrated review and wider issues concerning defence.
  • Over the next four years, 188 billion will be spent on defence, including 126 billion for resource spending and 62 billion for capital spending.
  • The Secretary of State responded to questions regarding the interpretation of real-term cuts in defence funding by questioning the accuracy of previous interpretations.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

Owen Thompson asked about plans for discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the integrated review.

Question

What discussions he plans to have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer prior to the conclusion of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the integrated review, and will continue to do so on wider issues concerning defence.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not specify any upcoming discussion timelines or specific topics.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Context

The spending review made recent changes to defence spending, especially in cyber and resilience areas. Owen Thompson questioned if the timing of these increases was premature or if they will be revised by the integrated review.

Question

The spending review made recent welcome changes to defence spending, particularly with cyber and other areas of resilience. It seemed strange, however, that those spending increases were announced before the integrated review. Are the new funds in the spending review part of the Government's response to the integrated review, and is that a case of the cart coming before the horse? Or, is it a case of, “That's it”, meaning that the review will not make any new announcements backed up by spending commitments?

Answer from Ben Wallace

The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question about the timing of the integrated review, and there will be an integrated review at the beginning of next year. The defence announcement was a building block as part of that review, and it will obviously work towards the overall posture of global Britain when it is announced in the new year.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not clarify if funds are final or preliminary.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Context

Additional funding was announced in the spending review to upgrade Britain's defences after nearly a decade of decline. John Healey asked about real-terms revenue funding for defence over the next four years.

Question

The extra funding was a welcome promise to upgrade Britain's defences after nearly a decade of decline, so it is long overdue. The capital announcement is one thing, but what is the real-terms revenue funding for defence over the next four years?

Answer from Ben Wallace

Over the next four years, £188 billion will be spent on defence. Some £126 billion of that will be set for resource spending, while £62 billion will be for capital spending.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q4 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Context

The spending review report shows a 2.3% real cut in resource funding through to 2024-25, which could mean less money for forces' recruitment, training, pay, pensions and family support at a time when the armed forces are already below strength after the last review.

Question

I asked the Secretary of State about resource funding, and he has to face that question. The answer is on page 67 of the Chancellor's spending review report, which shows a 2.3% real cut in resource funding through to 2024-25. That means less money for forces' recruitment, training, pay, pensions and family support, at a time when our armed forces are already 12,000 below strength after the last review. That could mean new ships, but no sailors. Will the Secretary of State recognise that hi-tech weapons systems are essential for the future, but highly trained service personnel are indispensable? May I urge him not to repeat the mistakes of past Conservative reviews, and instead to put forces personnel at the heart of the current integrated review?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I know the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in Mr Brown's Government, who did not have the greatest reputation for financial accuracy. Although we can agree on the spending profile, his interpretation of the rates of inflation and alleged real-term cuts is not something that we recognise.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Context

The review should inform spending, not the other way around. Stewart McDonald asked if Ben Wallace would pledge to involve all political parties in a multi-year defence agreement.

Question

Surely the review is meant to tell us what the threat is and then the Government respond with the spending, rather than the spending coming before the review is published. All that being said, I suppose we are where we are. I am grateful for one thing that the Secretary of State has done: he has finally listened to our policy of a multi-year defence agreement. May I ask him to go one step further? In other countries where those are used, they involve all political parties. Will he pledge to do so?

Answer from Ben Wallace

What would be good is a welcome from the Scottish National party that £1.76 billion will be spent with Scottish business, at least, year on year. That is something that the Union manages to deliver for Scotland through the United Kingdom armed forces.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Context

The promise made six years ago for 12,500 personnel stationed permanently in Scotland is currently below 10,000. Stewart McDonald asked when this promise will be met.

Question

Someone's put 50p in them today, Mr Speaker, haven't they just? Let me ask the Secretary of State this. I have asked him time and again, and he usually just shouts back to me whatever is in his folder; let's try answering the question. Of the spending announced for Scotland, at what point—he has only a few days of the year left—will the Government finally meet the promise they made six years ago of 12,500 personnel stationed permanently in Scotland? It is currently below 10,000. In all the projects he listed, he did not mention the promise of the frigate factory.

Answer from Ben Wallace

I laughed because, having examined the proposals, the frigate factory would have included the closing of Govan and the investment in Scotstoun. I am not sure, but I remember distinctly that Govan was originally a very proud Labour seat, obviously then represented by the First Minister of Scotland.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email