Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

I said we would hear from my right hon. Friend, and indeed we shall. He is absolutely right. We are incredibly careful as a Committee to keep to the right the side of the line. There are a lot of facts in our report that make for very, very unpleasant reading. I do not have time to list them all today, with the clock whirring as it is, but I commend the report. It goes through some of the problems we face in great detail. As my right hon. Friend says, they will be well known to our adversaries. If we do not front up to those problems, we will be fooling no one but ourselves.

Obviously, I have a personal interest in this matter, but I believe that over the past five years we have seen a real determination from the MOD to get better, and there are structural changes that will embed improvement. The defence and security industrial strategy moved the MOD away from competition by default and towards viewing our defence sector as a critical strategic asset. That has proved a timely intervention, placing more emphasis on building sovereign capacity and greater reassurance of our supply chains. DSIS has marked an improvement in the relationship with industry. Companies large and small are more engaged than they have ever been in the early thought processes around capability requirements and specifications. There is better investment in senior responsible owners to exercise control and authority over projects.

When the Department and industry work together—for example, on Poland’s defence expansion or on novel technologies for Ukraine—it is a formidable combination. Baking exports and industrial co-operation into procurement at the earliest stage works for industry and for the UK. Above all, achieving minimum deployable platforms early and allowing for spiral development, if properly invested against, will generate not only routinely upgraded state-of-the-art platforms, but industrial partners that are able to retain and invest in their workforce and their research and development. It means going beyond feast and famine, and towards long-term co-development.

I believe that the Minister’s recently announced reforms are excellent. They institutionalise reforms that really will improve our procurement, but for them to work as they deserve, there needs to be cultural change. Uniformed SROs need to recognise the profoundly different skillset that applies to procurement. They need to be encouraged to seek commercial and legal advice early in order to escalate problems. Above all, they need to be willing to recognise that when a project will not work, they should take the learning and call it a day. If we are focused, as we must be, on cutting-edge solutions, we must recognise that some will not work. For any commercial entity, that is not a sign of failure; it is a recognition that, in a portfolio, some risks will be taken that do not succeed.

In Defence Equipment & Support there are many good people doing a difficult and demanding job, but I believe it is absolutely possible, as part of the current reforms, to instil and reward greater entrepreneurialism and productivity. DE&S has the pay freedoms to do so. With cultural change and proper investment, the reforms will move us from peacetime lethargy, influenced by staccato funding, closer to the urgency and realism that the threats demand.

It is clear that no one on either side of the House should think that we can get to where we need to be against the current threat simply by being a bit better at procurement. As our report makes clear, significant improvements are required in everything from stockpiles to housing simply to retain and maintain the size of our current force structure, let alone increase it, as we should.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has mentioned accommodation, on which I focused after succeeding him as Minister for Defence Procurement. Does he agree that accommodation is as much a part of operational capability as hardware in the battlefield?

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

I support my right hon. Friend’s point. We had “fix on failure” for too long, although it has changed in recent years. More investment is being put into our housing, but it is needed because we have a crisis in retention and recruitment. As the report sets out in vivid and very scary detail, we are losing far more experienced personnel than we are able to recruit. Housing is part of the offer to our brilliant defence personnel that we need to get right.

While addressing all the issues I have mentioned, we must also increase our fundamental defence production capability. We underwrote commercial military expansion in the 1930s, and we should be prepared to do the same. It is absolutely clear that, although better buying will of course help, it should be alongside, not instead of, sustained, effective and increased investment.

Investment horizons on priority projects must stretch well beyond annual commitments to allow proper planning. We will make savings if the services do not gamble all their chips on the delivery of a perfect platform when it is “their turn,” and they will not do that if they know funding will be there for upgrades. Industry will invest alongside that, will work with small and medium-sized enterprises and will train the workforce we need if it knows that we are marching together for the long term rather than being marched over the edge of a cliff at the end of every order.

The need for increased defence investment would be true in any circumstances when faced by the threats we face. It is all the more vital when the United States’ commitment to Europe is being questioned. Since 2015, this Government have shown themselves to be ready to make difficult decisions, have shown leadership in the early days on Ukraine and have increased investment. In my personal opinion, the Government must now set out their timetable for reaching and sustaining 2.5%.

Although decisions should be taken “capability up” rather than “numbers down”, it is also my view that we are unlikely to be able to meet and deter expanding threats in the longer term for less than 3%, which remains a low level of annual insurance compared with the relatively recent past. However, the sooner the Government commit and invest, the lower the ultimate price likely to fall on this country. By doing so, we might be able to help save all of Europe by our example. Failure to invest could result in a very high price indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and we could almost have a whole debate about that. We do not have time to go into the full detail today, but I will touch on our defence industrial strategy. That is what a lot of this comes down to; if we are buying things off the shelf, it can sometimes be more cost-effective, but we need to be careful and cautious, because the longer those projects are for, the greater the risk of foreign exchange challenges. There is also sometimes a risk to our own sovereign capability and the longevity of some of our defence industries.

We recognise that, with our allies, we work in an international world on this. So there is no straightforward answer, but defence industrial strategy is an area that not only the MOD but the whole of Government should be looking at, as it is vital. Both the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor talk about growing the economy, and our defence industries are based in areas where, if we could up the skills and jobs available, it could provide a major boost to the economy. So there are a lot of opportunities there.

The MOD has not credibly demonstrated how it will manage its funding to deliver the military capabilities the Government want. Our latest report says that they need to get “firmer control of defence procurement” because of this very large deficit in respect of the capability requirements needed. The budget has increased, and I am sure the Minister will stand up to tell us how much extra money is going into defence, but this is about not just the money, but how it is managed. The budget has increased by £46.3 billion over the next 10-year period compared with what was set out in last year’s equipment plan. As I said, the PAC has warned that the deficit is even bigger than expected, so that extra budget will be taken up by the deficit if it is not managed down. Part of the reason for that deficit is inflation, but another major impact on it is the costs of the Defence Nuclear Organisation, which is responsible for the vital nuclear deterrent. Those costs have increased by £38.2 billion since last year’s plan.

One of our Committee’s other concerns is that the MOD has been putting off making decisions about cancelling or reprofiling programmes. Reprofiling is not always a good thing, but sometimes we have to trim according to what is necessary. If the MOD cannot afford the plan, it should take a hard decision, but it has optimistically assumed that the plan would be affordable if the Government fulfilled their long-term aspiration to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence each year, despite there being no guarantee that that will happen. Of course, in an election year there is not even a guarantee as to which party will be in government to consider that. We know, and the Defence Committee will know even more than the PAC, how much the MOD is increasingly reliant on the UK’s allies to protect our national interests. That means that we also have to play our part by making sure that we are delivering that.

For all the time that I have served on the PAC— 13 years this year—the MOD has been led by optimism bias, and it is now pressing on based on not optimism but the sniff of optimism, as there is so little left in that approach that will deliver. We must call that out and call a spade a spade, by saying that the MOD can deliver only what is affordable. So either the money goes in or the MOD trims what it is trying to do, because the approach of trying to do everything all at once and not being able to afford it is just not going to work.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I have not cast my eye over the report she is speaking about. She talks about the Government or the MOD trimming projects. The lessons of George Osborne slashing the number of Type 45s in half have had a huge impact on naval capability, and of course we have more than 530 Ajax tanks to come. When we say that we must make savings, are we talking about a false economy? In the long run, it is far better to increase the GDP spend than to slash projects and totally undermine how the defence programme was originally laid out.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am tempted by the right hon. Gentleman to go into all sorts of long discussion about how the PAC looks at these issues. Resetting projects and programmes can certainly be problematic, and sometimes stopping something part way through can be expensive. Equally, however, altering the requirements part way through can add on costs. When I talk to the commands or the centre, one problem I find is that people sometimes want to gold-plate what they are procuring, and we sometimes need to look at doing those things in a different way. Brutally, let me say that the current situation is not affordable, which means we must make hard decisions about whether something is stopped or no longer procured, or more money is made available. As I have said, and as the PAC repeats ad infinitum, if more money is made available, we need better project management.

The MOD is also saying very clearly that it will not make any decisions until the next spending review. As everybody in the Chamber knows, that is supposed to be in November, but a general election is looming. A spending review is usually six months after the first Budget of a new Government, so we could be floating on the fumes of the current spending settlement until the summer of next year. In certain cases, we will still be pouring good money after bad; the Ministry of Defence needs to tighten up on that, because it cannot live on hope alone.

I touched on industry in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Industry needs a consistent and certain supply of business to keep the supply chain going, both for resilience and to ensure there is proper investment in the necessary infrastructure. We have seen some of our private sector industries leave equipment and buildings to crumble because they have not had continuity of supply. Some blame lies with them, not just with the Ministry of Defence, but consistency of supply is vital and getting that right provides a potential boon to the economy.

The Committee looks at procurement a lot. For the last decade or more, we have been saying that senior responsible owners need to be in place for far longer. They need to be where their expertise is needed for the right period of time, and then be moved on for the next phase of the project. We need to reward people who stay in those jobs, rather than expecting civil servants or military attachés to roll over on a three-year basis, thinking they just need to keep things ticking over. They need proper ownership and proper reward when they get things right. The MOD is beginning to move in the right direction on senior responsible owners’ skills and longevity, but it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to where it needs to be.

I touched on funding timeframes. The Treasury needs to seriously consider properly controlled longer-term budgets, as it is beginning to do in certain areas with the defence equipment plan. That does not mean giving carte blanche to the MOD; those budgets need to be tightly controlled, as the Public Accounts Committee has made clear. However, controlled longer-term budgets are vital.

Finally, the Public Accounts Committee has access to many areas of Government and all areas of spending, if we choose to look at them. I pay tribute to my fellow Committee members who have never leaked a single piece of information, of whatever sensitivity, in the last nine years. However, the Committee looks at certain issues through opaque glass and it is now time to have full transparency. I want as much information as possible to be in the public domain, but the mechanisms of open, public committees are not always appropriate for certain sensitive areas, including defence.

In our latest report, the Committee recommended that there needs to be a new mechanism and approach that allows Parliament to properly examine such issues in the right, secure context. That might be along the lines of the Intelligence and Security Committee, although we would certainly not be looking at information in that area and not in exactly the same way, because the Public Accounts Committee needs to be more fleet of foot on certain day-to-day spending issues. It is time we had transparency so the British taxpayer knows that every tax pound that is spent, whether on defence or on sensitive matters in other Departments, is being seen and scrutinised by senior parliamentarians who know what they are doing. It is an early thought of the Committee, but important to raise. We need full transparency so that officials and Ministers who are spending taxpayer money in this area of vast expense are properly scrutinised on their work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for what I agree are exceptionally good reports. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on that point.

This is possibly the most important speech I will give as an MP, and I do so on behalf of the military in my constituency of Devizes. I have the honour to represent the garrison towns of Tidworth, Bulford, Larkhill and others. I went up on Salisbury plain recently with Colonel Matt Palmer, the commander of the Army in the south-west, who showed me with the sweep of his arm where 20,000 of our armed forces live and work. As my right hon. Friend said, we are not here just as ambassadors for our constituencies; I am going to speak in my role as an MP about the essential imperative of national security.

I will, however, first make another local point. In the Devizes constituency is the site of the battle of Roundway Down, which was the most successful battle in the royalist cause in the English civil war, in that it gave the south-west to the King for the next two years. I mention the battle of Roundway Down, because it was that defeat of the parliamentary forces that spurred the reform of the parliamentary army. That led to the creation of the new model army, which of course went on to win the civil war, and transformed the way in which the military in this country and across Europe was organised for decades to come. The lesson of the new model army and the reforms that happened in short order in the 1640s was not about a major new doctrine of warfighting, but about the imperative of having a well equipped, well trained, well led army that is innovative, agile, professional and with high morale. We need that again.

I mention that because it is on my mind, having yesterday had the pleasure of attending a session at the Royal United Services Institute organised by the New Bletchley foundation led by Brigadier Nigel Hall. It is issuing a report with input from a galaxy of distinguished former generals and other experts. Sir Richard Barrons was on the panel, as were Professor Michael Clark and others. They put forward a short report that Members can find online on a proposal for a reconfigured Army. The point the panel made—it has been made repeatedly in this debate—is simple: we have to be ready to fight the war we wish to deter. That means really ready, not just ready on paper or ready plausibly in a way that might convince someone on a doorstep that we are making sufficient investment in the Army. We need to know that we are ready, and crucially our enemy needs to know that. I echo the points made by the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that our enemies know what our capabilities are. They will not be deceived by spin from a press officer in Whitehall. It is essential that we are ready to fight the war.

The sad fact—there is no point sugar-coating it, given the point I have just made—is that we are not ready to fight the war we wish to deter. The reports make that plain. I have great respect for Ministers on the Front Bench, and I recognise the genuine investments going into parts of our armed forces, which are extremely welcome in my constituency, but the fact is, as General Barrons said yesterday,

“we are back in a moment of existential risk in an era of great power confrontation”.

Laying aside the fantasies of the post-cold war world of our being somehow beyond war and in an era of minor peacekeeping operations, we are back in a sense in the mid-20th century, with the crucial difference of the high-tech domains with which we are now coming to terms. Unlike the mid-20th century, we have hollowed out our Army over the past 30 years, and I echo the powerful points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made drawing a comparison with the 1930s—that “low dishonest decade”, as it has famously been called. We now have three decades where we have suffered disinvestment.

While I acknowledge the major funding commitments being made to the armed forces, I highlight that they are insufficient at the moment. I recognise that abstract percentages of GDP are in a sense secondary to the real question of how we spend money and where it goes, but those figures are important, and the basic fact is that we need to be spending more than 2% or 2.5%, and at least 3%. If we consider the worst coming to the worst, and the US withdrawing its NATO commitments, as we hear threatened from time to time, across the NATO alliance we would all be needing to reach at least 4% just to maintain NATO’s current strength.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

A recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that I attended assessed that it would need to be an increase of 5% of GDP on top of current spend, were the Americans to pull out.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. These figures seem extraordinarily large to us, but if we consider the worst coming to the worst, and our being in a hot war in Europe, we would be back to spending significantly more. It was 50% of GDP in world war two, so the figures we are talking about are essentially marginal in light of the potential.

The point has been made—it cannot be made enough—that before defence gets more money, it needs to spend its own money better. I echo the points made about the importance of procurement reform. The Public Accounts Committee report is damning. There is a £17 billion deficit between the MOD’s budget and its official capability requirements, which is perhaps an underestimate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, given how these numbers are calculated. I am concerned about that.

To make a quick point in passing, I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts when he winds up about the nuclear budget. There is real concern about how Trident’s replacement will be accounted for. There is a danger that if that is just part of general MOD capital expenditure, it could end up cannibalising conventional weapons. It is important, given the long-standing tradition, that we keep nuclear separate from conventional weapons budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. If we managed to get the genuine increase in defence spending that is needed, the question then arises of how to spend that and where the money should go. I say this not just on behalf of the 20,000 or so defence personnel in Wiltshire, but because it is the right thing to do: we need to put people first. I recognise that there has been a significant step change in the doctrine of defence policy in recent years towards the recognition that an army is fundamentally about its people, and I respect that. The fact is, probably because of the many decades of disinvestment, that we have problems of low morale, low pay, often poor housing and a shoestring training budget, all of which contribute to the recruitment crisis we have in the armed forces that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

The PAC report makes clear that we are losing people faster than we can recruit them, and that is entirely unacceptable. We have to improve recruitment. The Public Accounts Committee heard that for every five people recruited to the armed services, eight are leaving. That is a national security crisis. It is not just a problem for recruitment, but a profound security risk.

I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made that we have had too many reviews, so I hesitate to use the word—if I could think of another word, I would use it—but we need a quick total review of the people issue in our armed forces. It could be done quickly and all it probably entails is an amalgamation of all the work done by others, but I would like to see that with a great degree of urgency. It should look at recruitment, terms and conditions, families—crucially—and onward progression in all three services, so that we can with the urgency required turn around the recruitment crisis.

Having made the general point about the importance of investment in people, I come quickly to the major services of the armed forces, and first is the Navy. It is important that we invest in all five domains, including in the grey zone and sub-threshold activity, which are so important. Our principal specialism in the United Kingdom historically and now remains our sea power. It is a good thing we are moving towards a maritime strategy. I recognise that is the Government’s priority, and I say that as a representative of a land-locked county with all these soldiers in it. Nevertheless, we need significant investment in the Navy. We would all like to see these things, but let us actually do it and have more submarines, more escorts and more minesweepers. We need seabed warfare vessels. On that point, I call the House’s attention to a report from Policy Exchange a month or so ago talking about western approaches and the significant threat we face in these islands and across Europe to undersea infrastructure. It is fundamentally our responsibility on behalf of Europe to protect that.

I have mentioned the new model army and the New Bletchley report, and I would like to see a real commitment to a reformed and modernised Army. We have to recognise the point made by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Nick Carter when he said that the Army is the weakest of the three services. That is a sad state of affairs. I suppose one has to be the weakest; I am sorry it is the Army. There are big questions over our ability to field a division in Europe, as promised to NATO. According to a senior US officer, the UK cannot even be called a tier 1 power. I understand that the Committees were told by a former commander of joint forces command that our Army will not be ready to fulfil its NATO commitments until the early 1930s. Indeed, that was the assumption of the integrated review, so in a we are sense back to the 10-year rule, which is not how things should be. [Interruption.] Did I say 1930s?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

You did.

[Danny Kruger]

I think we are up to speed on that— the 2030s.

The case for investment in the Army is obvious, and the good news is that it is easier, quicker and cheaper to refit and upscale the Army than it is the Navy, because kit is smaller and cheaper. However, we do not just need the same Army but a bigger one. We need a medium-sized Army that is bespoke for the job that will be done—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the right point about the sort of Army we need. The Army needs, in a resonant phrase, to defend these islands, but it also needs to act in partnership with other services and with our allies in the west. We do not need another great new major continental army such as the one the Poles are building. We need a rapid reaction joint expeditionary force that is agile, mobile, and able to do the job that is required, in partnership with our allies.

On the sphere of operations, ultimately our commitments need to reflect the threats we face. In a sense, those are classified, and I recognise the challenge that the Committees have had in identifying what our capabilities are, and the tasks that Ministers set for them, because we cannot always know exactly what those threats are, with defence planning assumptions now classified. Nevertheless, I echo a point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham: I am delighted about AUKUS, which is a tremendous step forward in our international role and a great thing for British security. I am not averse to those global arrangements—they are absolutely right. I loved the deployment of the Queen Elizabeth and the carrier strike group to Japan.

Fundamentally, however, we are, and should be, committed to the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, and for that purpose we must restore the mass of our own armed forces and Army. That means growing our capabilities here at home. We need more regulars, and to get back towards having 80,000 or 90,000 regular forces. We must significantly grow the reserve force because 30,000 is not enough, even if that figure of 30,000 is real, which I do not believe it is. The campaign to grow our reserves is necessary not just for its own sake, but as a great exercise in communication to the public about the imperative for us all to step up and play our role in the defence of our country.

There is a great deal of concern, which I think is misplaced, about the attitude of the British people to fighting. We had that in the 1930s, with lots of people saying that the British would not fight, but of course they would, of course they did, and of course they will if they have to answer their country’s call. That is young people in particular. They will do it with irony, and certainly with memes, but they will do it and sign up if they need to. This is not an abstraction. We have already seen in the past year or two what war in our region means. It means inflation—imagine that tenfold if a war breaks out in which our country is directly involved—and cyber-attacks on a terrible scale.

We are now at a turning point, as so many Members have said, and it is time for all of us as a country to step up. There is an opportunity and an imperative for us to strengthen our nation. It is about industrial resilience and our own food supply; it is about our supply chains, and our steel and manufacturing capacity. There is a huge opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, in the importance of the industrial supply chain. This is a time for us all to do what is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for leading the debate with his report. On the first Thursday back in January 2022, six weeks before Russia further invaded Ukraine, many hon. Members currently in the Chamber were here for a debate about the need to increase defence spending. There was an argument about whether we were in a cold war scenario, which came back to the same thing: it is all very well talking about increasing spending, but where do the threats lie?

The mea culpa from my point of view is that, right up to 22 February 2022, I was saying that I did not believe Putin was going to invade Ukraine. I thought he was testing the borders and seeing where the strengths were. That day, I learned the important lesson that politicians often use the word “think” when they should be using “hope”. Much of the debate is based around what we want to see happen and what we hope will happen.

We may say, “I think perhaps we don’t need to expand the military as much as that. Perhaps the money is better off being spent elsewhere. Are we really going to go nuclear? Is he really going to do that?” We talk about development in the High North and maritime. Perhaps we need more Navy, because that will become a much more critical area in our security, our trade and our defence, but we hear the same thing: it is highly unlikely that there will be a surface warfare battle. Well, nobody thought there would be a tank battle in Europe. Since the second world war, nobody thought there would be an armoured vehicle and troop battle with trench warfare in Europe again, but that has happened.

I have been asked recently, “Are we going to have world war three?” It is an interesting question. How do we define world war three in the 21st century? Will it be the nuclear armageddon that people think? I do not believe that—I will come back to that. Will it be several instances of wars and armed conflicts in several areas that affect our country directly? Yes, and I believe that is where the world is moving to, especially when we look at the supply chains around the world. That affects not just this country, and it will lead to other investments having to be made.

There is a famine taking place in Sudan because of what is happening in the Red sea, where there is a reduction in supplies getting through. When these events take place, they have consequences in many areas of the world. We can talk about whether there is a world war and whether we will be involved, but we are—we are in the Red sea and we are giving support to Ukraine and other areas, which is building up.

We should not look at Ukraine as an individual thing that Putin is talking about and that ridiculous interview he did with Tucker Carlson in which he said, “Well, I haven’t got any intentions to invade anywhere else.” He literally wrote it down in July 2021. It takes about half an hour to read, and he lays it out line by line—“Not only do we need to rebuild the Russian Empire, but we need to reunite the historic Russian-speaking people”. We heard all of this in another book 100 years earlier, and we all know where that led, so we all know the consequences of us not preparing for it.

Something about NATO has been forgotten and overlooked. Everybody talks about article 5—that an attack on one is an attack on another, and we come to the rescue—but everybody forgets article 3, which says that members must be able to defend their borders first and foremost. There are only 14 articles in the actually very well-written Washington treaty, and article 3 makes it clear that members have to be able to defend their borders and that article 5 is a reinforcement that can take up to three weeks to arrive.

Do we believe that if Putin invades the Baltic states, that is where the effect on NATO will be? That would be tactically daft of Putin. It is more likely, if he decides to invade NATO territory, that he will want to tie all the NATO allies up to start with. There is good news and bad news. There is good news in what China has said to Putin because of their trade with India, South America and southern Africa. The Chinese especially have made it crystal clear that if Putin was even to demonstrate his ability to use a nuclear weapon—say, in the middle of the Black sea—they would say, “That’s it, we’re gone; we are not dealing with you.” That has probably taken the nuclear weapon issue off the table, especially with strategic nuclear weapons.

By the way, I do not want the House to get excited and think I am saying that we do not need to renew Trident, because there are still plenty of places around the world that are pushing that territory. As we always come back to, Trident is a deterrent weapon; it is not a weapon to be used. If it were to be launched, quite frankly we would not be arguing about it anyway. This does mean that we are in a far weaker position if nuclear is off the table, because we know, and Putin knows—he is doing it right now—that he can outproduce us in shells, tanks and people. Russia is paying €2,000 a month to people coming in from the far-flung areas of the country. People from some of these places do not earn that in a year. They have no shortage of personnel or cash.

Therefore, we have to start being honest with our questions. Do we need to build more capital equipment? Do we need more personnel? Yes, we do need more capital equipment, and we are going down that route, but we also need the revenue budgets to run that. To follow the fiscal rules and say “Look how much money we are putting into defence” is great, but it has to be capital, because they have not given the revenue. It is a case of: “Let’s line up all our shiny ships, but we can’t fuel them, maintain them or crew them.” It is the same in the Army and the Air Force. There must be a fundamental change at the Treasury in how the money is spent.

As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, let us have some honesty in this Chamber. We can sit here and say, “We need to go to 2.5% or 3%, or maybe 4% or 5%.” What Government and which politician will stand up in this House and say, “That 3% reduction in GDP since the end of the cold war has gone into the health service and the Department for Work and Pensions, so we will cut the health service and DWP by 3% to invest in defence”? Who will stand up here and say that? Who will put that in their manifesto? Let us not pretend that that will happen, but the money does need to be spent more efficiently.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has done an excellent job with the integrated procurement model, which talks about things that he has worked on for a long time, I believe—for example, spiral development. We are very fond of talking about where we were in the 1920s and 1930s, but I want to take us back even further, to the 1910s, when the Dreadnought model was brought out. HMS Dreadnought was the most incredible ship ever built in terms of firepower, but it hit the reset button by making every other ship irrelevant. It could sink all of them, so there was an arms race. Within eight years, HMS Dreadnought was useless. HMS Iron Duke, which was still a Dreadnought class, was a totally different ship, but it had been part of the design process as it went on. Bear in mind that we were still only producing four Dreadnought battleships a year when we were chucking all our efforts in leading up to 1914 and beyond.

I recently spoke at a dinner, and a young person in their early 20s asked me, “What do you think about this comment from General Sanders about conscription? Because there’s no way I would be conscripted to go and fight for this country. Why should I bother? I am not going out to get killed. It’s not worth it. You spend all this money and waste money there. What are you offering me? It’s not worth it.” I said, “Well the problem is that you are looking at this in the society you live in today. If you are going to get conscripted, it is because our cities will lay in rubble. You only have to look at Kyiv. Forget wanting to sit at home and watch Netflix or play Xbox or do whatever you want, there is no electricity. There’s no water. There’s no gas or heating. There is starvation.” That is happening in Europe today.

How does one stop that happening? The word is deterrent. I have never met senior military personnel who are not at heart pacifists. They understand what warfare means. They understand the death and destruction that it brings and the decades it takes to recover. They do not want to go to war. I have never met anybody in the military who wants to go to war. This all takes investment. The honest fact that we are not going to cut health services or the DWP—some of our biggest spending budgets—and spend the money on defence means that we have to work with what we have. Yes, we can grow the economy and take more tax revenue. We can do all that, but that has not really happened in the 21st century. The 21st century has roughly been 50/50 between the Government and the Opposition. Even when the economy has grown, it has been around the margins. There has to be an honest conversation.

The procurement strategy my hon. Friend the Minister has produced is the right way forward. We are aware of the costs. I will say one more thing, almost directly contradicting myself. The war in Ukraine has shattered its economy. Forget the spending to fight the war; the loss in GDP of being able run an economy and export when at war is significantly bigger than an increase of 2% or 3%. Be under no illusion: if Putin wants to invade NATO territory, it will not be tanks rolling over the line up in the Baltics or maybe in east Poland, and we will have to go out there; it will be a full-scale NATO attack, and we will have to work out what we do.

The best way we can stop that is to make sure we have the deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent has always been valuable because they have no idea when or where we would strike back from. That has made it a useless weapon to use, but we have to have that weapon. If we say that is cancelled out, because of the attitude of China and Russian allies towards Russia were it to use one, then we have to accept that our conventional weapons are not going to counterbalance Russia and what is happening.

Nobody in this Chamber, in the military, at the MOD or in Europe, and probably anywhere in the western world, wants to go to war and see death and destruction on the scale we are seeing in too many areas of the world. We see famine and humanitarian crises taking place. Yes, we are going to have to spend more money, but we need to spend it more efficiently, and we need to make sure that when the increases come they will be used effectively. We need to remember that this is an investment so that we do not have to use the deterrent. If we do not have it, we will have to end up using something we do not actually have.