Keir Starmer EMBARRASSED on Live TV (PMQs)

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I associate myself and this side of the House with the Prime Minister's comments. about Venezuela, and also about the Liberal Democrats. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Chief of Defence Staff has made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is sufficient? Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that this Labour Government has delivered two major funding increases within just two years in government. The first, which was funded by overseas aid, took us to £270 billion in spending. review period Mr. Speaker, that is a record. The Defense Investment Plan provides us with the capabilities we need for the future. That sets a new record, Mr. Speaker, of £300 billion over the next four years. That will be invested in drones and autonomous weapons. The largest ever investment, strengthening the UK's nuclear capability, upgrading our naval. bases in the most significant way for 45 years, and confirming our commitment to the next generation of fighter jets That is what is needed to keep our country safe. Mr. Speaker, he did not say that it was sufficient, and that was a very long list of things that He is not yet paying for it. It is not right and it is not fair, certainly not to our troops who put their lives on the line. Line for all of us every single day. Three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned, saying I am being forced to make decisions that would increase the risk to personnel during operations and could make the country less safe. Since that letter, the Prime Minister has increased spending by only 0.01%. We can count, the generals can count, the Kremlin can count. His plan doesn't add up. How can the Prime Minister possibly stand there and say that this is enough? Mr. Speaker, this is the most significant increase in defense spending since the 1980s. The Chief of Defence Staff has been clear that the plan accelerates the transformation. we need for our armed forces. The First Sea Lord funds the capability we need to fight and win. The Chief of the Air Staff strengthens our contribution to NATO, and she must have missed that yesterday. The Secretary General of NATO welcomed the plan. All people who know what's in the plan are welcoming it. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with their record in government, because they hollowed out the armed forces Their record involves cutting defense spending. My record is raising it to £300 billion and rising. Their record includes cutting frigates by a quarter, cutting mine hunters by half, and leaving 47 out of 49 defense programs delayed or over budget. My record represents the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980s. Their records lack annual army recruitment targets for 14 years. We have given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years, and increased defence funding of £15 billion per year. That's a record I'm proud to hold. Mr. Speaker, the Chief of Defence Staff is an honourable man, and what he and NATO The Secretary General welcomes the fact that a plan has been published. Just that it has been published. They have been waiting for over a year. The Strategic Defence Review was last year. He is an honorable man, Mr. Speaker, who is having to make do with very little. The threat level has changed dramatically over the past two years since the Prime Minister took office. has been in office. Poland, Poland, since the Prime Minister took office, Poland has increased its funding to 4.8%. Germany has increased theirs to 3.7%. This year, Russia will spend 10% of GDP on defense, while Britain is spending it All on welfare. Even the limited plan he has announced has completely fallen apart because he hasn't found the money to pay for it. It is £5 billion short. We all know he's leaving this mess to his successor, so can he confirm that? Has the Member for Makefield agreed to fund the shortfall? I administer. Mr. Speaker, what they did was cut defense spending. When they came into power, defense spending was 2.5%. What did they do? They reduced it to 2.3%, a reduction, but what did they do regarding welfare? They increased it by £88 billion, so we won't accept any lectures from them about welfare. or defense. This is £15 billion of new defence investment, delivered outside of the budget, outside of a spending review. Mr. Speaker, that amounts to about £1 billion per year over four years. Due to the decisions made in the previous Budget, we have had a fiscal buffer of £22 billion. That is precisely why we can make decisions like this. We delivered it outside of budget and outside of a spending review. Just as we did for special educational needs, outside of a budget, outside of a spending review Just as the previous Government did when they announced their five-year NHS plan 2018, outside of a budget, outside of a spending review. What did they say when they were challenged about it? We will be able to explain exactly where every penny is coming from, but we will do that. in the budget That was the former Secretary of Health, then the Chancellor. What did they do when they published their integrated defence review in 2020? They said the funding was at the next spending review. So let us set aside the feigned outrage and focus on what truly matters. The largest sustained increase in 40 years, the largest increase in 45 years, providing What is needed to keep the country safe. He says that he is delivering this outside the Budget. That is correct. It should have been in the previous budget. The strategic defence review was published last year. It should have been in the previous budget, not the next one. The intelligence assessment he himself has stated we have indicates that there could be an attack. by 2030, but this plan will not be delivered until after that. Five billion pounds is missing from his plan. It also depends on £11 billion in unidentified savings. The plan has fallen apart. It is a complete failure of duty, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Times newspaper said today that the Prime Minister's legacy is betrayal, failure, and vulnerability, and that is one of the more favorable headlines. So I will ask again, because he did not answer the question, Mr. Speaker, did the Member For Makefield, it was clear that he was going to have to come up with five billion pounds for the Prime Minister. plan? When I became Prime Minister two years ago, this country spent £54 billion a year on defense Due to the decisions we have made, this will rise to £80 billion per year by 2029. That represents a real-terms increase of 27%, transforming our armed forces. We are not going to accept any lectures from the opposing party. They cut defense spending. They weakened the armed forces. Their Defense Secretary admitted that is what they did. They don't like it. They will not defend their record, Mr. Speaker, because they cannot. They will not apologize for it, because I have to admit what we all know—it is a total Failure. They just try to pretend that the 14 years they were in power never really happened. We are in power. We have record investment in defense and security. I am proud of this Labour Government, and any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind it. this plan. It doesn't sound as though he's told the Member for Makefield to find £5 billion. He says any Labour Prime Minister would support this plan. Let me tell him what Lord Richard Dannett, the former head of the army, said yesterday. He said the Prime Minister had chosen the cheap option and called the plan woefully inadequate. inadequate Let me tell him what General Sir Richard Barron, one of the authors of his own strategy, said. defence review, as stated yesterday. We simply are not going to be ready to defend this country properly. That's what they're saying. The reason he is in this mess is because he was too weak to cut welfare when he had the chance. the chance There are only three ways, Mr. Speaker, to find the missing £5 billion. Increase borrowing, increase taxes, or cut welfare. Which one will he recommend to the Member for Makefield? Mr. Speaker, we are talking about £1 billion a year over four years. The decisions in last year's Budget gave us more than £22 billion in headroom, so we can take the decisions that come They don't understand this because they cashed in the old ones. We created a buffer of £22 billion. The very reason for the headroom is to have the credibility to make decisions outside the Budget and outside the spending review. They don't understand it because they lost control of the public finances. In addition to further advances in defense and security, we have taken control of the public finances. That is why you have the leeway to make credible decisions like this. One billion pounds per year over four years, with a buffer of 22 billion pounds because of the decisions we made At the last budget, allow us to make these decisions. Mr. Speaker, we understand it perfectly, and that is precisely why—yes, we do—he is leaving. So is his chancellor. They are laughing and pretending, but if he was doing such a fabulous job, why did he Resign? Mr. Speaker, the defence of the realm is the first duty of government. It is the government's first duty. I do not need to read again what General Sir Richard Barron or Lord Richard Dann had said Perhaps they didn't hear it the first time, but they can watch the clips again. Defence of the realm is the first duty of government. Britain is facing a moment of danger unlike anything in our lifetimes, unlike anything that we observed even within the government. We need a plan to fund our armed forces that meets this moment. They are the government now, not ten years ago. The fact is that Labour's plan is too weak, too little, and too late. If his successor does not wish to be complicit in this failure, he should speak out and condemn it. this plan. The money must be found, and that money should come from cutting welfare, something these Labour MPs will not do. If the Labour Party can't defend our country, what's the point of them?