The UK is “living a lie” about its defence programme, which is unaffordable within current budgets, the former chief of defence staff has said, after a committee of MPs said Britain must raise spending in order to maintain its relationship with the US.
Lord Gen Nick Houghton, who was chief of defence staff until 2016, said the government had to make a tough choice between losing its global standing as a leading defence nation or increasing spending on defence.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-mps-warnThe UK defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, has mounted a public campaign for more funds, ahead of the autumn budget, warning Downing Street of the strength of feeling on the Conservative backbenches, though MPs have played down the risk of voting down the budget.
Houghton said David Cameron’s defence programme in 2015 had been ambitious but did not have the required funding to match it, because it had assumed continued growth and that the army could make efficiencies where it could not.
“We’ve got to make a hard choice therefore. Do we increase the defence budget to make it affordable, or diminish our status as a military power?” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“We have slightly deluded the public that we have a defence programme which insiders know is unaffordable. We are to some extent living a lie. And we stand at a strategic crossroads and we’ve got to come off the fence one way or another. It might be the UK should cease to be a world military power.”
Houghton said it was “remarkable” that the NHS had recently been promised an increase in annual funding equivalent to more than twice the annual defence budget.
“More funding for health can win you tactical advantage in domestic elections but they don’t enhance Britain’s influence, power and respect in the world if that is the sort of country we want to be,” he said.
However, Houghton sounded a note of caution about the tactics deployed by Williamson, who was reported to have told colleagues he could “make or break” the prime minister.
“It would be a great shame if the future of the defence budget and the armed forces of this country were part of a political game for power and ambition and I hope that is not the case,” he said. “To me the arguments are very strong and stand on their own merits.”
Defence Committee renews spending demand for 3% of GDP
https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... hed-17-19/
- Conclusions and recommendations
6. We accept the argument that percentage of GDP is not a perfect index of commitment to NATO and recognise that there is validity in additional measures, such as gauging capability, in providing an evidence-based approach to resourcing and investment. But we strongly believe there to be no other unclassified measure that is as easy to assess, to understand or to use as the basis for making comparisons. We support the Government’s commitment to exhort and encourage our allies to improve their capabilities and increase their defence spending; but we note that such exhortations would carry more weight if the UK led by example and invested more in Defence. (Paragraph 33)
Securing the North Atlantic
7. Following the decision to leave the European Union, the Government has consistently reiterated its desire to increase its commitment to NATO. In the North Atlantic, the UK could demonstrate both leadership and commitment. However, this requires an increase in capacity. We do not yet know what the outcomes of the Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) will be, but if the UK’s anti-submarine warfare capacity remains unchanged—or is even diminished further—then the UK will be failing both its citizens and its allies. (Paragraph 37)
8. The Government should demonstrate its commitment to securing the North Atlantic through a renewed focus on Anti-Submarine Warfare in the Modernising Defence Programme (MDP). (Paragraph 38)
UK readiness
9.Given the speed of modern warfare, 20 days to deploy a mechanised brigade and 90 days to deploy a division risk making the UK militarily irrelevant. We ask the Government for an update on the Army’s work on how to generate a follow-on division; and we request a time-line of the steps required to reconstitute such a force in the event of an emergency. (Paragraph 42)
10.We are encouraged by the fact that the Government is looking at readiness in the Modernising Defence Programme (MDP). However, withdrawal from Germany will not improve readiness—rather the reverse—and accordingly the Government should reconsider its decision to withdraw from Germany. In any event, we expect the MDP to address in detail the issues of basing some forces and pre-positioning some equipment in Germany. (Paragraph 43)
11.We are pleased that the Secretary of State is willing to look at options to establish a war reserve of equipment, and its likely impact upon UK readiness. The Government should set out its initial findings in its response to this Report. (Paragraph 44)
12.The UK should demonstrate its leadership position in NATO by working towards being able to deploy a mechanised brigade within 10 days. (Paragraph 45)16. Military-to-military engagement between the UK and the US is one of the linchpins of the bilateral relationship. The UK’s interoperability with and alleged over-reliance on the US are clearly linked and there is a balance to be struck. The Secretary of State has said that the UK benefits to the tune of £3 billion a year from the UK-US defence relationship. This implies that both the UK Armed Forces and HM Treasury benefit from our close relationship with the US. However, that will continue to be true only while the UK military retains both the capacity and capability to maintain interoperability with the US military and to relieve US burdens. For this to be the case the UK Armed Forces must be funded appropriately. (Paragraph 63)
17. The Government should ensure that US views are carefully and seriously considered during the Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) process and are given due weight when making decisions, particularly around sustainment of capabilities, requirements for new capabilities and overall support for defence. (Paragraph 64)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /38708.htm23. We calculate that raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would result in a forecast spend of £50 billion per annum and raising it to 3% of GDP would take this to £60 billion per annum. A rise to 3% of GDP would see defence spending return to the level—in GDP percentage terms—that was last achieved in 1995. (Paragraph 84)
24. As the analysis in the Annex demonstrates, for each additional 0.5% of UK GDP spent on Defence, under a range of projected growth scenarios, about £10 billion annually would accrue to Defence. Applying the 80% guideline referred to above, we conclude that the Ministry of Defence would receive an extra £8 billion annually for its budget. Thus an increase to 2.5% of GDP to be spent on Defence would comfortably fill the ‘black hole’ in the existing MoD budget. To reverse the loss of capacity referred to by Secretary Mattis, however, a higher target is needed. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government work towards an eventual goal of raising defence spending to 3% of GDP—as it was in the mid-1990s. (Paragraph 85)
