Defence Secretary Ben Wallace could resign if Jeremy Hunt scraps defence spending boost

The UK’s new chancellor has raised the possibility of ditching a key pledge by Liz Truss to boost defence spending – a move that would likely be a resigning matter for her defence secretary, Ben Wallace.

Jeremy Hunt on Saturday refused to commit to lifting the amount of money spent on the armed forces to 3% of national income by 2030, as promised by the prime minister.

He also said the Ministry of Defence, like all other departments, would have to make additional savings.

Mr Wallace, one of the most experienced and well-regarded members of the embattled prime minister’s cabinet, has fought hard over the past three years to secure much-needed increases in defence spending at a time of growing security threats.

Asked whether any backtracking on defence spending goals would be a resigning issue, a defence source said Mr Wallace would hold the prime minister to the pledges made.

This includes a commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2026 from around 2% at present and then to 3% of GDP by 2030 in what would equate to around an extra £157billion over eight years.

But speaking about tough times ahead, Mr Hunt told Sky News: “I’m going to ask all departments to find more efficiencies than they were planning to find.”

He repeated this on Radio 4’s Today programme and was asked specifically if a “difficult tough decision” would be taken over the defence budget.

Mr Hunt replied: “We do need to increase defence spending, but I can’t make a promise to you here and now about the timings of that.”

He continued: “The long-term ability to fund an increase in defence spending will depend on stability in the economic situation and a healthily growing economy.”

Pressed on how he was leaving open the possibility of the 3% defence spending pledge not being delivered by 2030, Mr Hunt said: “I am leaving open all possibilities this morning. I wish I could give you more detail, but I will be presenting to parliament in a fortnight on Monday exactly what is going to happen and the answer to all those questions.”

He was referring to 31 October when the chancellor is due to issue a fiscal statement.

As well as a failure to commit to defence spending, Mr Hunt also made a flawed assessment that long-term defence spending can only be secured if there is economic stability.

In reality, there can be no economic stability without security.

The energy price rise – as the prime minister keeps saying – is caused by Vladimir Putin using energy as a weapon, reducing the flow of Russian oil and gas to pressure Western nations to stop their crucial support to Ukraine, which has helped thwart his invasion so far.

Had the Conservatives – and Labour before them – genuinely demonstrated the mantra that national security is their first priority the UK would not have seen successive governments slash defence spending and military capability over the past three decades.

NATO allies less likely to invest in defence if UK doesn’t

Hollowed out defences – and this is a simplification of a time that also included the disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan wars – have left the UK and fellow European NATO allies less able to deter the existential threats posed by authoritarian regimes like Russia’s.

So, it makes no sense to use the economic crisis, triggered in part by Russia’s war in Ukraine, as a reason to backtrack on a vital need to rebuild the UK’s armed forces.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping of China, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and all other leaders who prefer authoritarian rule over the values of democratic governments – human rights, rule of law and other freedoms – will be laughing.

Britain is one of the strongest voices in NATO, urging increased defence spending among all 30 allies – it is a live debate right now, with hopes to lift a minimal expenditure target to 2.5% of GDP from 2%.

If the UK were to lead by example and reduce ambitions to grow defence spending, it would make it far less likely other European allies will feel under pressure to boost their budgets.

Read more:
China remains biggest long-term security threat
Jeremy Hunt arguably more powerful than Liz Truss

The MoD has a largely poor track record of procurement, with programmes to build warships, aircraft and tanks too often running billions of pounds over budget and delivered late or not at all. That is inexcusable and also needs to change.

But ordering more efficiencies is going to make a bad situation even worse.

Many people have tried and failed to make the MoD and the armed forces more efficient.

The thing is, the UK’s military, security and intelligence services are too vital to fail and too important not to fund adequately, especially at a time of war in Europe, and the very real threat of escalation with Russia and China.