Labour accused of failing to keep Britain safe ‘in a dangerous world’

Labour has been accused of failing to keep Britain safe in a “dangerous world” after the party refused to back the Government’s boost to defence spending.

Shadow ministers declined to promise that 2.5 per cent of GDP would be spent on defence by 2030, as Rishi Sunak has pledged, instead saying they would have to decide after the general election.

Labour’s position was attacked by defence industry sources on Wednesday who warned it could create “uncertainty” and undermine the industry’s confidence to invest.

Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, accused the Opposition of having “no plans in a dangerous world”, while Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, claimed Labour’s position would lead to “delay, disruption and obfuscation”.

Johnny Mercer, the veterans minister, said that it showed Labour could not be trusted on defence.

He added: “Labour again refused to back our plan to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. Instead, they want to spend years holding a review as the world gets more dangerous while refusing to act to keep the British people safe.”

It comes after Mr Sunak used a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Wednesday to urge other European nations to follow Britain’s example and boost defence spending.

The Prime Minister and Mr Shapps are expected to argue that spending 2.5 per cent on defence should become the new Nato target at a summit in Washington DC this summer.

Since 2006, the target for members has been 2 per cent, which even now is missed by many of the alliance’s nations – something Donald Trump, who is running to be US president again, has railed against.

The Prime Minister said in his Berlin press conference that European nations can no longer ask the US to bankroll security if they are not “prepared to make sacrifices” themselves.

Mr Sunak said: “US presidents have always called for more European defence spending. That’s not new and I think that is entirely reasonable.

“We cannot expect Americans to pay any price, to take any burden, if we in Europe are not ourselves prepared to make those sacrifices and make those investments.

“That’s exactly what we are doing. But it’s important that we and Europe demonstrate that we are doing that in order to keep the US committed to Nato.”

On Wednesday, Jeremy Hunt held talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, telling him the UK would continue to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes”.

The Chancellor insisted there was an “onus” on other European states to provide more military support after Britain pledged £500 million in new arms donations.

He said doing so would “pile the pressure on Putin and help restore peace and prosperity in Europe”, adding: “We’re determined to play our leading part.”

The announcement on defence spending was welcomed by the US which said it showed Britain was a “stalwart ally” that could be relied upon.

However, Mr Sunak is facing scrutiny about whether the defence uplift is really as “fully funded” as he has declared. He has said that cuts to the civil service will partly pay for the pledge, but no details have been given on where the cuts will fall.

At his Berlin press conference, the Prime Minister declined to rule out further reductions to public spending if he won re-election in order to pay for the defence boost, but did indicate tax cuts this year are still on the table.

He said: “We have made a choice and I am not shying away from that choice. All governing is about prioritising. I have decided to prioritise defence because I think that is the right thing to do for our country.

“I am not going to get into writing the next manifesto here and now, but what I am confident about is that if you have a strong plan for the economy as we have and that plan is working, we stick to that plan, we will be able to continue increasing defence spending.

“It is a completely funded plan. We have got a very clear idea of how to reduce civil service headcount which has grown considerably over the last few years, and we can bring that back and use that to fund what I announced yesterday.

“And alongside that, continue to invest in public services and cut people’s taxes.”

Labour’s position is that it would raise defence spending, currently around 2.3 of GDP, to 2.5 per cent when resources allow, but no specific timescale has been given.

Asked if the party would match the Government’s commitment “as and when” it comes to power, Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, told Sky News: “Not as and when we come to power but as and when we can. So when circumstances allow.

“We want to move towards 2.5 per cent. It was 2.5 per cent when we were last in power. But we need to move towards that and we are not going to say that we are going to do it by 2030, as the Government have said, unless there is a plan that makes sense.”

John Healey, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: “Everyone recognises that defence spending must rise to deal with increasing threats. The Opposition have no access to classified threat assessments or military advice, so if we are elected to government we will conduct a strategic defence review within our first year to get to grips with the threats we face, the capabilities we need, the state of the Armed Forces and the resources available when we get to open the books.”

Element of doubt

However, a defence industry source told The Telegraph: “The challenge around ramping up the defence industry has always been about uncertainty.

“The good thing about the announcement [by Rishi Sunak] on Tuesday was that it removed that element of doubt around defence spending only going up ‘when circumstances allow’.

“So while it’s good to see Labour committing to the 2.5pc, the fact they are still sticking to that means there is still that level of uncertainty around when exactly it will happen.”

Top industry executives have urged ministers to use the enlarged defence budget to support UK-based companies, rather than buying “off the shelf” equipment from allies such as the US.

Writing for The Telegraph, bosses at BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce stressed Britain could only remain a significant military player by making “an enduring commitment” to creating its own sovereign technologies.

Pointing to fighter jets such as the Typhoon and Tornado, as well as the next-generation Tempest fighter under development, they said: “We are one of only a small number of nations that have advanced sovereign combat air capability thanks to our long history of research and development in the sector.

“This vital national asset gives Britain a significant strategic advantage, ensuring the UK can contribute to regional and global security, deter aggression, project our national authority and protect UK interests both at home and internationally.

“We hear arguments from some quarters that the UK Government should shift to buying more off the shelf military equipment from overseas.

“This completely overlooks the strategic need for the UK to retain control over our own security, which has never been more crucial than it is in today’s challenging geopolitical landscape.

”Without that sovereignty, the UK would become ever more reliant on other nations, whose support can’t always be taken for granted.”

It comes after Adml Sir Tony Radakin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, wrote in The Telegraph that consideration should be given to spending some of the money on advanced technology such as long-range missile battalions for the British Army and fast attack craft for the Navy. He also suggested that an entirely uncrewed air wing for aircraft carriers should be examined, as well as whether the number of RAF drones should increase from dozens to thousands.

Meanwhile, it emerged that the US secretly sent long-range ballistic missiles to Ukraine for the first time and that they have already been used on the battlefield.

Long sought by Ukrainian leaders, the new missiles give Ukraine nearly double the striking distance – up to 190 miles – compared with the mid-range version of the weapon that it received from the US last October.

Mr Biden approved delivery of the long-range Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, in early March, and the US included a “significant” number of them in a $300 million aid package announced at the time.