Defence Secretary John Healey was challenged in robust terms by Jesse Norman MP during a Defence Committee hearing, with tensions flaring over ministerial accountability, responsiveness to Parliament, and the rollout of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
Norman began by warning Healey against drawing unfavourable comparisons with predecessors, saying: “Ben Wallace was at least as serious a Secretary of State as you are.”
He said the MoD’s responsiveness to Parliament had “significantly fallen” and accused the Department of failing to respect the committee’s scrutiny role. “If you’re not willing to [be accountable], then let us know. And if you are, then give us the dates and the information,” Norman said.
In response, Healey rejected any suggestion that he had been disparaging, stating: “I’m not looking to make disparaging remarks about the previous government. I’m stating facts and drawing differences.” He added: “On the important question of ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament… you and I are entirely on the same page.”
The exchange escalated when Norman cited Healey’s 11 July letter to the committee about SDR briefing arrangements. He said the Defence Secretary had claimed only a short two-hour delay in access to SDR documents due to issues with the reading room—when in fact “there was, in fact, no reading room.” Norman described the rollout as a communications failure that extended beyond the committee, noting “21 interviews with the media before Parliament itself was informed” and briefings given to industry before MPs.
Healey denied any inaccuracy in the letter but admitted the MoD lacked proper procedures. “The department had no established systematic procedure for ensuring that those that need and should have access… had it,” he said. “I’ve now put in place a system,” he added, confirming the changes had already been shared with the Speaker of the House.
He said this new system would apply to major future strategies such as the forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy and would ensure that “those leading on defence for the opposition parties in Parliament can expect to have information and briefing” on a confidential basis.
I remember this episodes of Yes Minister..
A slippery time for the Defence Minister as No11 fights to keep fiscal control after the welfare climb down. Just how safe is the 2025 SDR? All Putin has to do is sit back and watch governments across NATO all buckle under the welfare demands V defence expenditure……5% of GDP by 2030! As for accountability, that’s always been a difficult message to swallow.
It isn’t safe at all. The public finances are perilous, there is simply no room to make unfunded spending increases.
We desperately need the economy to start growing at a faster rate, but there seems little sign of that on the horizon. The forecast is 1.2% for 2025, but wealthy people are leaving the country in their droves to avoid tax increases. It’s unlikely that the Government’s tax take will actually increase in line with the Chancellor’s predictions.
I fully expect defence funding choices to be pushed forward, with no firm commitments to significant programs in the new equipment plan. There will be aspirations but little in the way of orders. I hope I am wrong.
I think Reeve’s knows she is over the peak of the Laffer curve.
The problem is that the shouty left are still wanting to ‘soak the rich’ which will push even more money out of the country.
I’m seriously considering closing one of my businesses as it is no longer worth the risks. I certainly wouldn’t try a start up right now as the rewards are pathetic compared to the early 00’s.
I think spending commitments are safe. Provided she wants to stay in the job after being fed to the lions by her boss I think Rachel Reeves can cope: my bet for the budget is a combination of freezing tax thresholds, a reduction in cash ISA allowance and limiting tax allowance on additional pension contributions to the basic rate of tax. These should be enough. Beyond that a council tax bands re-evaluation would raise billions.
Paul, Surely Council Tax rises would only aid the LA, not Central Government?
I don’t know the detail of how it works, Graham. but my understanding is that central govt subsidises local govt so they could cut those subsidies/ grants and tell local govt to raise more money themselves.
Certainly when I worked in that Ministry, Westminster Council Tax was zero because of the car parking charges – Thatcher failed to mention that one and Lady Porter went on to gerrymander the vote in Westminster Council and then declare she had no financial interest when it came to TESCO so could they just let her off the hook for the proven charges…
Central Govt used to take 80% of the Council Tax take and revert 20% back to the Councils and therefore, I would suggest that this Govt is manipulating local Councils to raise their income – local Councils have to cover their costs but only with the concomitant nod from Central Govt that they will get the cash back.
I would never vote for the Cons, nor farage, as in garage, but a vote for Labour now is a remote possibility.
The new UK Government is made up of more left influences than middle or right, which endangers the SDR if at any time there is a chinc of light of peace in Ukraine. The so-called harmony witnessed a few months ago on the need to spend more on defence was at a time of heightened tension. Since then, the World has blown mostly hot, which keeps the needle firmly in the MOD’s quadrant and the PM’s intent to expedite more spending on the country’s defence. However, for critical programmes to have any chance of success demands undying support and funding, especially when involving other nations. Tempest is a prime example of this principle, and any doubts or inability to make significant contributions immediately endangers the whole project. Welfare costs is the one big issue facing defence spending, and as I stated, this issue is a NATO-wide concern and the new UK left government will protect welfare over national defence at every opportunity.
No problem the 5%, just tell NHS expenses promote and healthy military. Include every expense from 0-43 years olds.
The overall NATO commitment is safe until 2029 when NATO reassess. I’d hope they might be sensible enough to continue on that trajectory given there’s a chance of Vance or someone even less happy about European defence spend replacing Trump. I think most NATO leaders had expected and been planning for Trump never being POTUS and continuing to aim for 2%. This despite the fact his Democrat opponents were also very displeased with European defence spending, just more subtle about it.
There is no commitment to 5% by 2030, it’s 2035. There’s now an aspiration for the UK to meet 3% direct spend (so 4.5% total) by 2030 (earlier they’d just said next parliament), it’s dependent on fiscal realities when we get there, so no commitment at all really.
There is, as AlexS points out, a lot of money that can be moved/fudged around into other line items to meet 3.5 direct while still being within the rules. MOD staff pay & benefits, housing, personnel healthcare etc. That’s without some real stretching, mark PSNI as paramilitary as they have some nice kit?
I can see things like the new Thames Crossing going at least partly into that 1.5%.
There will be a tax boost this autumn, which should have been done last autumn.
Out tax burden is below European average, so we do have head room.
The Defence Committee is a waste of time (an expenses scam with its own stationary) in its current set up. No power, its reports can be replaced with superior “think tank” output, its hearings can be replaced by a couple of MP’s questions. Do away with it, or give it teeth (oversight of large projects, SDR output for consistency and quicker pivots, closed and open hearings with censure & removal options etc.), making defence a true cross-party concern that travels across parliaments and hopefully party politics.
Or just move it to the Lords, at least you get nice frocks and capes to go with the pointless theatrics, it’ll cost less and the likes of West already gets more “airtime” than the current committee.