Sir Keir Starmer

May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support in relation to today’s announcement and on Ukraine? That is important to the Government, to the House and, most of all, to the Ukrainians and President Zelensky. They want to see unity in our House—they value unity in our House—as they enter, after three years of conflict, a very difficult stage in the war with Russia and against Russian aggression. I hope and believe that we can maintain that unity in relation to Ukraine, as we have done for three years. I am very proud that this House has done that, notwithstanding a change of Government, for three long years—we will continue to do so. The Leader of the Oppositions asks about the money for defence, security and intelligence. There was new money in the Budget in relation to that, but what I am doing here is in addition to the 2.5%, which is the increased defence spend as it has always been understood, to recognise that the nature of the threats to our county are different now, and that the security and intelligence services play a key part for us and our allies in our defence. That takes the total to 2.6%. The Leader of the Opposition asks whether we will tax or borrow to pay for the 2.5%. The answer is no, which is why I have today set out precisely how we will pay for it, pound for pound. That has meant a difficult decision on overseas development—a very difficult decision, and not one that I wanted or am happy to take. But it is important that we explain where the money will come from in terms and today. I was only ever going to come to the House with a plan that had a timeline and a percentage in it, and an answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?” I would not have come to the House with a fanciful plan. The Leader of the Opposition says that they had a plan—[Interruption.] She says, “Of course we did.” I have my views on that, but the Institute for Government said that the Conservatives’ pledge of 2.5% by 2030 did “not add up” and was “not a serious plan.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it “misleading and opaque”. I am not giving my view; I am giving the view of other bodies on the plan that the Conservatives put forward. They said that they would fund it by cutting the civil service, and then increased the civil service by 13,000. I am not prepared to operate in that way, which is why we have taken the difficult decision on overseas development today, to be absolutely clear on where the money is coming from. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s final point on the approach that we take here and whether there is a difference between us, I hope not. What I have set out was NATO-first, as the bedrock of our security. I hope that is common ground, whatever we may call our respective positions. I also set out that we must not choose between the US and our European allies. That is what I fundamentally believe, and I will resist that choice. I hope that is common ground between us, notwithstanding the language that she uses, because it is important, not for exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but for the future defence and security of our country and of Europe.