Sir Mike Penning, a former soldier who served eight years as a Grenadier Guard, said the cash for the Trident nuclear deterrent should be removed from the defence budget to free up more cash
Let’s ease the pressure on our armed forces’ budget and stop being a cash cow to other departments.
If we want to be able to fund our armed forces for the future, we have to be brutally honest and fair about how we spend the 2 per cent of GDP that the Treasury gives to the MoD.
2 per cent is the minimum Nato ask of us – and many other members of Nato don’t even fulfil this commitment – but that 2 per cent should be spent on operational defence capability.
While I was a defence minister I argued that we should remove the development and build cost of the new replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent from the 2 per cent budget, and I continue to argue this now.
Instead the Trident replacement costs should be ring-fenced outside the defence budget.
Otherwise, we will lose more Royal Navy ships, lose RAF operational capability – that means planes and helicopters – and, yes, it will mean less troops and Royal Marines.
The core and the backbone of our operational defence capability being stripped out at a time when our enemies are testing us every day.
But, as a Government, there are things we can do.
I am proud that we help those around the world when they are in crisis, spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid is something we all should be proud of – but not if the cost is adversely affecting our military capability.
Our armed forces will always do a fantastic job, no matter where we send them. The question to be asked is why it should be our ships and troops that are being used when there are other ways to deliver help.
One way is to change the way we help in the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean. For years the Royal Navy has done a fantastic job as part of Operation Sophia. Working alongside other nations and NGO’s, Royal Navy ships have helped rescue thousands from the sea, but I have to ask is that the best use of the Royal Navy?
Why can’t we use some of the 0.7 per cent we have committed to international aid to lease ships that are much more suitable for the job.
There are many alternative ships that are better designed to save lives and help desperate people climb aboard. Other countries involved in this rescue effort are doing just that.
This would free up the Royal Navy to do what they are trained and equipped to do – namely protect us.
We should be using the Department for International Development cash where it is needed not draining our military capabilities.
There are other areas where DFID’s money could help cash flow at the MoD. Just before I left post at the MoD, I visited our troops in South Sudan.
It is a desperately poor and impoverished part of the world and our servicemen and women were there as part of a UN humanitarian project building a field hospital.
I was very proud to visit and see the difference we were making to the lives of people who, through no fault of their own, need all the help we can give.
Even though the UN will pay us back for our work there, it will take forever for that money to get back into the MoD’s coffers.
Surely, a more sensible option would be for DFID to pay the MOD and DFID claim the money back from the UN’s bankers?
What I’m suggesting will not solve the MoD’s cash issues completely, but if we want the best armed forces in the world then we need to pay for them.
The MoD has got to stop being a soft option, it needs to spend what it has wisely and stand up to those who see it as a cash cow.