← Political Thinking with Nick Robinson
Political Thinking with Nick Robinson
The Treasury was in denial: John Healey on why he resigned as defence secretary
00:28:51
Former defence secretary John Healey's first interview after resigning from government.
Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello and welcome to Political Thinking. We must prepare for war with Russia within the next five years. So said my guest on Political Thinking this week as he explained why he'd resigned as Defence Secretary in what was perhaps the final blow to an already reeling Keir Starmer. John Healey believes that the threat we now face demands more money for defence than the treasury is willing to provide. And the Prime Minister was prepared to insist on. This, he says is not the moment for calibration or incremental change. This means bigger politics, bolder priorities, harder choices. His resignation stunned many in a party which he's described as his family. A low key and loyal Labourman, he served leaders with views as far apart as Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. He has given no interview since resigning. But now, as Keir Starmer heads to a crucial NATO summit with can hear his account of what is at stake for all of us. John Healey, welcome to Political Thinking.
- [01:12]
B
Thank you.
- [01:13]
A
You were Defence Secretary for two years, Shadow Defence Secretary for three years. It was a big decision to resign. How are you feeling about it now?
- [01:21]
B
A mix of the same, I guess. Agony and certainty. It was the very last thing I wanted to do, the very last thing I expected to do. Keir and I had been alongside each other actually for four years. When he rang me that first weekend he became Labour leader, he said, john, we need to establish Labour credibility on defence. I want you to do defence. And at that time we were less trusted on defence and security than we were on managing the economy and public finances. Those of us that had worked through the 2019 election, remember the hardest doors to knock were those with Help for Heroes stickers in the window. And he knows, like I know, that if you don't meet those basic tests of public confidence on defence and security and on the economy, you don't get to talk about schools or health or environment or transport.
- [02:16]
A
So that's why you call it agony. Is it because you had been close?
- [02:19]
B
That's the agony. Because for both of us, the first duty of government, any government, and the test of any wannabe government is can people have the confidence in you as a party of the armed forces and a party of defence?
- [02:32]
A
But why the certainty that you were right to resign? Is it something you've been contemplating for a long time? What was the moment that you thought, no, I really do have to go.
- [02:43]
B
The certainty was recognizing that we faced rising demands on defence, growing threats, increasing commitments. We were rightly for Britain to lead allies. And in those circumstances, the funding proposed by the treasury and by Dumbarton to support the Defence Investment Plan, just fell well short. And I knew I had to take a stand. I could not stand behind that funding to support what is basically a sound plan. That was many months in the making.
- [03:14]
A
Yeah, it was many months and it was constantly postponed, wasn't it? The publication of what was called the date, the Defence Investment Plan. Did Keir Starmer know that if you didn't get what you thought was necessary, you might quit? Or did it come as a shock to him?
- [03:27]
B
Of course he did. Oh, you'd warned him, of course. The really detailed work, all the financial figures, the trade off options, the challenges were worked out with some excellent cross government work. During the late autumn, it reported jointly to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and myself. So by December, January, reinforced by 40 hours of a deep dive led by the Cabinet Secretary, we knew what the challenges were, we knew what the financial options were. It then became a matter for number 10 and number 11. Number 10 and the treasury to work out the funding to support the Defence Investment Plan. And we waited weeks, we waited months. And Keir Starmer knew what Defence needed. He knew what the country needed. He made that really important speech in Munich at the big security conference in February where he wasn't just talking about the funding for the Defence Investment Plan, he made the argument, without making the announcement for 3% of GDP funding on defence as part of the commitment he had made on behalf of the country, quite rightly as part of also NATO's commitments to each other.
- [04:38]
A
That's the NATO.
- [04:39]
B
That's the NATO commitment of 3.5% of spending on GDP by 2035 and an extra 1.5 on resilience and wider national security, which a lot of people overlook, but is essential to making us more resilient.
- [04:54]
A
Why didn't he find the money? I mean, if he knew all these things and you're close to him and you had agreed with him, why in the end could he not deliver the money? Was it that the treasury refused? Because you had another striking line, didn't you? Our adversaries, you said, do not follow timetables set by the Treasury. The treasury said no.
- [05:13]
B
In the end, the treasury is a paradox. You have some of the very best and brightest officials in the treasury, but you have a too often treasury orthodox that's a dead hand on dynamic government.
- [05:24]
A
Yeah. And you're talking, by the way, as an ex Treasury Minister and an ex parliamentary bad carrier for Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor.
- [05:30]
B
Indeed. I was a Treasury Minister for five years and I know what The Treasury's essential responsibility is on fiscal and monetary policy, low inflation, financial stability, but also it can and it has to drive economic growth, raise levels of productivity, support business competition, investment for the future. And the treasury with Defence really was in denial about the commitment that the UK has rightly made to NATO and to our people. It is still planning, was still planning on 3%, but not until 2034, 35. The treasury still often sees Defence as a drain on public spending and not the driver of economic growth that we've demonstrated in two years that defence can be.
- [06:17]
A
Some people say, well, hold on a second. John Healey's successor as Defence Secretary just a few days later was able to get rather more money, another £15 billion. So maybe it's the way you went about it, because it is often said that you went over the Chancellor's head, you fell out and you tried to get Keir Starmer to overrule Rachel Reeves. Doesn't the fact Dan Jarvis, the new Defense Secretary has now got more money than you had prove that there is no problem at all?
- [06:44]
B
Well, I certainly welcome any extra money that backs the dip. Now, that wasn't on offer three weeks ago. I welcome also the fact that the Prime Minister has now confirmed that it is the number. Defence is the number one priority for the next spending review. But the real challenge is in the medium term, the real challenge is in the next spending review. How do we set a, what I still believe is a necessary target date for 3% on a convincing, credible path to meeting that 3.5% target that we've signed up to as a nation that is required by the rising demands on defence?
- [07:18]
A
And is the fact that there is currently no path to that target a problem as the Prime Minister goes to this NATO summit? Are we seen, as one Defence source said to the Times, to be, quote, bumping along at number 12 in terms of defence spending, the worst in terms of meeting the commitments laid upon us by NATO? Less Iceland, he said, which doesn't have armed forces. I mean, is it a problem for Keir Starmer now?
- [07:45]
B
Well, I think at this NATO summit, the leaders will be kind to Kir. There's a lot of respect for Kyiv, there's a respect for the uk. There's a desire to see the UK lead on a more European NATO lead on Ukraine as we've stepped forward to do, and lead on the Strait of Hormuz as we try and settle down the Middle east in the context of a longer term peace. But when other nations are setting out and doing more to reach their NATO targets. Britain can't lead if we're lagging behind,
- [08:18]
A
and we are lagging, you're clear that we're lagging behind.
- [08:20]
B
Well, by 2030, more than half the NATO nations will have reached or exceeded 3%. The funding available at present to back the dip means just 0.08% increase by 2030, and that's the date. Not that, just I've said. But NATO has said and warned that we should expect, and we could expect a Russian attack.
- [08:43]
A
Moving away from the figures for a second, General Sir Richard Sheriff, who you will know well, former Deputy Supreme Ally Commander of NATO said on the Today programme, this is smoke and mirrors, this plan, because there's 5 billion that hasn't been found, that it relies on efficiencies that might not happen. The smoke and mirrors a fair description of where we are at the moment.
- [09:03]
B
Well, I'm surprised that 5 billion has been left to the budget to confirm because it's been a cardinal practice for us as a Labour government. And I'm proud of this. Not just that we've increased already defence spending by a record amount since the Cold War, but when we've done it, we've always shown where that money was coming from. So this means that it will be something for Andy Burnham as a short term challenge. I welcome the fact that he's committed to fully funding that. I know he's strong on defence. I've sat in Gordon Brown's cabinet alongside him and no one doubts his commitment to national security.
- [09:38]
A
I want to come back to how we might pay for this, what you call bigger politics and bolder priorities and harder choices. But before we do that, it seems to me you've been on a journey and this program, Political Thinking, always examines why people think what they think, not just the politics itself. Now, you're not a military man, you're not from a military family. In fact, I discovered when I read into your life story that it was working in a mental hospital that led you into politics. What made John Ely pursue a life
- [10:09]
B
in public service that was a passion for that day to day involvement and help with people. I was a basic nursing assistant in the old days in the 1980s when the Margaret Thatcher government was closing big psychiatric hospitals and simply putting people out into so called care in the community. My job was to try and help get deeply institutionalized people capable of a degree of independence without the support or even the assessment they needed of their needs. And so I just felt really angry about the system, but enjoyed that work and I thought I had a decision to take as a. As my future career. Either I was involved in that almost pastoral side of involvement with people day to day, social worker, teacher, nursing assistant, or. Or I dealt with policy and tried to change the system until I became a candidate for the Labour Party in my home area in deep Tory North Yorkshire. And suddenly, even there, I found people came to me because they needed a voice. And you had this unique contribution and combination that was both the pastoral and the sort of intellectual political challenge of policy and politics.
- [11:21]
A
But then you declare in the House of Commons in your resignation speech, to much laughter, that the Labour Party became your family. Why the laughter?
- [11:31]
B
Well, it's been the framing of my life for 35, 40 years. I was a trade unionist first and then a Labour Party member and a Labour candidate. But in the end, we ask a lot of our partners in politics and I'm married to an extraordinary woman called Jackie Bate. And for a good number of years, in John Smith's office and before that in Neil Kinnock's office and their teams, I was simply known as Mr. Jackie Bate. And she's backed me, supported me.
- [12:00]
A
Well, you were quick on the off the mark. The thing that produced the laughter of the House of Commons was when you said that you'd met her how many weeks before proposing.
- [12:09]
B
Well, let's put it this way, both of us have been around for a while.
- [12:16]
A
Two weeks and two weeks you said.
- [12:18]
B
Yeah, we just knew.
- [12:19]
A
Yeah.
- [12:20]
B
And I'm happy to say, more than 30 years on, we're still very happy, still together and still with a very happy home in Rotherham.
- [12:29]
A
You've a family you love. You clearly love the Labour Party as a family. I wonder if the armed forces, in a way, have ended up becoming your family because your son Alex signed up as a reservist after the invasion of Ukraine.
- [12:40]
B
He did. This was completely out of the blue. It was within a few days of Putin first launching his full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. He came in for lunch, he said, mum, dad, if I was in Ukraine, I'd join up. And then within a few weeks, he broke the news he was joining the reserves. And for me subsequently, then as Shadow Defense Secretary and Defense Secretary, that added a very personal dimension to my commitment and some of the heavy decisions that a Defence Secretary has to take.
- [13:15]
A
Did you worry about that? Because as you allude to, one of those heavy decisions is you have to pick up the phone, don't you? You have to pick up the phone to people whose children or loved ones have lost Their lives in the service of the country.
- [13:27]
B
Yes, One of the unique dimensions, and I share this with other Defence ministers, the hardest calls to make are those two families, when we've lost men and women in our forces. And I remember the call to George Hooley's parents before Christmas, he was killed in that tragic accident in Ukraine. And nothing that I could say could reduce the agony and the anguish that they felt, but I wanted them to know how proud the nation was. I wanted him to know that those in his team in Ukraine described him and because I'd met them as the best bloke they'd ever worked with and hard, because he was in Ukraine and I knew more about what he was doing than they did. But those calls, whether those are helicopter pilots and crew recently killed, or George Hooley's parents and sadly, the son they lost and loved so much, when people
- [14:25]
A
hear you say, as you did when you resigned, that we need to prepare for war within Russia within the next five years, many people will think, oh, is he preparing us for our sons and daughters, for our grandchildren to be fighting in the way perhaps their grandparents did? Is that what you mean? What does that warning really mean? What does it amount to?
- [14:47]
B
It doesn't mean that, but what it does mean is that we need to take the plan set out in our defence review, our strategic defence review last year, seriously, that we have to recognise that European security is now at stake.
- [15:02]
A
I suppose what I'm asking you is, in plain person speak, what does that mean in practice? Does it mean another Ukraine, in other words, another country being invaded? What do you mean, prepare for war within five years?
- [15:14]
B
Well, NATO's quite clear that by 2030 we should expect and could face Russia trying to take some element of NATO country territory. In fact, Putin could test Article 5 sooner than that by miscalculation or mistake.
- [15:28]
A
Article 5, I have to remind people, is where you pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all.
- [15:33]
B
So the Article 5 is exactly that. We've had two Article 4 calls in the last year alone. That's where there is a consultation when countries feel that they are under attack. And what I mean about the rising Russian aggression, the nature of the activity and attacks that we face are not necessarily the conventional battlefields of the Second World War, but we've seen increasing Russian activity over threatening our undersea cables and data links and pipelines. I've exposed the level of cyber attacks, 90,000 against different defense systems in the last year alone, tracked and linked to states. We've seen sabotage, we've seen revelations and confirmation of arson attacks and attacks against Keir Starmer.
- [16:25]
A
I believe you're clear that they were ordered by Russia.
- [16:28]
B
That's our intelligence assessment linking them to Russia through proxies. So are we already at war, John?
- [16:36]
A
Do you in a sense think it's not about whether we'll be at war in 5 years time? In a sense, we're already at war. Your assessment?
- [16:41]
B
We are already on a thread and I, as Defense Secretary, faced personal threat. Fortunately not the attack as K did. But that is a feature of modern life.
- [16:57]
A
How worried are you that Donald Trump might withdraw from NATO? I know that when Hegseth first arrived as his choice for defense secretary in Europe, it was a pretty nervy time then, wasn't it, in terms of what he was saying about what the United States would do?
- [17:12]
B
So as we look forward to the annual NATO summit in Ankara this week, the U.S. is still committed to NATO. President Trump is still committed to Article 5. That is essential. But the U.S. is stepping up its challenge to us to, as they put it, share more of the burden to raise our commitment to defence spending as non US nations within NATO more quickly and to develop some of the capabilities that we've relied on the US to provide for too long as it looks to redeploy and refocus its priorities elsewhere.
- [17:51]
A
Exeath, when he came to his first NATO summit, was going to say, we were told the media were briefed with the wording of a speech that the United States was no longer the primary guarantor of security in Europe, which sent ice through the veins of some people who thought that the United States is critical to the defense of Europe. I think you talked to him about those words, didn't you?
- [18:15]
B
I did. Directly, one to one. And one of the benefits of being close allies is you can tell your closest ally the hardest truths. And he made that first speech to NATO defence ministers and he said that the primary focus and priority for America would no longer be NATO.
- [18:38]
A
So in other words, he softened his language. He dropped the idea that America might abandon its role as the primary guarantor of security.
- [18:46]
B
So what he also said is, look, we challenge and they're quite right to do so, other nations in NATO to step up. But he was very clear that doesn't mean us stepping away.
- [18:55]
A
But they were not impressed by what happened over Iran, were they, when Donald Trump decided to attack Iran and Keir Starmer informed him, or was it you informing them you can't use your bases in Britain. They didn't like It.
- [19:08]
B
Well, certainly they. They condemned all of the NATO nations for not giving them full throat.
- [19:16]
A
Did you have to make the call? Were you the one who had to break the news?
- [19:19]
B
These were conversations that both Keir Starmer and I had.
- [19:23]
A
Were they even more outspoken in private than they were in public? Because they were quite outspoken in public.
- [19:27]
B
Keir Starmer was right to make the call that we would not get dragged into the wider war. What the US also recognized was that weeks ahead of the first attacks on Iran, I had ensured that we had moved extra planes, air defense systems, radar systems, reinforcements into the Middle east so that we could protect our bases, help protect American bases.
- [19:54]
A
Yeah. When it came to deploying HMS Dragon to Cyprus, it took day after day and I mean, was it as embarrassing as it appeared to be that you.
- [20:02]
B
Well, I think. I think the thing to remember is that within 36 hours of those first attacks on Iran, we had given permission for the use of UK bases for attacks that were about defending and taking out ballistic missile sites and supply chains. So defensive in nature, coordinated with allies at all stages and consistent with international law.
- [20:27]
A
I hear that, but the HMS tracking thing. You're out of office now, John, you don't have to defend it. It was embarrassing, wasn't it? I mean, it just looked a bit hopeless, didn't it?
- [20:35]
B
Now, when I say that everything we did was with international allies, there were other anti ballistic missile destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. We did what we needed to do to protect Cyprus, protect our bases, protect the Brits abroad and in the wider Middle east, and Dragon has a part to play.
- [20:57]
A
The reason I ask is because there are critics on the left often who just say, well, why are we wasting money on defence rather than spending it on other important priorities? But there are plenty on the right, or perhaps people who just sympathise with your view of the threat from Russia, just say the Ministry of Defense is rubbish at spending our money. I mean, not just hopeless at it, but it is argued, corrupt. I don't mean in the sense of individuals taking backhanders, but in the sense it's too close to business, it's too close to lobbying, it's too easy for it to be persuaded to spend money on glamorous projects. Dominic Cummings wrote a blog that became quite famous about squandering billions of pounds, enriching, he said, some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life by the revolving door of officials and lobbyists. It's not got a great record, has it, for spending money.
- [21:48]
B
Well, look, I recognise those Criticisms from its record and successive reports, including from the National Audit Office, that condemns the way that big projects have often been over budget and late. It was why I didn't want to do it. But I went in with a plan for the deepest reform we've got of defence. For the last 50 years I had weekly meetings. This never made any of the front pages. No photo opportunities with defence reform. But we now have a national armaments Director in place, arguably a more important figure to follow up the defence investment plan than the Chief of the Defence Staff. In future, I've taken the investment budget and the decisions about what kit to buy away from the military chiefs. That's with the national armaments threat for the first time for 50 years. They now are commanded by the Chief of the Defence Staff. So we have a stronger centre. And this is about, for me, this is about the civilian leadership of our military quite properly bringing for me Labour values to this saying, you cannot expect extra investment without further reform, without demonstrating better budget control and value for money. You cannot look to simply buy the best American kit as your first option. We have to invest British taxpayers money first to British firms and we're doing that.
- [23:06]
A
Let's end our conversation by looking forward to Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Looks to be an inevitability. Now, if he called you in and said, I've read this phrase, John, bigger politics, bolder priorities, harder choices, what does it mean? Has he called you in?
- [23:22]
B
We've certainly talked. You'd expect us to, since it was
- [23:26]
A
clear he was going to be promised.
- [23:27]
B
Yes. You know, I said earlier I sat alongside Andy Burnham in Gordon Brown's cabinet. I know how strong his commitment to defence and national security is. I know the sense of mission that he brings to the job he does. And I see him now as a different politician than he was in the previous two leadership elections that he fought. What strikes me about Andy Burnham now is he is a leader that says, this is what I'm going to do, not here's a problem I'm going to fix.
- [23:58]
A
So do you believe that Andy Burnham is signed up not just to this short term defence investment plan, but to having a plan to meet the NATO target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?
- [24:12]
B
That's one of the things that he will make clear and confirm when he takes over? For now, I'm encouraged by the fact that he's said he will make good this unexpected shortfall that is there in the funding for the current defence investment plan. And he's made clear his strong commitment to defence. And he will recognize, I think, the extraordinary opportunity there is to rebuild British industry and innovation. It's part of our deterrence for the future, not just the strength of our forces. For now, I'm really encouraged that Keir Starmer said defense now will be the number one priority for that spending review.
- [24:55]
A
You quoted Keir Starmer, but in a way people might think without being brutal to the man who cares what he thinks? Does Andy Burnham think defense is the number one priority?
- [25:04]
B
Well, that is for Andy Burnham to spell out exactly where his priorities lie. But I know how seriously he takes defense. I know the briefings that he will now be getting through the access talks that have started. I know what he will be briefed. I know the decisions that he will have to take as Prime Minister. And when he sees, as I do, investment in defence as part of the revitalization and re industrialization as well as the acceleration of a innovative new defense tech sector for Britain. And when he sees the, I think what would be, I would, I would put it like this. The, the commitment that we're making isn't just a defense investment plan. It isn't just an economic growth plan. It is a way of leading the country.
- [26:01]
A
Let me ask you the question he's bound to have asked you. Do you want your old job back?
- [26:06]
B
Well, that's entirely a matter for him. For me, what has always been the case and you mentioned at the very start, I've served under Tomy Blair, Gordon Brown. I've served in cabinets and shadow cabinets under Brown, Miliband Corbyn and Starmer. The one thing for me is to see a successful Labour government leading a stronger Britain.
- [26:31]
A
But if he said here's your old job, you're not going to say no?
- [26:34]
B
If I've got a part to play in that and we are leading Britain in the right way, then of course I'll play a part. But that is entirely, that's going to be entirely for Andy.
- [26:46]
A
Final thought. Is there any upside of having given up this job that you say is the best job in government? You look a bit more, if I may say so, better rested, a bit more relaxed than last time I saw you. What's the upside of giving up a job?
- [27:01]
B
I don't miss three phones by my bed at night.
- [27:05]
A
Why'd you have to three by the way?
- [27:08]
B
Well, there's my phone, there's the mod phone and then there's a, a top secret comms phone for the things that you just can't use and the business you can't do over ordinary phone lines. The upside is the great lads that used to be part of the protection team, but the first, the first day afterwards, Jackie and I woke early, six o' clock in the morning, we went for a walk in the local woods. We didn't have to pre arrange it. The night before, we didn't have a couple of metropolitan police officers five yards behind us.
- [27:45]
A
Mr. Jacky Bates can enjoy for now, a little bit of peace.
- [27:50]
B
Indeed.
- [27:50]
A
So, John Healey, thank you very much for joining me on Political Thinking.
- [27:53]
B
Thank you.
- [27:54]
A
Thanks for listening to this edition of Political Thinking. There are hundreds, and I do mean hundreds, of back episodes on BBC Sounds. The producer was Hannah Wilkinson, assisted by Artemis Irvine. The editor is Giles Edwards and the studio director is Paul Everard.
- [28:13]
C
Silence in Court. I'm Lucy Worsley and in my brand new series, I'll be hearing about the women involved in some of history's most infamous legal battles. Women accused of murder, bigamy and adultery, through to the shocking offence of not knowing their place. With a team of all female detectives, I'll explore the lives at the centre of some extraordinary courtroom dramas, asking has the justice system truly changed? Lady on Trial with Lucy Worsley from BBC Radio 4. Listen now on BBC Sounds.