Shadow Defense Secretary, James Cartl. He choose with us this morning. It's good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. Obviously, lots of politicians gathering up at Blenum today, including the Germans and President Zelenskyy. Germans are saying, we're hearing, that they want to cut funding to Romania, Ukraine. What would you say if you were in that position?

Obviously, I would hope that all of our NATO partners would continue to give as generously as possible. I think, and we don't know the full detail, I think The implication was that they would seek to increase their funding by using the money that's come from frozen Russian assets. I think that's what they were saying. Maybe that means the quantum, as it were, the total volume of cash, won't actually fall. We would hope so. We definitely hope so because you look back on our record, we stood by Ukraine early, and then a key thing that we did was to convene those other nations to get behind us and ensure we got the support in place. Germany is a key player in that. So hopefully this means we're all going to still be resolute and behind Ukraine.

Okay. We heard yesterday about an armed forces Commissioner Bill. Thoughts on that?

Obviously, we haven't seen the detail of that. From what I understand, this would be an independent, if you like, advocate, almost, who members of the armed forces could contact, presumably about things like their accommodation. I had responsibility for the defense of state, so I do have some sympathy with the point that the types of buildings we have, unfortunately, are not really suited to modern living, lots of issues with damp and mold, and we've put significant funding in place to address that. What I would say is, to be honest, there's no point in having a Commissioner if you're not going to have the funding in place to address those issues. My big concern is we still don't have a clear timeline on two and a half A 100. Prime Minister says he wants to get to a 100 spending on defense, but if we don't have a clear timeline, I'm afraid the Ministry of Defense will have to make some very difficult decisions, and I fear that will mean less money for things like accommodation, precisely the thing a Commissioner would want to be supporting.

So a Commissioner, in theory, is a good idea.

Yes. Obviously, we have to see the full detail.

So why didn't you guys do it?

Well, first of all, our priority... So if you take when I was in the Ministry of Defense with Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, our priority absolutely was to address those fundamental issues with accommodation. For us, that was about getting investment in. We set out what I call a winter plan. We put in thousands of remediations for damper mold, which is a big issue in the state.

You said, but why didn't you do it? If it's such a good idea, why didn't you guys do it?

That wasn't our priority, to be blunt. I do think there is a question about the chain of command as well. How will this independent Commissioner interact with the senior officers in the military? But our priority was getting the funding in place so that we could deal with those issues in accommodation, but also across defense. I do want to return to this point on 2.5%, because if you recall when Rishi Sunak, as the previous Prime Minister, announced going to 2.5% in Germany, the number one area that was going to benefit from that was munitions. We were going to buy the munitions to replenish our own stop uphiles, which, of course, have been depleted because we've gifted Ukraine, quite rightly.

But it was two and a half % by when?

So it had delivered on munitions an extra £10 billion over 10 years.

Without that- A similar time scale to what labor is planning.

They've got no time scale. What is their time scale? They haven't set one up.

This Parliament Has they said that?

Yes. They haven't said a date for two and a half %.

They've said by 2030.

Have they? Yes. So my understanding is there is no timeline. So we don't know, for example- By the course of this Parliament is what they said.

They did not say 2030. They said by the course of this Parliament, and Actually, this Parliament ends in 2029.

But it's a question of when we find out that's the case because they're going to- You said 2030, didn't you? If you forgive me, they're going to take a year to do this review. Now, in that time, if people in the Ministry of Defense don't know when they're going to get to two and a half %, they will have to make some very difficult decisions. The reason I mentioned the munitions point, it's absolutely essential that we replenish our stockpiles. Everyone agrees on that. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, they need to have their stockpiles up to warfighting levels because of the threat we face. The 2.5% we put in place, because there If there was a clear path, would have put £10 billion extra to fund these munitions. What happens to that without that clear path?

What this government is saying is that they need to have a defense review to decide where the best place is to spend this money, but they are committed to getting to 2.5%, and we spoke to... Who did we speak to yesterday? Tobias Elwood, who, as you know, was a defense minister under your government, and he said that was exactly the right thing to do.

But hold on a minute. I think it was on your show where you had the new Minister of the Arm Forces, Luke Pollard, when you, quite rightly asked him about the timeline, and he said that this review could take a year, and in that time, they won't be giving a clear time scale of getting to 2.5 %. He said it would be-They're saying lots of different things.

Well, yeah, I'll give you that, but the defense secretary did correct him and say within a matter of months.

And what I can say definitively is we knew that by setting that clear pathway, we'd have the £10 billion to support our inventory, get our stockpiles back up to warfighting levels. There's a massive question without that clear timeline, where that money Where's it going to come from.

There's a massive question about who's going to be your next leader.

Yeah, it's a question that we will be addressing. When?

Have you got a timeline?

Well, actually, I'm happy to. Colleagues generally want to go long. They want to take their time over this. They feel that we can still be an effective opposition, doing our constitutional role, holding the government to account, whether on two and a half % or anything else. We want to make the right decision. And first of all, looking at the election, analyzing what went wrong, because we've had obviously-You went too early.

That's But what went wrong.

But we've had a calamitous result, let's be honest. And I said it when I was last on your program. We need to take our time choosing the next leader because they need to be tested. We need to test what their ideas are, because what we need to get out of this is someone who can form a credible a positive alternative to labor. And I think we should take our time over that. So at the moment, the focus is on getting the rules in place to agree that timeline. We've got the new Chairman of the 22 Committee in place, and now we've had the election to the party board. So we're doing all the necessary bureaucratic stuff, if you like, to ensure we can come up with that timeline. But rest assured, I'm sure later this year we'll have a new leader in place, and I'll have strong support to take the fight to labor.

And in the meantime, should you have a calamitous leader who was so... It was a disastrous election, as you said, or should you be looking for an interim leader like IDS, Ian Duncan Smith, or somebody like that?

Well, ultimately, that will be determined by Richie, whether he wants to-What do you think? Stand down. He said he would stand down once the new arrangements are in place. But what do you think? I think that's up to him.

Yeah. So you're very happy, even though it was the worst result ever, you still want him to be in charge for as long as he wants to.

As you quite rightly said, the big question is about getting a new leader in place because it's not just... You're agreeing with me a lot today. Of course. There's nothing wrong with consensus, is there? But the thing is, get a new leader in place. But it's ultimately about what they stand for. The big debates are about, and we need to have debates, we need as a party, what are our priorities going to be? Because I think we need to a broad appeal. You don't want to have a knock on a door and someone's of a certain age, and they're likely not to be voting conservative. We've got to have that broader appeal. So we want a candidate who can have broad appeal, but also stand up for those conservative principles which we can all get behind. So that is a big deal. That's why we're going to take time over it, looking what happened in the election, and then supporting a new leader and getting them in place.

Okay, so timeline?

We don't have a specific timeline yet. I personally suspect there'll be a lot happening in the autumn. Conference, hopefully, will play a key role. My personal view, I'd like to see conference as a Husting's conference, a chance to have the individual candidates properly put through their paces. And I think that would be a good way of testing them, because ultimately, we want to make sure we've got the right person. That's why I think... When we say going long, it doesn't mean many months, but it does mean resolution this year. Okay.

It's good to see you as always. Thanks very much indeed for taking the time. Thank.