Ben Wallace, the former Conservative defence secretary, told Radio 4’s PM programme that he thinks Rishi Sunak will fund the MoD increase announced today by sacrificing a potential tax cut plan that might have been included in the Tory manifesto.

Wallace said he did not know the full details. But he told the programme that he spoke to Sunak this morning, and that Sunak told him he could fund this plan by abandoning “other commitments” that might have been in the manifesto. Wallace said:

Rishi doesn’t say anything on things like money without really going to the nth degree – more than I would.

I spoke to him this morning and he said, “Look, we decided we’re going to spend it on this. We had some other commitments we thought we may or may not do at the election, that we would introduce in the manifesto, and we’ve decided that this is going to be our priority.

So they have clearly, within No 10 and the Treasury, identified some extra spending. This is only speculation – some of that could be not doing a tax cut that might have happened, some of that could be not spending more in another sector of government.

But he’s clearly identified that. He was keen to talk to me.

If Sunak has abandoned plans for a tax cut in favour of plans to increase defence spending, he will be doing what Conservative party members want, according to a recent survey. (See 2.38pm.)

On the PM programme the presenter, Evan Davis, did point out that when Boris Johnson was prime minister, he also announced a long-term plan to raise defence spending to 2.5%. He aised the question as to whether, in the light of that, today’s announcement was very significant.

Davis was too polite to provide the obvious answer (which is that no promise from Johnson could ever be taken seriously), but Wallace did allude to it, saying Johnson and Sunak have very different approaches to making financial commitments.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank says it is hard to see Rishi Sunak could raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 without some other departments facing deep cuts, given the Tories’ unwillingness to raise taxes. These are from Ben Zaranko, an IFS economist.

This is a big spending commitment (an extra 0.5% of GDP will be approx £17bn by 2030).

Notably, there’s no sign that overall spending plans have been topped up. So it’s implicitly coming from other areas.

Unprotected public services now face cuts of around 4% p.a. after 2025.

The precise number you get here depends on the precise assumptions you make (we have to make assumptions in the absence of any detail from government). But cuts of between 3% and 5% a year for unprotected budgets are on the cards. Compares to cuts of around 6% a year 2010-15

Ultimately, if we as a country need to permanently spend more on defence because the world has changed for the worse, we need to either 1) raise taxes or 2) consume less of something else (i.e. fewer public services).

Government is implicitly choosing 2) but won’t spell it out.

Also, the government has long had an “ambition” to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP - it’s not obvious to me what’s new. Labour have the same ambition.

The post-election Spending Review will be where this ambition meets fiscal reality

The past few weeks have been “shocking, upsetting and destabilising” for trans and non-binary young people in Scotland, Holyrood’s public health minister Jenni Minto told MSPs, as she took on opposition claims that her government has diluted its response to the Cass review in order to protect their governing partnership with the Greens.

Minto gave a statement to the Holyrood chamber this afternoon which succeeded in satisfying practically nobody.

The Greens – who will soon vote on whether to continue the Bute House Agreement with the SNP after members were aghast at last week’s ditching of climate targets – said that young people’s rights had been treated “like a political football” while Labour said the statement “lacked substance” and was “a sop to the Greens”.

Minto didn’t tell MSPs much they didn’t know already: the recommendations of the Cass review will be carefully considered by a multi-disciplinary team of clinicians, who will report back before summer recess; the Scottish government is already working with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, where the current Sandyford gender service is based, on a nationally commissioned youth gender service; they are funding research at Glasgow University into the long term outcomes of gender healthcare.

But a number of MSPs cross-party expressed frustration that Minto could not simply accept the Cass recommendations. She countered that the review applied to NHS England and there were parts that could not simply read across – and she refused to engage with questions about Green co-leader Patrick Harvie, who has suggested the review is “not a valid scientific document”.

John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, has suggested that the Tory proposal to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is not particularly plausible.

In a response to Rishi Sunak’s announcement Healey said:

As Keir Starmer recently set out, Labour wants to see a fully funded plan to reach 2.5%, but the Tories have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted on defence and we will examine the detail of their announcement closely.

The British public will judge ministers by what they do not what they say. Since 2010, the Conservatives have wasted more than £15bn mismanaging defence procurement, shrunk the army to its smallest size since Napoleon, missed their recruitment targets every year, and allowed morale to fall to record lows.

Labour will conduct a strategic defence and security review in the first year in government to get to grips with the threats we face, the state of our Armed Forces, and the resources required.

Q: Is it time to be candid about the situation in Ukraine? Could the war last for the rest of the decade?

Sunak says this is a more dangerous time than any point since the end of the cold war.

An investment in Ukraine is an investment in UK security, he says. If Putin is not stopped, he will just go further.

Stoltenberg says having an aggressive neighbour imposes a cost. And, in Russia, Europe has a very aggressive neighbour.

But it would cost even more to let him win, he says.

The more expensive alternative would be to let Russia win in Ukraine, he says. If that happened, we would be living “in a much more dangerous world”, that that would cost significantly more, he says.

Q: What is your reaction to the deaths of five people in the Channel?

Sunak says this is “incredibly sad”. It just underscores the importance of stopping the boats.

And that is way “as a matter of basic compassion” he wants to stop the boats.

(This was a line he was using earlier today. See 12pm.)

Q: Are you ready to take Britain to war if Russian troops put one boot in this country?

Sunak says the UK’s contribution to Nato is unequivocal.

He says the crisis in the Middle East should not lead to countries ignoring the threat from Russia in Ukraine.

It is vital to ensure President Putin is not successful, he says.

Q: [To Stoltenberg] Do you look forward to working with Donald Trump again? It was tricky last time?

Stoltenberg says a strong Nato is good for Nato, “but also good for the United States”.

He says, regardless of who wins the US presidential election, he expects the US to remain a staunch and loyal ally.

There are three reasons for this, he says.

First, he says it is in the interests of the US to have the support of more than 30 allies.

Second, he says there is broad support for Nato membership allies in the US.

And, third, the US criticism of Nato has not been criticism of Nato allies; it has been criticism of them for not spending enough on defence. And that is changing, he says.

He says in 2014 only three Nato allies spent more than 2% of GDP on defence. This year two thirds of Nato countries, 20 or perhaps even more, will be reaching that target, he says.

Sunak says he has three priorities for defence spending.

First, he says defence spending in the UK will be put “on a war footing’.

We will put the UK’s own defence industry on a war footing.

One of the central lessons of the war in Ukraine is that we need deeper stockpiles of munitions, and for industry to be able to replenish them more quickly.

So today, we’re giving £10bn in munitions to give industry long-term funding certainty, backed by long-term contracts, so they can produce more, be readier to surge capacity, and move to ‘always on’ production, when required.

From surface-to-air-missiles made in Bolton, to anti-tank weapons in Belfast, we will replenish our stockpiles, all while supporting British jobs right across the Union.

But it’s not just about investing more – we must invest better.

For too long, too much of our defence procurement has been over-complex, over-budget, and over-time.

So we are making radical reforms to our procurement model to make sure this new investment delivers value for money.

And to encourage private sector investment into defence production … I can also announce today that we’re going to put beyond doubt that defence investment does count towards environmental, social and governance assessments.

There is nothing more ethical than defending our way of life from those who threaten it.

Now all of this will put us at the forefront of the global defence industry, allow us to hugely ramp up defence production, and give our armed forces the capability they need to keep us safe.

Sunak says 16,000 troops have been deployed in Europe this year. And the RAF and the Royal Navy have new equipment, he says.

But Britain cannot be complacent, he says.

Britain must do more. So today he is announcing “the biggest strengthening of our national defence for a generation”. He goes on:

We will increase defence spending to a new baseline of 2.5% of GDP, by 2030.

That starts today.

And rises steadily in each and every year.

Over the next six years, we’ll invest an additional £75bn in our defence.

And it will be fully funded with no increase in borrowing or debt.

So this is not some vague aspiration for the future.

We have a clear plan for what we’ll spend, when we’ll spend it, and how we pay for it.

A plan that makes the United Kingdom by far the largest defence power in Europe – and second largest in Nato.

Today is a landmark moment in the defence of the United Kingdom.

This is a generational investment in British security and British prosperity.

It makes us safer at home and stronger abroad.

Rishi Sunak is holding a press conference at a military base in Poland with Jens Stoltenberg, the Nato secretary general.

Sunak starts by saying his first duty is national security. And he thanks the servicemen and women he is addressing for what they do.

The world is becoming more dangerous, he says.

Countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are “increasingly assertive”, he says.

The danger they pose is not new. What is new is that these countries and their proxies are causing more instability … in more places at once. And they’re increasingly acting together, making common cause and an attempt to reshape the world order.

Rishi Sunak is going to announce that the government will raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, Deborah Haynes from Sky News reports.

Many Tory MPs have been pushing for higher defence spending and a survey of Conservative party members for the ConservativeHome website earlier this month found that three quarters of them said higher defence spending should take precedence over tax cuts. In the budget and the autumn statement last year, Jeremy Hunt, the chanellor, did the opposite, prioritising tax cuts.

But a spending commitment linked to a target date six years in the future, from a prime minister almost certain to lose an election, may not carry great sway.

After the Conservatives recently sought to open up a dividing line with Labour over defence spending, Keir Starmer said he was committing to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “as soon as resources allow”.

For the first few months of this year Labour politicians spent a lot of time telling anyone who would listen that it was an open secret at Westminster that Rishi Sunak would call the general election in May. Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, even bet money on this live on TV. It was largely nonsense (many political journalists booked holiday for April, assuming the election would be in the autumn), but the ruse allowed Labour to claim that Rishi Sunak had “bottled it” when the May election never materialised.

Now Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, is trying the same trick again. During health questions today

Westminster is awash with rumours that the prime minister is going to call a July general election, presumably to avoid giving his Rwanda gimmick the time to fail.

So I have a very simple question for the minister: will he repeat the pledge the prime minister made last year and promise that NHS waiting lists will be lower at the time of the general election than when the prime minister came to office?

According to the betting company Betfair, some people have been betting on a July election over the past 24 hours. The odds on July have gone from 16/1 to 3/1, implying there is a 25% chance of a July election. But November remains the overwhelming favourite, with the odds of an election that month at 5/4.

Prof Sir John Curtice, the BBC’s lead psephologist, told Times Radio this morning that he thinks the election will be in the autumn. (See 10.41am.)

Replying to Streeting, the health minister Andrew Stephenson said:

The prime minister has been very clear that getting waiting lists down is one of his top priorities, but he has also been clear that performance has been disappointing.

Stephenson said NHS strikes were partly to blame, and he said Labour should condemn them.

The FDA, the union which represents senior civil servants, is threatening the Home Office with legal action over new guidance for civil servants which says that, if a minister decides to ignore an injunction from the European court of human rights (ECHR) saying a deportation flight to Rwanda must not go ahead, officials have to do what the minister says and facilitate the flight – even though ignoring an ECHR injunction is in breach of international law.

Speaking to reporters on his flight to Poland, Rishi Sunak made it clear that he did not agree with the FDA. Officials must obey ministers if they’re ordered to ignore an ECHR injunction, he said.

I’m clearly and firmly of the view that civil servants know that what they’re there to do is support the government, the elected government of the day, and that’s what I’m confident they will do in this instance.

That’s why we specifically changed the civil service code, which is one of the steps that we made a little while ago, to make it crystal clear that when it comes to rule 39 decisions [ECHR injunctions], as you know, the bill gives ministers the discretion to decide what to do about those.

I wouldn’t have put that power in there if I wasn’t prepared to use it, but our changes to the code make it crystal clear that civil servants will be expected to follow ministerial guidance on that point when we get there or if we get there.

In 2022 a flight taking asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda was cancelled as a result of an ECHR injunction. But Sunak believes there is less chance of that happening again, partly because of reforms to the Rwandan asylum system being implemented under the UK-Rwanda treaty and partly because the ECHR tightened its rules, making injunctions harder to obtain.

Rishi Sunak has said that the deaths of five people who were crossing the Channel in the early hours of this morning underlines the need to stop the boats.

Speaking to reporters on his plane to Poland, he argued that there was an “element of compassion” in his Rwanda policy because it is intended to stop people smuggling. He said:

There are reports of sadly yet more tragic deaths in the Channel this morning. I think that is just a reminder of why our plan is so important because there’s a certain element of compassion about everything that we’re doing.

We want to prevent people making these very dangerous crossings. If you look at what’s happening, criminal gangs are exploiting vulnerable people. They are packing more and more people into these unseaworthy dinghies.

We’ve seen an enormous increase in the numbers per boat over the past few years. This is what tragically happens when they push people out to sea and that’s why, for matters of compassion more than anything else, we must actually break this business model and end this unfairness of people coming to our country illegally.

Patrick Harvie, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens and a minister in the Scottish government, could face a confidence vote in Holyrood, PA Media reports. PA says:

The Alba party announced today its Holyrood leader Ash Regan is submitting a motion of no confidence in the minister, which could force a vote he would almost certainly win.

The motion comes over Harvie’s failure to say if he accepts the findings of the Cass review in an interview on Monday.

Asked five times if he accepts the report, the minister refused to say, instead claiming it has been “politicised and weaponised” against trans people.

The review – published earlier this month – highlighted a lack of evidence for some treatments of transgender young people and decried the “toxic” debate around the issue.

The motion would require support from 25 other members in parliament before it could force a vote, but the joint numbers of the SNP and Greens would probably be enough to save Harvie’s job.

Regan – who defected from the SNP to Alba last year – said: “The motion of no confidence speaks for itself. The Scottish Greens wish to side with ideology over clinical evidence. I am hopeful that MSPs will put good governance first, ahead of party lines, and support the motion.”

Five people have reportedly died in an attempt to cross the Channel near the town of Wimereux, south of Calais, Jamie Grierson reports.

In response to the reports, James Cleverly, the home secretary, said:

These tragedies have to stop. I will not accept a status quo which costs so many lives.

This government is doing everything we can to end this trade, stop the boats and ultimately break the business model of the evil people smuggling gangs, so they no longer put lives at risk.

Jeremy Hunt’s scope for a substantial pre-election tax giveaway has been hit after the latest set of official figures showed the UK’s public finances in worse shape than thought at last month’s budget, Larry Elliott reports.

Good morning. Rishi Sunak has finally managed to get parliament to pass his safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill (it will become an Act gets royal assent, within hours or days), but international concern about the new law is not going away. If anything, it may now escalate. This morning the Council of Europe, the custodian of the European convention on human rights, UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, and the UN’s high commissioner for human rights have all issued statements.

Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, said the passing of the bill was a threat to the global legal system protecting refugees. In a statment he said:

The Rwanda bill’s adoption is another representation of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe, which is a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees.

Filippo Grandi, the UN’s high commissioner for refugees, raised similar concerns. In a statement he said:

The new legislation marks a further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention.

Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighbouring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations. This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent.

And Volker Türk, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement:

By shifting responsibility for refugees, reducing the UK’s courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people, this new legislation seriously hinders the rule of law in the UK and sets a perilous precedent globally.

All three experts urged the UK government not to use the new powers it has given itself.

But the government is not taking any notice. In a statement issued this morning Sunak said:

The passing of this landmark legislation is not just a step forward but a fundamental change in the global equation on migration.

We introduced the Rwanda bill to deter vulnerable migrants from making perilous crossings and break the business model of the criminal gangs who exploit them. The passing of this legislation will allow us to do that and make it very clear that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay.

Our focus is to now get flights off the ground, and I am clear that nothing will stand in our way of doing that and saving lives.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister, gives evidence to the Commons business and trade committee about trade deals.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Lunchtime: Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, are on a visit in North Yorkshire.

Lunchtime: Rishi Sunak arrives in Warsaw

2.20pm: Sunak holds a press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, the Nato secretary general. Sunak is also meeting Donald Tusk, the Polish PM.

And Sunak is not the only minister travelling today. James Cleverly, the home secretary, is in Italy for talks with his Italian counterpart, Matteo Piantedosi, on illegal immigration. And David Cameron, the foreign secretary, is flying to Uzbekistan for the latest stage of his Central Asian tour.

If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.