John Healey to duck meeting UK defence spending target in budget
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Chancellor John Healey will not use his October budget to set a date for the UK to spend 3% of GDP on defence, despite previously arguing the target should be met by 2030. The decision highlights the tension between increasing defence demands amid international security risks and the government’s emphasis on fiscal restraint.
Instead, the budget will focus on fully funding the three-year defence investment plan, which had an estimated £1.2bn annual shortfall. The government expects defence spending to reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030 and says next year’s spending review will set a route towards Nato’s 3.5% target by 2035, including a date for reaching 3%.
- Healey postpones a date for 3% defence spending.
- Budget will prioritise funding the defence investment plan.
- Fiscal discipline remains the Treasury’s stated priority.
New here? Start with this
The UK’s defence budget pays for the armed forces, equipment, military bases, intelligence and support for allies. It is often measured as a share of the country’s annual economic output, known as gross domestic product or GDP.
John Healey is the defence secretary, responsible for setting out the military’s needs, while the chancellor controls government spending and taxation. Decisions on defence funding are also shaped by Nato, the alliance of European and North American countries that agrees common security goals.
The issue matters because higher defence spending can require either more borrowing, higher taxes or less money for other public services. It has become more prominent as governments reassess military readiness in response to conflicts and wider security concerns.
Full account
John Healey is expected to postpone setting a date for the UK to spend 3% of gross domestic product on defence, despite having previously argued that the goal should be reached by 2030. Reports say that his first Budget as chancellor, due on 28 October, will instead concentrate on financing the existing Defence Investment Plan, with a fuller decision on the spending trajectory deferred to a Treasury spending review expected next year.
The issue has acquired political significance because Healey resigned as defence secretary in June after criticising the previous administration’s failure to make what he regarded as an adequate commitment to defence resources. He had argued that a 2030 deadline for 3% of GDP was necessary amid worsening international security conditions. The government’s present plans are said to put defence spending on course for 2.7% of GDP by 2030, while it has also committed to a Nato-related objective of spending 3.5% by 2035.
A central immediate task for the Budget is reported to be closing a shortfall in the three-year Defence Investment Plan. Estimates in the accounts describe this as roughly £1.2bn annually, or close to £5bn over the plan’s lifetime. Ministers say the plan will be fully funded, but maintain that fiscal discipline must come first and that detailed choices on a further increase in defence expenditure should be taken alongside wider public-spending decisions at the review.
Opposition politicians and some defence figures have criticised the delay, arguing that security pressures, including the threat from Russia, do not permit a long wait for a firm funding commitment. James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said Healey appeared to be retreating from the position that prompted his resignation, while Labour peer Lord West questioned the consistency of the move. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that reaching 3% by 2030 would require about £10bn a year in additional spending in current prices. The government responds that national security remains its first duty and that it will set a target date for 3% when it outlines the route to the 3.5% Nato commitment.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 presents the postponement chiefly as a Treasury and spending-review decision, gives Healey’s case for fiscal restraint, and includes the government’s explanation of the 3.5% by 2035 commitment.
Source 2 gives greater prominence to criticism of Healey, describing the move as hypocrisy and foregrounding Conservative and Lord West’s objections, as well as the Daily Mail’s defence campaign.
The reports use slightly different ways of expressing the Defence Investment Plan gap: source 1 stresses about £1.2bn a year, while source 2 also frames it as nearly £5bn in total.
More coverage