John Healey to duck meeting UK defence spending target in budget
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
The Treasury has confirmed that John Healey will not set a timetable for the UK to spend 3% of GDP on defence in his 28 October budget, postponing the decision until next year’s spending review. The move departs from Healey’s previous call to reach the target by 2030 and highlights the government’s emphasis on fiscal discipline despite concerns about international security.
Instead, the budget will focus on fully funding the three-year defence investment plan, which has an estimated £1.2bn annual gap. Defence spending is expected to reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, partly through aid cuts, while the government says the spending review will set a route to Nato’s 3.5% target by 2035 and a date for reaching 3%.
- Defence spending timetable delayed until next year’s review
- Budget will prioritise funding the defence investment plan
- UK spending expected to reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030
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.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Deferring a firm timetable can be defended as responsible fiscal management: committing to 3% of GDP before the government has completed its wider spending review could force poorly targeted cuts, tax rises or borrowing. Fully funding the existing three-year investment plan first addresses an identified shortfall and gives the armed forces more credible near-term certainty. Supporters may also argue that a route towards Nato’s longer-term target, shaped by updated threats and economic conditions, is more meaningful than an ambitious date without a funded plan.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that the deteriorating security environment requires a clear, time-bound commitment now, especially after earlier assurances that 3% would be reached by 2030. Delaying the decision risks prolonging capability gaps, weakening procurement confidence and signalling insufficient resolve to allies and potential adversaries. They may contend that defence is a core public responsibility for which the government should make explicit fiscal choices, rather than relying on future reviews or reductions in aid to close the gap.
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.