In a recent parliamentary session, Defence Secretary John Healey provided updates on the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which he described as “the first of its kind in the UK.”
The review, externally led and consulting widely with experts from government, the military, industry, academia, and allies, is set to report findings and recommendations by the spring.
Gregory Stafford, Conservative MP for Farnham and Bordon, pressed the Defence Secretary on whether the Government would meet the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target by the end of the current Parliament. Healey reaffirmed the commitment, stating:
“Everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. Under this Government, it is increasing by nearly £3 billion next year, and there is a cast-iron commitment that we will set a clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.”
He also highlighted that the UK last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence in 2010 under a Labour Government.
Concerns about delays in procurement decisions were raised by Labour MP Graham Stringer, who pointed out that the Typhoon production line at Warton is currently idle. Stringer noted:
“Deciding to defer or to review is just as much of a decision as one to go ahead or not to go ahead, because it means that nothing is happening. The Typhoon factory at Warton is currently idle—no Typhoons are being produced—which is bad for exports and bad for our defence.”
Healey responded, praising the workforce at Warton and revealing ongoing discussions with international partners:
“I have had the privilege of visiting Warton, and I have seen the skills, the technology and the workforce’s commitment and dedication to that job. The reviewers of the strategic defence review will produce their final report and make recommendations in the spring. In the meantime… I was in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to discuss with Defence Ministers the future role that UK-made Typhoons could play in the defence of both countries.”
The role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK’s defence sector was highlighted by Labour MP Alex Baker, who asked what steps were being taken to ensure SMEs’ contributions to the SDR were given equal weighting with prime contractors. Healey agreed, stating:
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Defence Secretary will recognise the role that small, medium and growing companies can play in our defence and security sector better than anyone else in the House.”
He added that the Government is committed to SMEs’ inclusion in the review:
“That is one reason why, within days of getting this job, I did not just meet the big, leading defence companies; I had a similar meeting and briefing on the approach this Government will take with small and medium-sized companies, including growing companies, in the defence sector.”
Graham Stuart, Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, raised concerns about whether the MOD would receive additional funding to manage in-year financial pressures. Healey acknowledged the challenge, stating:
“The Chancellor set out in her Budget on 30 October the steps we are taking, across Government, to deal with the £22 billion in-year deficit that this Government inherited.”
He reiterated that the path to 2.5% of GDP on defence will be determined following the SDR, aligning with the Prime Minister’s statement at the NATO summit in July:
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made it clear that we will set that path in the spring. I remind the House that the Prime Minister said at the NATO summit in Washington, back in July, that it was a question of the strategic defence review first, then the commitment and the path to 2.5%.”
The Strategic Defence Review, set against a backdrop of evolving global threats, is expected to shape the UK’s defence priorities for years to come.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
This 2.5% target, while welcome if more money is spent, ignores the main issues in that much of the MoDs huge budget does not go to fund conventional forces at a size and capability relevant for the UK.
And thus they continue to shrink.
There needs to be a conversation at what level conventional forces are and fund it fully, as 2.5 is not enough just as 2% was not enough with nuclear, pensions, deliberate government delays, gold plating, and incompetence are thrown in.
I see as well the comment section has had a revamp, but still no ability to look at posters comment history?
I’m starting to see the 2.5% more as a distraction than a stepping stone. I believe we need a new measure, the amount spent on conventional UK military capabilty as a percentage of GDP. What would that be running at, at the moment, shorn of Ukraine, operations, pensions, security, nuclear, and whatever other nonsense Osborne threw in the bucket? 1.6%? Let’s get that up to 3.0%.
We have two “new” conventional domains to cover in cyber (including EW & digital) and space. We probably need even more now than we did at the end of the Cold War.
I’m with you on this Jon. The 2.5 is a distractioin and in many ways false. 2.5 of what. Economy improves…good; economy shrinks…bad. I think the government needs to start talking about X ammount over inflation.
The sceptic in me suggests this is principally a money-saving venture. However, this is also an opportunity for a focused and intelligent effort to stop the sticking plaster policy of the current system. We all know that the merest hint of an easing in World tensions results in the Treasury jumping in with an axe. To halt this piracy, a well-structured long-term plan that can carry commitments and guarantees beyond the next election would be very welcome.
Text is now too small for me to read 🙁
Hi Daniele, I think it would be interesting to see what a one off fund similar to the German fund to fix the modernisation and capability gap burden created by the decisions of the last 2/3 decades would allow for from a % of GDP standpoint.
Do you think that if we didn’t have the burden to do so much all at once that the 2.5% figure combined with a robust industrial strategy for long term upgrade and replacement of equipment would be more feasible with the greater mass required ?
Ofcourse I’m sure they will use technology as a reason to shrink the forces further.
There is a cast-iron commitment that we will set a clear path to thinking about, maybe one day, setting a target to, making a plan, that will result in us considering, a multi-year route to, a fiscal journey, which will, when public finances allow, lead to us spending 2.5%* of GDP on “defence”.
*This may include public sector pensions, foreign aid, ‘compensation’ to ‘victims’ in past conflicts, refurbishments to the military estate to house assylum seekers, money to our mates, inefficient spending to buy votes and political influence, and any other items we see fit.
Very good!!
Well l for one do not believe a word to come out of any politicians mouth. My thinking is yes, we need more money, and we need it spending wisely.
I guess it will all be down to the new Potus carrying out his threats. Fact is he hates politicians like Two Tier and the other rabble that infest the House of Lies. And he has no time for weasel words. So lets hope for some strong action come January from DC.
The general discussion points around the SDR just seem to be the typical political talking points used the last couple of decades to hide the reality. The use of metrics like 2.5% or X biggest spender globally/NATO are meaningless, they don’t represent capability, value for money or the ability for the U.K. to meet it’s commitments, they’re just for politicians to make grand statements on mainstream news so the general public doesn’t consider the reality of the difficulties the armed forces are facing.
The SDR really should be an ‘actual’ external review with minimal government (no treasury) input outside of setting out the current and potential responsibilities of the armed forces to determine what is actually required to meet commitments and the cost to implement in a reasonable time frame, rather than framing it in the context of an arbitrary 2.5% of GDP annual spend with no real timelines to meet capabilities considering current global issues.
An actual independent review may determine that to meet commitments with the necessary mass, modernisation and capability, 5% of GDP annually is needed for a decade before it can drop, in this instance if the cost is too high and governments aren’t willing to meet it perhaps the review will need a part 2 which involves government/treasury input to determine what commitments have to be reduced or abandoned if they cannot be met due to financial constraints. It would be better to establish if commitment X cannot be met so that allies can plan accordingly for the capability gap i.e the commitment provide a full armoured division to NATO in the required time frame, whilst also providing an armoured brigade (?) to Estonia, this appears to be using the same forces considering there is only one armoured division left, one of those commitments will not be met currently.