The UK government’s commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP remains under scrutiny following an urgent question in the House of Commons on January 27th.
While the government has reiterated its pledge to lay out a path to the target this spring, opposition MPs have criticised delays and raised concerns over the financial impact on service members.
During the debate, James Cartlidge (Conservative) pressed the government, asking whether the recent rumours of delays in achieving 2.5% beyond 2030 were accurate. Cartlidge also questioned new tax burdens placed on the armed forces, including inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits and VAT on school fees under the Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA).
He called for immediate action to relieve British service families from these additional costs, noting that American service families stationed in the UK benefit from a VAT exemption.
Luke Pollard, Minister for the Armed Forces, responded by confirming that the government will publish the path to 2.5% defence spending alongside the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in the spring.
He highlighted the government’s “cast-iron commitment” to increased spending and dismissed speculation of long-term delays, stating, “We will make it absolutely clear to those who threaten us that we will use the formidable capabilities available to us to defend the UK and our allies.”
On the question of taxes, Pollard clarified that death-in-service benefits related to active duty remain exempt from inheritance tax and highlighted the government’s decision to raise CEA support to 90%, though he did not directly address whether further relief for British service families would be granted. This response left MPs like Cartlidge unsatisfied, with calls for “equal treatment” for British forces compared to their American counterparts.
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Chair of the Defence Committee, questioned why there had been discussions about spending timelines before the SDR had been completed. Pollard reiterated that both the SDR and the spending pathway would be released concurrently, asserting, “Deterring a war is cheaper than fighting one.” He underscored the government’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and ensuring the UK maintains a “NATO-first defence policy.”
Other MPs, including Helen Maguire (Liberal Democrats), raised concerns about defence procurement inefficiencies and living conditions for service members. Maguire argued that promises without a clear path risked being “hollow,” urging the government to deliver a detailed and credible plan by Easter.
Pollard responded by pointing to £3 billion in additional spending already announced for the next financial year and criticised the previous coalition government’s cuts to the defence budget.
Fred Thomas (Labour) highlighted the importance of public support for increased defence spending, referencing last week’s declassification of information regarding a Royal Navy submarine’s role in deterring the Russian spy ship Yantar. Pollard agreed, stating, “Making the case that warfare has changed, especially when it comes to the protection of our critical underwater infrastructure, is essential.”
In closing, Pollard confirmed that further details on defence spending and strategy will be announced this spring, stating that “this government will treat the House with respect” by ensuring key updates are provided directly to Parliament rather than through anonymous briefings.
However, the session left key questions unresolved. The opposition continues to demand clarity on whether the 2.5% target will be met within this Parliament and specific assurances that support for service families will be prioritised. The pressure is now on the government to deliver a comprehensive plan in the coming months.
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!
Nobody believes a WORD either Labour or the Conservatives say on the matter anymore.
As it all remain just WORDS.
None of the parties have a good enough plan for the armed forces
Correct its all just “words”
Agreed. Of course 2.5 per cent means nothing anyway. 2.5 per cent of what. If the economy goes down or there is no growth 2.5 could mean 2.0 by the the time any government gats round to it.
Danny Boy…. why are you SHOUTING AGAIN ?
Indeed, words are easy, actions are hard but what actually matters in the end ( infact the only thing that matters) are the tangible results.
Yes fully agree. Whatever government we’ve had past and present, I can’t recall a time when there’s been a true increase in defence spending.
“Deterring a war is cheaper than fighting one.”
Didnt deter russia ..did it
So it sounds like more cuts, then kicking the Defence spending % further down the road…
Same old rhetoric
In the Spring they better have a damn good plan!!
We cant afford to sit back and do nothing, were in a bad state!
When didn’t it deter Russia? We have yet to directly face Russia although it most definitely seems to be on the cards.
I would love to know what level of UK defence spending would have deterred Russia from invading a non NATO member. Do you think if the UK spent £700 billion a year around 10* the current budget it would have stopped Russia invading Ukraine?
Because that’s what the USA spends each year and that didn’t stop Russia invading Ukraine.
Ah but Russia hasn’t invaded UK or USA. Maybe you should ask if Ukraine had spent said £700 Billion ?
Mad Vlad knew that USA wouldn’t do anything.
That left the Europeans and Mad Vlad concluded they couldn’t do much to roll back his ‘army’….mind your he’s been drinking his own Kool Aid….
Not a tough choice to act with sleepy Joe and the most incompetent democrat party in the US in 60 years at the helm. He probably won’t get another chance to do that in his life.
For a deterrent to work it has to have the 3 Cs
Capability…so the actual stuff to hurt the nation you are trying to deter
Commitment…so showing you have the will to deploy your capabilities and hurt them as well as take the return pain back
Communication..you have to show your enemy your capabilities and commitments, essentially you drag your capabilities out and throw them in your enemies face as well as make it clear your going to use them and when and why you would use them..
In regards to Ukraine it did not matter how much capability the west has because it had not commitment to Ukraine and had not communicated any commitment…so Russia was happy to invade..
If NATO had dumped a few heavy brigades into Ukraine in 2014 and put an air policing patrol in place as well as made it clear what would happen if any further infringements of Ukrainian sovereignty occurred and Russia still in invaded a second time, you could justifiably say the west failed to deter…as is they never actually attempted to.
If NATO had made any kind of defence commitment to Ukraine it would have deterred Russia but NATO was not going to do that. It’s noth8ng to do with defence spending.
John, NATOs spending on Defence has prevented a war between NATO and USSR/Russia since 1949.
Even Putin has said this on a couple of occasions, I don’t think he’s stupid enough to think Russia could actually win against NATO. The only trick really is nuclear but, nobody is going to win in that situation anyway.
NATO has actually done an excellent job of deterring Russia from waging war with its member ever since it was set up. Perhaps you are suggesting we should add all countries in Europe to NATO tomorrow and see what Putin would do then?
More Parliamentary waffle ( it is Sunday ) I see one and only one way to make them cough up, preferably to Polish levels. It needs Mr Trump to hold Liebours feet in the fire. Or, God forbid in our present state, an act of serious aggression by Vladimir. I really do not think 2TK et al realise what they are facing.
And how would yoy pay for such an increase in defence spending John?
How would you if it happened ?
The bigger problem looming is that if we don’t we are going to have to find far more as Pollard has said.
If this puts focus on cutting the totally out of control benefits bill then that is a good thing.
Defence is a genuine investment.
Spending money on keeping people idle isn’t.
Perhaps we could stop Lammy and the FO giving away millions!and then of course there is Miliband spunking billions left right and centre.
Personally I’d legalise all Class C drugs and also brothels, regulate both and tax them – tax cannabis et at same rate as tobacco. That would generate a fair few billion a year that could go onto defence.
To be honest, I’d increase defence and look to invest as much of it as possible into UK equipment – supports local economies and boost the national economy.
Stop paying social security wasters money they don’t warrant. Support those in need, but not those who make it a lifestyle.
Start recalling the 1930’s and don’t make the same mistakes. See a potential threat and prepare for it. Not that difficult really if your first priority is the safety & sovereignty of your citizens.
Robert, we spent typically 5-7% of GDP during the peak of the Cold War. Clearly we then spent less on other things. Priorities can always be adjusted.
Right now HMG is toying with spending £18bn (although some reports suggest it is £70bn) getting rid of the Chagos Islands. We need not pay that.
Last year, a report authored by Patrick Robinson, a leading judge at the International Court of Justice, declared that the UK should pay £18.8tn for its slavery involvement in 14 countries. We need not pay that.
The Government pay out more in sickness benefit in a year than it spends on Defence and Policing combined. Some of this spend is clearly falsely claimed and could be reduced.
Once again more Rubbish talk. 2.5% when the economy picks up , well by the looks of thing’s it’s going to be one he’ll of wait. Has many of us know 2.5% no great shakes ,needs to be at least 3% .MR Trump have word with Starmer and government please . 🙄
£70B+ for HS2, £20B+ for carbon capture + benefits fraud, + higher rate tax relief on pensions….c’mon. The money is there for higher defence spending.
Not to mention the money in their back pocket to pay the rent for something we already own🙄
I support Reeves’ focus on long term supply side economics and Rainer’s removal of barriers to growth but not Starmer’s robotic negativity and sponsorship of woke, which seems to me to be driven by some deep guilt complex. I see Lammy is opening talks with the Caribbean nations on slavery reparations. For goodness sake it’s time to move on. I am not responsible for my father’s sins. Instead of slavery reparations why not tell the National Trust to stop living in the past, think about families and children and put some adventure playgrounds and camp sites on their Georgian mansions. This country lives in a state of permanent bereavement – truely depressing. How about some fun?
Going from 2.3 – 2.5% GDP means an increase of how much? I know that it will fluctuate based on how the economy goes but all things being equal if we assume right now we increased to 2.5% – how much extra would that actually mean? An increase of 0.2% doesn’t appear to be that much surely???
About 6B a year I think
We still haven’t got the hang of what is going on. Russia’s intent is to destroy Western democratic capitalism as a way of life. Europe requires a field army conventional deterrent capable of deterring a 250 million strong European superstate with infantry manpower reserves of 8 million bayonets. Neither Europe nor the United States will accept a permanent member of the UN security council either unwilling or incapable of playing a significant part in that deterrent field army. The consequences of a failure by Britain to commit to such a deterrent will attract swingeing economic penalties particularly with regard to international trade.
May I correct that?
Xi’s intent is to destroy Western democratic capitalism as a way of life and to destroy Russia and take its natural resources.
Xi put Mad Vlad out there to test the waters so he could sit back watching and learning.
Xi got a bit of a shock as to how useless the Russian weapons tactics etc were and how easily NATO systems took out Russian systems.
However, Xi has been able to understand how the mid level NATO systems work.
Xi is content for Russia to weaken herself both militarily and financially as it will make his ‘help’ reconstructing Russia easier.
Russia will then get a ‘proper’ communist government, Xi style, and be rebuilt and equipped to Xi’s template to be unleashed against Europe when Xi takes Taiwan.
That is what is going on here and that is starting to get beyond blindingly obvious. Which may be why Mad Vlad will come to the table as he knows what being Xi’s puppet means….
Well articulated SB!
Yep agree.
I can see Xi placing territorial demands on Russia and requesting natural resources off her.
Take Lake Baikal.
It would be very useful if that fresh water was available for China, especially as global warming has reduced rainfall in China substantially and Beijing is essential a capital city in a virtual desert.
Russia’s far east is sparesly populated and ripe for China with it’s massive population advantage to take over. All peacefully of course as payment for service given to Russia to help her rebuild after sanctions and brutal attritional warfare in Ukraine have taken their toll.
You are entitled to your opinion. It is, unevidenced, not one that I share. Putin has been clear about his wish to disestablish Western Capitalist Democracy and replace it with spheres of influence, each dominated by a totalitarian superstate. Eastern and Central Europe would be Russia’s exclusive sphere of influence, as hitherto it was for the USSR. That state of affairs would, at best, remove Britain and Europe’s independence regarding domestic and foreign policy. China has benefited from the current international order and seeks to reform it—not to replace it. Many Chinese and Russian officials, business leaders, and citizens distrust each other. After all, Russia still occupies vast areas of what was once Chinese territory. Russia overmatches the Chinese nuclear arsenal to a considerable degree. During a March 2023 state visit to Moscow, Xi personally warned Putin not to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. China was blindsided by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, had not evacuated its staff from Kyiv. There is disquiet in Beijing regarding Russian alliances and connections with both North Korea and India. So China, in common with the U.S.A., Germany, does not want Russia to win but is profiting too much from much lower energy prices to want Putin to lose. The conflict in Ukraine has been going on and off since the mid 19th century, if not before. It will not cease, only pause, if President Trump is successful in achieving a ceasefire. Britain and Europe are threatened economically by China. But the threat of territorial aggression from Russia is more immediate and serious, given the fact that no Western European country can put even a single formed armoured division in the field. If we wish for peace, then we must, now, get serious about war.
I think that lead by gruppenfuhrer Starmer we are doing a pretty good job of trashing western culture ourselves without Russian help. Parliament, the C of E , the NHS and to a significant extent the legal system and media have been infiltrated by woke forces whose mission is to undermine our faith in the core values of western culture. Russia has a crap political system but thanks to the Orthodox church they have self belief, which we have exchanged for moral chaos and lack of faith in the future. We don’t believe our way of life is worth fighting for so why increase defence spending – big clue; NHS maternity services are 3rd world standard.
Even if the government decided to go to 3% that doesn’t mean it would spent on the necessary capabilities to meet current commitments in a sensible way or timeframe.
There’s so much focus on commitments to defence spending in terms of percentage of GDP but so little focus on actual capability and value for money. The focus should be on can commitments actually be met, like providing a division or two to NATO as agreed with the required equipment and enablers.
If not, can funding be increased to get capabilities back where they need to be or do commitments need to be changed or reduced to reflect the reality of the situation, otherwise you become unreliable by agreeing to commitments you know you cannot deliver.
Perhaps the U.K. should move from buying various vehicles as a single order or in oversize batches they cannot afford that frontload certain types but do not cover all types required, to buying in sets with each set made up of the mix of vehicles required to equip say a battalion or even a brigade fully to then be able to say to focus on the next gradually modernising and improving capability rather than an all or nothing approach trying to do it all at once and being told programmes like a turreted IFV cannot be afforded so no one has them but having plenty of boxer apc without turrets