The Government has set a target to potentially boost defence spending to reach 3 percent by 2030, according to a written parliamentary answer that signals a potential acceleration in the UK’s long-term military planning.
In response to a question from Jim Shannon MP, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said the increase marks the most sustained rise in defence expenditure since the end of the Cold War. “The recent increase in defence spending is the largest sustained increase since the end of the Cold War,” she said. “The Government is firmly committed to increasing defence spending to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027 and has set an ambition to reach 3% by 2030, as fiscal and economic conditions allow.”
The Ministry of Defence has also restated the broader objective of spending 5 percent of GDP on national security. This includes a mix of conventional defence funding and wider resilience measures, such as cyber security, infrastructure protection and civil preparedness. “This is a generational increase in defence and security spending, honouring our commitment to be a leader in NATO,” Eagle added.
The written answer was published ahead of the NATO summit in The Hague, where alliance members formally adopted a new spending framework. NATO’s “Hague Defence Investment Plan” raises the minimum threshold for core defence spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, with an additional 1.5 percent earmarked for supporting capabilities in the broader national security space.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said recently at the Hague:
“Together, Allies have laid the foundations for a stronger, fairer and more lethal NATO. NATO leaders agreed on the The Hague Defence Investment Plan. And this will fuel a quantum leap in our collective defence. They agreed to boost our defence industries – which will not only increase our security but will also create jobs. And we have reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine. All of this is crucial.
It means that no matter the challenges we face – whether from Russia or terrorism, cyberattacks, sabotage or strategic competition – this Alliance is and will remain ready, willing and able to defend every inch of Allied territory. And ensure that our one billion people can continue to live in freedom and security. These decisions will have a profound impact on our ability to do what NATO was founded to do – deter and defend. And the key decision in that regard is to adopt the The Hague Defence Investment Plan.
With this plan, Allies have agreed to invest 5% of GDP in defence. This is a significant commitment in response to significant threats to our security. It includes at least 3.5% of GDP invested in core defence requirements – a benchmark that until today was set at 2%. A target that I am pleased to say all Allies will now meet this year or have already met.
The 3.5% is to fund our militaries and the equipment they need – from our air defences to ammunition, drones, tanks, troops, and more. In addition to the 3.5% for core defence, the plan includes 1.5% of GDP that will go towards investments that support our defence and security. All to ensure we can effectively deter aggression and defend ourselves, and each other, should anyone make the mistake of attacking.”
The UK has pledged to meet the full 5 percent target by 2035, though some figures within the Ministry question how much of the 5 percent figure will fall under the direct control of the MOD. The split between traditional defence and broader national security mirrors NATO’s own framing of the investment plan.
The Government’s position marks a notable shift as just weeks ago, ministers had declined to commit to hitting 3 percent within the next decade.
I’ve not heard the 2030 ambition before. Great news if it happens.
Labour has had a lot of missteps so far in government but defence they are delivering on. Which isn’t surprising I guess as they increase the % last time they were in government also.
“defence they are delivering on” I think we must be reading differenrt reports. So far we’ve had next to nothing, just promises of a percentage of something five years down the line. By the time they’ve finished off the economy 3 per cent won’t mean a thing.
This is fair, so far not a lot from the extra money but these things take time to deliver. It is odd however that the additional money has so far vanished. Possible another black hole left by the last government in its salting the earth strategy, possible stuff being the scenes as empty stocks get refilled, but also possible just smoke and mirrors and no actual money. Time will tell.
At better than last government that kept talking about extra money but not actually delivering it. On paper it’s been released now.
By now we,ve got Withdrawal of vital assets such as the 2 lpd,s , only words but 0 orders to date.
Brilliant news if we can get 3% core by 2030. As the government know you can’t go from 2.5% in 2027 and keep it that level till 2034 and straight to 3.5% in 2035 (unless you are in a war) . It takes time so to get to 3% in 2030 I think everyone here can go, that’s not half bad at all. That would be an extra £15 billion per year over 2.5% which is AN ENORMOUS amount! Entire frigate fleet plus spare extra every year
If it is what you or I would call 3% core.
My worry is that core decreases and an ever creating array of things are moved from other departments to defence.
I wouldn’t be suprised if Nuclear Decommissioning Authority wasn’t folded in……
That’s not the case, there is a very strict definition of what is military spending and what is not and that is recognised by the new 5% target.
A lot of people complain about for example military pensions being a part of defence spending, of course they are it’s part of pay for the armed forces. The biggest non direct UK item is spending on Ukraine but again this is very much defence spending. Effectively arming a European nation to take on the biggest security threat the UK faces has been the core of British and English security policy since the 16th century.
Jim, we can’t fight by calling on pensioners. That’s why it shouldn’t be included in the target, even if it is included in the finally reported numbers.
We need a measure of expenditure that bares on the state of UK conventional readiness for our target. That number is the budget for UK conventional military capability. By all means, include MOD, include reserves, but traditionally we haven’t included operations in the planned peacetime budget as that’s the money you use to fight, not the money you use to prepare to fight. Now we have overall capped expenditure, operations expenditure subtracts from capability expenditure. In the past it was added on.
By all means spend on Ukraine, but again, it needs to add to the UK spend and not subtract from it.
Jon makes an excellent point that the UKR monies should be counted into the *present* levels of spend.
BW was very clear that he wouldn’t stand for that happening – it is now.
Which means that core was *cut* to do that.
The short term salami slicing is a real problem as a ramp up hasn’t started. And it needs to be a progressive ramp up.
Impressive plan, in theory. The caveat “…3% (GDP, on core defence expenditure) by 2030, as fiscal and economic conditions allow,” always engenders doubt re real HMG commitment. 🤔 Is Maria Eagle an influential Minister relative to Rachel Reeves? Will there be a significant revision of NATO plan in 2029, based upon the identity of the next POTUS? Nevertheless, an official statement of intent is better than deafening silence. 👍
It won’t be core defence spending the way the UK measures it but it will be on the NATO measure. Traditional (SDR 98) core military spending did not include items such as operations, intelligence services and foreign military aid. SDR 98 pledged to maintain 2.5% of GDP excluding these items. However all these items are with in NATO spending limits however the UK won’t be including items like the USA does on health care costs and welfare programs for veterans because we don’t have such programs.
The money will come, the big question will be how much is being spent on Ukraine and operations. If the need to fund Ukraine and other interventions stops then there is around 0.3% more that may go to core defence (£6billion per annum).
I will say however that I doubt without a conscription or major foreign military operation to fund that the UK or anyone else in Europe or North America will be able to spend much beyond 3% of GDP on core defence.
The US is spending more but a very big chunk of that goes on welfare payments to vets or just covering private healthcare costs. As the US is finding with its ship building industry simply throwing money at a problem won’t make more ships and it certainly won’t make more sailors to crew them. There is only so much an economy can make, only so many who wish to serve in peace time.
Most of the countries who are genuinely moving up towards 5% (Poland and the Baltics) are dealing with old legacy fleets and replacing them with quick imports. The Baltics are investing in defence infrastructure on a massive scale and most of these countries are either drafting people or in the process of starting a draft.
Non of these options are available for countries like the USA or UK to increase military spending in peace time.
There is actually a lot the UK could spend money on that does not involve lots of people.. this is because of the UKs geostrategic position.. it can
1) build a very effective integrated air defence system to make it very difficult to knock out its infrastructure and remove it from a war
2) build a very effective long range cruise/ballistic missile stockpile so it can pile pain onto Russia
3) build its airforce into a very effective maritime strike force to control the seas in the north and access to the Atlantic
4) recapitalisation of escorts to make them more effective attacking systems
5) recapitalisation of SSN fleet for greater land attack and strike
6) double the strategic deterrent.
7) sow the northern seas with sensors and autonomous systems
8) maximise carrier strike
9) 6 deployable brigates all focused on fighting on the northern flank
10) focus the marines into a high north raiding force.. for attacking infrastructure in the high north
This can all be done with very low manpower needs.. but make the UK a profoundly difficult appointment for Russia.. it could essentially hurt Russia constantly with missile attack.. strategically isolate, destroy its northern bastion..while essentially being pretty safe and able to take Russian retaliation.. that would be a cold hard nightmare for Russia to deal with. Let Germany and Poland etc develop the large continental armies to secure the major land boarders.
But where are all the people going to come to make all the things you want like missile defences and submarines. Money isn’t real to a government like the UK but the size of the economy as measured by GDP is.
The UK is a largely service based economy with almost full employment and one of the highest labour participation rates in the G7.
Shifting an extra 1.5% of the economy into anything is a big ask. That’s around three times our higher education system for example.
You can do this on a short term basis through imports but it f**ks up the economy long term and it’s not like there is much of a market for SSN’s. If everyone else in NATO+ is doing the same then you can’t even do that.
As for adding extra brigades we literally can’t recruit the 73,000 we have authorised. The army’s solution will be to jack up pay much the same as Russia is doing. Again that’s not a long term solution it’s just generating inflation.
I’m all for increasing defence spending. I think 2.5% on core with 3% total is both reasonable and achievable but once you go north of those numbers (numbers we have used for 300 years) you will encounter problems and all you will end up doing is putting workers into unsustainable industries at the cost of killing off sustainable industry (reason why the UK never did built cruise liners post WW2 was due to RN contracts) and just jack up profits at defence companies which are almost entirely foreign owned or create more jobs in countries like Germany with spare industrial capacity all while hollowing out the UK economy to pay for it.
Another win for Trump.
That was the trajectory that I had anticipated, it was logical from many of the governments statements as well as what was coming out of nato a month ago..I did always say from the mood music, geopolitical necessity as well as fighting an election 3% for 2030 was only logical.
2026/27 will be 2.38
2027/38 will be 2.5. + .1% security for 2.6%
2028/29 will probably be 2.73%
29/30 will probably be 2.83%
30/31 will probably be 3%
This does mean that we are going to see a lot in the spending plans as a 3% budget essentially for the end of the parliament is huge.
But where is the money coming from the last time we had spending at this level the average life expectancy was 75 years, we had about 15% of the population over 65…and only 6.9% over 75..we spent 4.5% on pensions and about 6% of GDP on nhs care and 2% so 12.5%
now our average life expectancy is almost 83 years around 20% of the population is over 65 and around 9% are over 75.. we spend 5.6% on pensions, 3.6% on social care and about 9.6% of our GDP on the NHS with around 50% of that budget spent on the over 65s, why this is because someone over 65 costs twice as much as someone under 65 and something over 80 costs 7-8 times someone under 65… the brutal truth is you have 3 long term conditions its cost £8000 a year to keep you alive, just for those 3 conditions. There are some good estimates that say the cost of keeping people alive into their 80s is just insane..with the very last year of peoples lives costing £38,000… essentially close to 10% of the entire NHS hospital budget is spent on the last year of life.. consider most people in their 70s probably have a couple or 3 long term conditions.. £8000 per year then the big £38,000 for the last year…
All in all that means a on average each 45 year old working age adult costs the UK government £7900 for all cost each 75 year old costs £23,000 and each 85 year old costs £32,500… our populations over 65..75..85 are only getting bigger and our working age population is not.. so how the hell do we pay for 3% defence budget… choices.. we can up tax’s or maybe carve it off the NHS budget..but we that means we all need to accept we will die younger.. because the only realistic way you can reduce the healthcare budget is meaningfully is to reduce the level of treatment of the elderly in their last years.. simple put of we put people to bed for that last year and simply keep them comfortable that would save you 12billion a year for the defence budget.. go further and accept a life expectancy of 75 and we could easily get the NHS budge down to 6% GPD… but the money does have to be found.. as pensions, NHS and adult social care are now a good 18% of GDP.
Remember state pension age is going up by a year 2026-2028 so that defo will help reduce the growth in state pension cost for alittle, especially as life expectancy has nearly flatlined in the last 5 years. They could bring forward the 68 to 2035
We will have to wait for I can definitely see the next budget in November reducing some planned spending in other departments to help fund some core defence spending !
To be honest at some point I think the triple lock will need to go..
The key problem about upping the pension age is that it’s fine for a limited number of people and occupations.. but the reality is a 65 year old now is the same as a 65 year old 30 years ago.. we are living longer but we are not staying young longer… infact the reality is we are more unhealthy now at a younger age… we essentially extend unhealthy years.. not productive healthy ones…
AI will make a considerable difference to employment and the type of work that humans do. With AI streamlining manufacturing to the point that manning could reduce by 60% in twenty years, actual profit margins will increase exponentially, enabling greater social spending to keep idle people engaged. One common thread throughout the use of AI is that all advanced manufacturing nations will face the same dilemma. Even defence will see potentially huge reductions in manpower, and those retained will be the most highly trained and paid personnel in history.
Upping taxes will only cost the treasury more money in the long run, so that’s no good. The answer is we need complete reform of how the state functions. Scrap most of Blair’s constitutional changes, rip up and start all over again on things like liability laws, human rights, equality & diversity. Once those reforms are done then we can start getting rid of so much of the red tape that drags productivity down and we can get growing again. Simultaneously make the UK attractive to millionaires and billionaires to increase government revenues.
It’s bad but many other countries are going to be hit even harder by demographic change. Populations of China,Japan ,S Korea are forecast to halve by 2100 and well before then the percentage of older people will put unaffordable pressure on social and health budgets. Many eastern European countries, from Estonia to Bulgaria are experiencing falls in population now.
A particular feature of the UK is the drop in workforce participation of younger age groups. Large numbers who should be net contributors are economically inactive, supported by state handouts that will continue potentially for decades. That has to be tackled.
The last year of life cost you refer to is mirrored in the US Medicare system. What to do about it is extraordinarily difficult. Ariel Shalon was comatose and on life support for 8 years. Medical science can now keep people in that condition for even longer- but should it?
All that aside, successive governments have made a hash of defence with a series of poor decisions. If we have a rough idea of force and equipment numbers, it really shouldn’t be hard to avoid the mess we are now in. Overpriced aircraft carriers, mismanagement of SSN replacements, spending vast sums to keep worn out frigates operational rather than order new ones, Ajax, RAF pilot training etc etc.
For example, if you want an escort fleet of say 20, you need to build just one new ship a year. Yet, since the last T45 ( another shambles) was commissioned in 2013, not a single new surface warship has been delivered, with 2028 the earliest IOC date.
I believe some new money will be found. But unless it is spent more efficiently, there will be little to show for it.
Some how I can’t see euthanasia at 75 to defeat the Russians as being a popular political choice.
I think someone wrote a book about that in 1948 😀
Good news is that all our potential enemies have massively worse pension problems than us.
Good news, now lets hope they don’t crash the economy or 3% may end up being a cash cut!
So you support euthanasia? Raise taxes, close tax loopholes, reduce benefits.
Potential and Ambition being the two key words.
I’ll believe it when orders are placed and groundwork laid to recruit more people.
Till then, all words.
I love the Treasury – Political. caveat “as fiscal and economic conditions allow”, or more likely “depending on how the Election on 7th December 2028 goes and who in the US inherits Trumps boots”.
But B+ 3% by 2030 must mean they are going to have something of an uplift announced in the Autumn when they actually issue the Defence Investment Plan.
So 2.32% in 2025(now)
2.5% in 2027
3.0% in 2030
And 3.5% + 1.5% by 2035
Which of course means there is a huge amount of wiggle room for Treasury / Political bods to carry out a prudent fiscal reassessment of what constitutes Core defence spending (3.5%) and the Security and Defence related bit (1.5%).
In other words Cook the Books.
Any sensible bod would say Pay, Pensions, Logistics, Equipment for the Army, Navy and Army is core defence. Infrastructure, Strategic Industrial capacity, R&D, Security Services, GCHQ & Satellites is the latter.
Lets guess where Border Force, Defence Aid, Asylum accommodation get lumped into now the OA budget has been paired down.
You missed that he already announced he was folding in an extra 0.1% money on Security into the 2027 figures, so now “Defence spending” will be 2.6%, not 2.5%. That’s how “core” that number is, that the PM himself said a third of his increase wasn’t going to be spent on Defence. nevertheless it all counts a couple of months later as we create another outer ring of even more tangentially related resillience spend.
Pretending that NATO-allowable spend is somehow “core” is another step on the road to cuts in the real defence numbers. UK conventional military capability. That’s core. Accept nothing less.
In reality there is no way they can move from 2.6% to 3% in one year..so it will be a gradual.. probably .1-.15% from 27 to 30..
And has set an ambition to reach 3% by 2030 as fiscal and economic conditions allow. I have an ambition to drive an Aston Martin by 2030 as fiscal and economic conditions allow!
As soon as Trump is out of office, all of these European pledges of 5% will be forgotten.
I don’t think so.. the US is not moving from Europe on a Trump idea from thin air…trump has simply taken in something that needed to be taken on.. China is at a point of Parity with the US in the western Pacific and is still increasing its naval build production and programs.. the U.S. has not been, essentially the US no longer has the power to dominate in both the east and the west.. in the east it’s got an alliance that is essentially as wealthy and can it could be arsed be as powerful as the US.. so the U.S. must move west and counter china, if it’s still proving Europe up in 3-5 years and does not have allies that can take responsibility for the high north, Atlantic and western Indian Ocean it will end up losing to china as the USN would be stretched to thin..the simple truth is the US is leaving Europe and it’s not coming back.. simple geostrategic power balance dictates this.
Interesting observation about the US Eastern Allies, but perhaps it’s time for Trump to go for a stomping session starting with Japan. Same deal as NATO 3.5 + 1.5 or else.
He did it already, Japan told him to f**k off. They canceled the 2+2 meeting with the USA the day after,
Japan and South Korea are now rapidly reevaluating their relations with China.
We should learn, I’m happy going up to 5% and paying extra tax if I don’t have to deal with the USA anymore. Not sure I’m thrilled about spending that much money with the US in NATO abusing the western alliance for their own economic benefits.
I may be as cynical as hell about all this, but I welcome it anyway. We can only hope that some of the money will be real and will get to core Defence. So it’s to be welcomed.
Treasury must be working overtime to figure out if they can make 1.5% core spend look like 3.5% so that 3.5% can be spent on infrastructure and anything else but defence.
Perhaps potholes will become a thing of the past, HS2 and local buses to be painted green and double hatted as troop transports run by the army, although they’d atleast be more likely to arrive on time. Surprised passengers when their bus into town is rerouted via Estonia.
Respectively I disagree , Arguably the most cost effective way to ensure our security is for Ukraine to continue fighting and continue to be a threat on Russia boarder. As long as this is the case there is zero chance Russia moves on the nb
** moves one the Baltics.