The Ministry of Defence has said it is working flat out to publish its long-awaited Defence Investment Plan, claiming that major capability programmes are being managed to avoid unnecessary delay.
In a series of written parliamentary answers, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the department continues to oversee programmes including the Global Combat Air Programme, artillery modernisation, uncrewed systems and directed energy weapons while the plan is finalised. He described the Defence Investment Plan as the first comprehensive review of defence programmes in 18 years and said it is backed by the government’s largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, with £270 billion committed during this Parliament.
Pollard stated that Defence is continuing to manage its capabilities to ensure they are not “unnecessarily impacted or delayed” while the plan is developed, adding that it would be published “as soon as possible”.
However, the extended timetable has prompted concern across parts of the defence industrial base, with industry bodies and trade unions warning that prolonged uncertainty risks affecting investment decisions and workforce planning.
Unite the union has argued that delays to the Defence Investment Plan are creating instability for manufacturers and suppliers, particularly those supporting complex long-term programmes. The union has warned that without a clear investment signal from government, companies may struggle to justify capital investment, retain specialist skills or plan future recruitment in areas such as aerospace, land systems and advanced manufacturing.
Industry has also pointed to the absence of firm programme direction as a challenge for long-lead procurement and supply chain readiness. Some firms have privately raised concerns that uncertainty around future funding profiles makes it harder to commit to expanding production capacity or sustaining skilled workforces, particularly where programmes rely on consistent demand over many years.
Has anyone said why the DIP has been delayed seemingly by at least 4 months? Is it because of the Ajax fiasco or has it anything to do with CDS effectively saying he needs another £28bn to deliver current programme and that future programme outlined by SDR?
The AJAX fiasco is just an excuse for delaying DIP.
It could be left to one side with a conditional caveat.
The real issue is that the left of the Labour Party will go nuts at the cuts required to fund the necessary increases. The AJAX fiasco plays into theirs and Treasury hands with the usual Treasury ditty that most of the money given to MoD is wasted – we all know that the vast majority is very well spent. In fact proportionally far better spent than money to NHS – there the wastage on failed projects is unbelievable and most of them just continue to be funded rather than cut.
A cynic might say that delaying the plan means that actual spending can be delayed. A long standing delaying tactic for government is to tie expenditure to after publication of a report/study/consultation of some kind – hopefully until a new financial year has arrived and everyone can congratulate themselves on how well THIS financial year has gone… and then move to another department.
The rumour mill has it down to an unwillingness by the government to cough up the money that a reasonable Defence Investment Plan requires, which seems plausible given how wedded it is to escalating spending in other areas. But who knows?
Unfortunately Starmer is up against a rock and a hard place.
They need to get spending to 3% now, we know that, they know that, but he can’t, because his back benches will block any raids on the vast and bloated welfare budget..
He’s a rabbit caught in the headlights, does he go head to head with the left, or attack middle England again??
So the DIP is continually kicked down the road until somone makes a decision….
We can just print the money. Any financial stimulous will cause a certain amount of growth and a certain amount of inflation. Given the current situation, the level of unemployment and the readiness of industry to expand, I have no doubt that the increase in inflation will be negligible and growth will be the primary result. Stop buying into the austerity agenda that says you have to pay for one thing by cutting another. You can expand the economy instead. An outcome the government espouses but is too risk averse to act on.
Just as I warned years ago.
You vote Labour, with the left of that party, you get this.
Ideologically, I suggest the left of Labour are utterly allergic to defence, and more in line with Stop the War, CND, SWP, and Palestine.
I was “assured” on here years ago that my concerns would have no bearing and that Starmer isn’t influenced.
Right….how many U turns after the usual suspects rebel?
Even worse if Burnham gets in.
Indeed, a party that was lead by grandad Jeremy Corbyn until recently…..his supporters still hold a lot of influence in PLP.
Let’s face it, even Blair didn’t fund defence: he plundered it whilst fighting wars..
I’m not sure this is a party thing – and Labour get rather demonised on defence because of past associations with CND, and lets not forget we’ve had 14 years of conservative rule. This is more the reality that politicians of ALL parties can be tempted to fix other politically urgent problems at the expense of defence budgets, because most years, they can get away with it. We’ve had a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers with little interest in defence (Boris, May, Cameron, Sunak…) except in terms of its impact on manufacturing jobs in marginal constituencies.
Defence is one of those things like house insurance where it can seem like an easy short-term saving. How many times have we had capability gaps that have come and gone without the sky falling in (slowing down the QE carrier construction schedule, for example, to save money short term) – and superficially the lessons that politicians take is that allowing those gaps is a risk that pays off career-wise – most of the time. The last time a politician’s career actually suffered from taking that risk was arguably 1982 after John Nott scaled down protection for the Falklands.
Yes, fair comment.
The influence of the left of the Labour Party is over-stated. It is numerically a good bit smaller than in previous times. Its aversion to defence is countered by the unions, which want defence jobs and therefore orders.
Starmer has gone for the middle ground, a fair boost to defence spending but not at the expense of welfare spend on schools, housing. NhS etc al.
Net result is that defence budget will increase 22%, from.£60.2bn in 24/5 to £73.6bn in.28/9. We would all love more and defence needs more, but that’s all that’s on the table.
Compare and.contrast with the Conservatives, who are presently jumping up and down in the House cslling for more for defence – after slashing defence for 14 years to get us into the current mess. Defence spend fell 22% between 2009/10 and 2017/18, because the Conservatives priority is always cutting public expenditure, In order to reduce the tax burden for the better-off. They can shout about defence now they are in opposition, but you woild have to be a brave gambler to put money on them actually spending more if they ever return to power.
Agree on the Tories record.
On the Labour increases, remember to detract all that’s been placed in the budget and called defence spending to meet NATO targets.
I’d love a minister to admit how much is then left for conventional forces. I feel a FOIA coming on…..
Where are the orders?
If the unions are so influential, and the left not so, why all the U turns since taking power?
And where is the extra Typhoon order?
The cabinet are scared shitless of the left of their party ( and so am I…) and many of their seats hang by a thread as a result of the Tory vote spilt by the rise of Reform.
Otherwise they’d not even be there.
Yes, I helped cause that, as I’m not voting Tory again for the very reasons you list.
Far too little Cripes, we are below critical mass across the board and need 3.5% on defence now and ring fenced for the next 20 years.
The sedate rise to 2.5 over 3.5 years, is far too little, far too late.
As funding levels currently stand, then the combined funding of GCAP and ASUKUS will leave no money fir anything else. Expect more cuts…
They’re finding it easy to delay and lie about the DIP plan, because right now, it’s just one item to defend. The moment it’s published, Industry and the public will be asking, okay, when are you gonna start spending on this, instead of scroungers at home.
Personally I think the issue is the same issue with any big silver bullet strategic all singing all dancing plan.. within 6 months it’s out of date and not worth the paper it was written on.. in this case I suspect they have rewritten the DIP a number of times and within a month it’s out of date garden.
This is why organic change is alway the way to go when faced with complexity.. sometimes things are simply to big and to complex to have a grand plan..instead all you can have is some guiding principles.
Can you imagine walking into the Treasury saying, we’ve decided not to bother with a budget this year. It’s too complicated. Instead we have some guiding principles.
Well I’ve done it to the department of health…
This is not an in year spending plan.. which is fine to have, this a a multi decade gold plated silver bullet grand strategy.. and that is the problem..
Garbage not garden FFS
UK This Government is just trying to put off the decisions to spend money it hasn’t got and their back benches won’t allow. I recall recently listening to an ex Senior Defence Chief on R4 who claims the DIP will actually require more Defence cuts probably because they are trying to reschedule the spend into later years. My guess post 2030 which means the services will not see the equipment on the front line much before 2036 – 10 years from now!!. So, in reality they will just mark time and do anything to justify delay, more studies and re-evaluations which looks like progress but will actually add nothing to what is urgently needed. From my ex-Airforce view we need to place orders now for medium lift Helos, more Typhoon Mk4s and 3 more E7s not to mention anti drone technology and a substantial GBAD system. No doubt the RN and Army could identify equivalent requirements. Starmer wants to join the EU Defence group but the price of entry, driven by France, is said to be £5.7B which alone would enable some substantial contracts to be placed with British based companies now which would also help growth.