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.
Hi John.
I’m not getting notifications so only just come across this.
It might be, but what do we drop? I’m against dropping commitments and withdrawal as I want to see the UK out there engaged in the world, and that means the military being used with a wide range of roles and capabilities, even if many are wafer thin.
To me this sets us apart from most other medium sized nations.
I didn’t get a notification either.
I would also agree no commitments should be dropped, but there has to be a point where a review highlights the reality of the inability to meet all these commitments politicians like to make a big deal out of for headlines.
The SDR potentially forcing a re-evaluation of these commitments could have a positive impact, in the current global climate having to admit to your country and allies that you can no longer meet these commitments could be more unpalatable than finding the funding to provide the necessary capabilities, especially if a country wants to keep pushing its global influence.
“Ofcourse I’m sure they will use technology as a reason to shrink the forces further.”
One of my biggest fears. That is SOP for HMG since Front Line First in 1995 and it is wearing a bit thin.
High tech, jam tomorrow, don’t need assets now, cut.
Later on, the carrot/jam is itself cut back, everyone has forgotten.
Rinse and Repeat.
The sad thing is it isn’t just a money issue in reality, it’s years of mismanagement and failure to deliver whilst still being left to pay the bills with the capability gap issues still remaining.
There never seems to be any accountability for the failure to deliver the capabilities actually needed to meet commitments. It makes you wonder whether defence expenditure should become a bipartisan agreement by MPs or similar so that defence cuts stop being used as a tool to boost funding to vote positive schemes for elections.
I also don’t seem to be getting reply notifications, which is going to be a real problem.
The hyperlink looks like it’s there for comment history but nothing happens when you click/tap on it.
I relied on the comment history as I follow several posters and can jump to them easily. Also, it makes it easier to spot trolls who have a history of posting bullshit.
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.
“this appears to be using the same forces ”
Double hatting has been going on for years.
I agree, if 3 UK Division is to be allocated to SACEUR Reserve then if a significant chunk of it is committed to Estonia, it is not in reserve.
The commitment of 4 Bde was also ludicrous as it is a Bde in name only.
Bulwark Albion Northumberland Watchkeeper and old choppers all to go
Percentage of GDP IS important, as it’s the standard NATO measurement of how much each member of the Alliance is contributing. The idea being that all should share equally in the collective defence effort. % of GDP.spent is a good yardstick and allows broad comparisons, unaffected by population size.
Suggestions that we should cut back our capabilites to fit the budget are fine in theory. But there is very little to cut back. We have a NATO commitment to field a corps of w divisions, which means 6 manoeuvre brigades. We can currently field just 2 heavy brigades, short of artillery, and maybe one Light Mechanised brigade, if it’s not required elsewhere. We can’t even meet our NATO commitment.
We have a small number of troops, under 1,000, doing NATO EFP in Estonia and Poland.
We have a limited number of troops out of area, in garrisons, SFABs and Rangers, all as part of a US/NATO drive to look after our own backyard in Africa and the Middle East and to counter ISIS, Russian and Chinese expansion
That’s about it. We have next to nothing for the home base and a very small voluntary reserve. What commitments there could be cut? – there is really nothing.
RAF is in the same boat. Combat air down to its lowest-ever numbers. Very small numbers of the high-end ISTAR assets we need, I mean 3 Rivet Joints for EW, 3 AEW Wedgetails, 9 Poseidons for MR/ASW is a pretty skeletal force.
Air transport is down to 41 aircraft, so just flying in troops, equipment and munitions is now an issue if we need to move a brigade anywhere.
The RN is no better off. Even if we tilt back to NATO Europe and leave just 2 Astutes and 3 T31s in the IndoPacific, we are still a good way short in the NATO area.it is again hard to see any committment that we could cut. Conversely, we are short of MCMVs, survey vessels, Proteus ships, submarines, ASW frigates and I would add corvettes.
If we can’t easily reduce our commitments, most of which are NATO treaty commitments, then HMG has to swallow the medicine and accept that defence spending is way too low to meet even the most minimalist requirements.