Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that the government’s long-awaited Defence Investment Plan will be published before the NATO Summit in July, the clearest indication yet of when detailed spending and capability decisions will be unveiled.
Speaking during a visit to defence technology company Stark in Swindon, Starmer said the plan would translate the recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review into funded programmes and procurement priorities.
The announcement comes as industry and the armed forces await further detail on how the government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP will be translated into equipment, infrastructure and force development programmes.
Starmer described the Defence Investment Plan as the mechanism that will connect funding to capability requirements identified through the Strategic Defence Review.
“In order to put that strategic review into effect, we’ve got a Defence Investment Plan,” he said. “So that is a plan that says, here’s the money that goes with the capability, we bring the two together.”
The Prime Minister said the plan had been developed in consultation with the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and other government departments.
“We’ve been working on that Defence Investment Plan for some time, very closely with our armed forces, as you would expect, because we need that interaction.”
He then confirmed its publication timetable.
“That will now be published before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.”
The confirmation effectively places a deadline on publication before NATO leaders gather in Ankara on 7 and 8 July.
The commitment is significant because while the Strategic Defence Review established the government’s broad priorities, including greater emphasis on autonomous systems, advanced technology, resilience and industrial capacity, it did not allocate funding to specific programmes. The Defence Investment Plan is expected to provide that detail.
Throughout the speech, Starmer linked defence spending to the wider security environment, arguing that Britain faces a more dangerous international situation than at any point in recent decades.
“It is no exaggeration to say that we’re living in more dangerous and volatile times than at any time in my life or in your life,” he said.
The Prime Minister pointed to the ongoing war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, threats to global energy supplies, cyber attacks and hostile activity against critical infrastructure as evidence that the UK must strengthen its defence posture.
He also referenced allied assessments of the threat posed by Russia.
“It is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”
Much of Starmer’s speech focused on the role of defence industry in delivering future capability. Speaking to employees at Stark, a company involved in autonomous systems development, he argued that technological innovation would play an increasingly important role in military effectiveness.
He said the Strategic Defence Review had placed significant focus on emerging technologies and autonomous capabilities.
“A lot of focus was on technology, on how we equip our armed forces with the best, and how we make more of autonomous capability.”
The Prime Minister also signalled that future defence investment would be closely linked to domestic economic benefits and job creation.
“I’m really determined that as we increase the defence investment plan, as we implement the defence investment plan, which will be published in the coming weeks, it’s really important that what goes alongside that is good, well-paid skilled jobs in this country.”
He added that communities across the UK should see tangible benefits from increased defence spending through employment, industrial activity and technological development.
The Defence Investment Plan is expected to be one of the most consequential defence policy documents published by the government since taking office, setting out how increased spending will be directed across programmes and capabilities identified in the Strategic Defence Review.
With publication now expected before the NATO Summit in Ankara, the document will arrive as allied nations prepare to discuss defence spending, capability targets and collective security in an increasingly unstable international environment.
Are we all going to wake up one morning and suddenly discover it’s published? It seems absurd not to fix a day in advance even if it is later to leave leeway for potential problems.
STARMITE has got to have diary space for all his U turns?
No he’s probably grandstanding abroad again
Due to the time drag (Diverring), since the Defence review was completed, as well as taking into account the additional threat to the UK, from the middle east.
I cant help, but think that the DIP, will be out of date and not funded enough to be what is required as a credible deterrent .I suspect also, a lot of the big ticket purchases, will be scheduled in fir ordering, after the next general election.
Just for clarity, Which July ?
As always, there will be winners and losers, and despite the words, it will primarily disappoint. However, previous defence statements have had the reassurance of American military support even if some decisions were based on the US backfilling any cheeky cost saves. Thankfully, not any more, and Starmer knows if his DIP is a diluted bag of wind, Trump will publicly hang him out to dry.
Some seems to think that all the Government has to do is get past this US Administration, but I don’t think the next Administration regardless of side will go back to how it was, defence is expensive and both sides want to cut its funding to either fund more welfare or tax cuts but either way it means less resourcing at a time when they themselves are struggling to resource their Armed Forces to meet their own ambitions let alone consider others needs.
The win for the U.K./EU is more strategic autonomy from less reliance on another state for defence, less economic reliance due to the defence reliance. It’ll hurt short term but will be better for counties long term to take back responsibly for themselves and neighbours, it’ll be down to each country on whether they want to fund their own defence properly or not to take back that independence, it’s hard to tell if the U.K. wants that or not.
Place your bets now. £10 on it will be delayed.
No. It will be published Coll. There just won’t be anything in it. Unless you like Tripe of course!
According to the Telegraph yesterday, the £18bn Starmer is planning to give the MoD will now be reduced to £15bn. Neither number will adequately fund the 62 recommendations in SDR This represents barely half the £28bn the MoD say they need just to make ends meet.
There had been reports that about £18bn was the amount needed for SDR recommendations and the additional £10bn was cost overruns for existing programs that the Treasury was unwilling to fund due to the fact it keeps happening. There was never any confirmation by an official source though but would be believable considering MOD track record of mismanagement and cost overruns.
For pity’s sake, Sir Keir. Why not now?
Dithering wreck with strings pulled by the Treasury.
I stopped reading midway through his waffle, as heard it all before, but the “worked closely with the military and other government departments” made me laugh.
Translation, HMT, the experts on Defence through whom a program lives or dies.
Spot on
Love all the comments
Why wait a month you plonker
In reality the unelected Treasury and its Mandarins decide policy now as they choose what gets funded and what doesn’t, they will claim fiscal rules but will always find cash for programs they want to move forward. PM is becoming more of a public face and spokes person trying to make minimal decisions due to being reliant on party internal politics with increasingly divergent ideologies and loyalties. The Treasury is less hamstrung by those issues, as typically in a Labour Govt few will complain about increasing Welfare and Civil service liabilities.
Because they are still arguing about the actual amount!
Then toss a coin. Read a chicken’s entrails. Televise naked mud wrestling between John Healey and Rachel Reeves. He’s had it on his desk for months and if he hasn’t been capable to decide whatever is left by now, another month won’t help.
Love it
Sur you’re not related to Halfwit
The DIP being released will set out some funding to allow for some orders but it is still not going to fix many issues that the armed forces face, especially the commitments vs reality with a lack of resourcing for the unrealistic commitments successive Governments have signed up for. The whole approach to defence funding and resourcing needs to change for us to actually see results rather than just trying to tack on what ever they can get but not achieve what they set out to do.
Regardless of what we think on here about what platforms should be bought, funding should be based on resourcing commitments, commitments should only be based off what we are willing to actually fund and deliver, ie the Navy needs X ships, sailors, munitions, industrial capacity to provide 1x carrier group with sufficient escorts, patrol ships to x part of the world to protect y interest or shipping route, sufficient T26 to North Atlantic, plus any other commitments with the understanding it will cost what it costs, you either fund it or you cut your aspirations down to what you are willing to actually fund rather than being empty rhetoric.
The army providing a Corps/ARRC to NATO is just fantasy, adding in its other global commitments on top, especially the BG in Estonia and potentially a brigade to Ukraine for peacekeeping just makes it even more nonsensical, I’m not sure anyone sees the U.K. actually providing a number of things it promises.
There is a need for a mechanism to require governments to fund commitments in order to force them to either reduce commitments back to reality or provide appropriate funding, this is the only logical way to force defence to be taken seriously, otherwise the endless grandstanding for headlines will continue with no substance, if you want to be a big shot and commit to x on the world stage, then fund it and make it a reality.
Of course you are right. The DIP’s publication will be an anticlimax, but at least it will be over and there’s much to be said for that.
Really the most important part of the DIP will confirm which commitments aren’t realistic, so it’ll be anticlimactic when we don’t see orders that were hoped for, but atleast everyone will know where resourcing stands.