Treasury Refused to See Defence Spending as Growth Engine, Says Former Defence Secretary
Auf einen Blick
- Former Defence Secretary John Healey criticized the Treasury for refusing to increase defence spending, viewing it as a drain rather than a growth engine.
- His resignation followed a dispute over the UK's commitment to Nato's 3% GDP defence spending target by 2030, which the Treasury plans to meet much later.
KI-generierte Zusammenfassung
Warum es wichtig ist
Former Defence Secretary John Healey resigned after a dispute over the UK's long-delayed military spending plan, specifically regarding the target for defence spending as a percentage of GDP. The UK had committed at a Nato summit in June 2025 to spend 3.5% of GDP on Nato-qualifying "core defence" by 2035.
The Treasury has refused to see defence spending as an engine for growth, former defence secretary John Healey has told the BBC.
Healey quit his cabinet role after a battle over a long-delayed military spending plan, which proved to be one of the final blows for Sir Keir Starmer's leadership.
A slightly-increased Defence Investment Plan (DIP) of £15bn was unveiled last week - but £4.7bn will need to be found in the next budget.
Speaking to Nick Robinson's Political Thinking podcast, Healey blamed the Treasury for refusing to allow higher defence spending, adding he believed it was in denial about the UK's commitments to Nato.
At a Nato summit in the Hague in June 2025, the UK and other members committed to spend 5% of GDP on defence and security - with 3.5% going to Nato-qualifying "core defence" by 2035.
The original DIP committed to core defence spending of 2.68% by 2030, which led to Healey's resignation, because he said the government should be committing to 3% by 2030.
Although the latest version of the DIP added an extra 0.02% of GDP, the document suggests the government is still expecting to spend 2.7% by 2030 - still short of the figure Healey says is needed.
Asked whether it was a lack of political will or the Treasury blocking spending, Healey said: "The Treasury said no in the end.
"The Treasury's a paradox: you have some of the very best and brightest officials in the Treasury, but you have, too often, a Treasury orthodoxy that's a dead hand on dynamic government."
Healey, who was a Treasury minister in former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Cabinet, said he saw the defence sector as an engine for growth and reindustrialisation, particularly in the defence technology sector.
He added: "The Treasury with defence really was in denial about the commitment that the UK has rightly made to Nato and to our people: it is still planning, was still planning on 3%, but not until 2034-35.
"The Treasury still often sees defence as a drain on public spending and not the driver of economic growth that we've demonstrated in two years."
Offene Fragen
- How will the £4.7bn needed for the DIP be found in the next budget?
- What is the Treasury's detailed reasoning for its orthodoxy on defence spending?
- How will the UK's delayed Nato commitment impact its alliance standing?
