Treasury silent on defence spending reality: starmer’s nato promise faces funding crisis
The UK’s ambitious commitment to 3.5% of GDP on defence is teetering on the brink, as the Treasury refuses to detail how the government intends to deliver on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to Nato.
A £30-40 billion black hole?
Chief Secretary Lucy Rigby offered a frustratingly opaque response to repeated questioning from select committees, repeatedly citing the ‘next prime minister’ as the arbiter of funding decisions. This dodging of responsibility follows Defence Secretary John Healey’s sudden resignation, a direct result of the government’s failure to set out a clear path to meeting the target.
No numbers, just promises
Rigby’s deflection – claiming the ‘decisions are for the future government’ – sparked immediate criticism. Committee Chair Meg Hillier forcefully reminded her of her role as Treasury Chief Secretary, questioning whether any cost-benefit analysis had even been undertaken. The scale of the required shift – potentially an additional £30-40 billion, equivalent to 3p to 4p on all income tax rates – highlighted the enormity of the challenge.
A tightrope walk on public consent
While the government has set an interim target of 3% for the next parliament, the route to achieving it remains shrouded in uncertainty. Rigby conceded the need for a ‘debate about public consent’ if such a significant change were to be implemented, but offered no indication of how that debate would be framed.
Whitehall’s internal warfare
The situation underscores a deeply entrenched friction between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. Despite claims of improved collaboration, the historical rivalry – famously embodied by naval figures battling the Treasury – continues to simmer. Luke Pollard, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, joked about the “journey” the two departments are on, a thinly veiled reference to past disagreements.
A legacy of unfunded projects
The current predicament echoes the ‘black hole’ of unfunded projects identified by Labour upon taking office, with £22 billion in promised investments failing to materialize. Rachel Reeves, now Shadow Chancellor, pointed to this history as evidence of a pattern of announcing projects without securing the necessary funding – a strategy Hillier described as “not uncommon,” though one likely to fuel further tension as the Autumn Budget approaches.
The prime minister’s priority – for now
Rigby repeatedly emphasized the ‘difficult decisions’ ahead, stressing the finite nature of public funds. Healey’s resignation, triggered by the Defence Investment Plan, demonstrated the high stakes involved. Andy Burnham’s expected ascension to Prime Minister in mid-2027 promises no immediate resolution, leaving the 3% target – and the means to achieve it – firmly in the hands of the future administration. The reality, it seems, is a deliberate postponement, a strategic maneuver to avoid confronting the true cost of military ambition.