Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has backed the ambition to increase UK defence spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, but says the Government will not formally commit to the timetable until the next Spending Review.
Streeting confirmed his position during an interview on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, after repeatedly being pressed on whether he supported the target.
His comments have renewed questions about the Government’s plans to strengthen Britain’s military capabilities amid growing concerns over Russia and wider European security.
Although Streeting ultimately endorsed the 2030 ambition, he said Chancellor John Healey would need to explain how any increase would be funded before making a formal commitment.
Defence Spending Timetable Remains Unclear
The Government has committed to raising defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, but it has yet to publish a detailed roadmap showing how it will reach that level.
The uncertainty has created pressure on ministers to clarify both the timing of increases and how additional military expenditure will be financed.
During the BBC interview, stand-in presenter Victoria Derbyshire asked Streeting whether he agreed with Healey’s previous position that defence spending should reach 3 per cent of GDP by 2030.
“I do, especially now he’s the Chancellor,” Streeting replied.
However, when asked whether the Government would actually deliver that level of spending by 2030, he said the Chancellor would set out the position in next year’s Spending Review.
Streeting subsequently reiterated that he would continue pushing for greater defence expenditure in his role as Defence Secretary.
Streeting Warns Against Unfunded Spending Pledges
Streeting defended the decision not to announce a firm commitment before the next Spending Review, arguing that a promise without a credible funding plan could increase borrowing costs.
“If I or the Chancellor were to sit on your programme now and say 3 per cent in 2030, without showing how we were going to pay for it, the markets would price in that risk, the cost of borrowing would go up,” he said.
He argued that the Government could make its financial position more difficult if it announced additional spending commitments without explaining how they would be funded.
The Defence Secretary added that the Chancellor needed to present both the spending ambition and the financial decisions required to support it.
Pressed again on whether he personally wanted defence spending to reach 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, Streeting said: “That’s the position John Healey set out before, it’s my view.”
His comments indicate support for the target while leaving the timing of a formal government commitment unresolved.
Budget Expected to Address Defence Funding Shortfall
The Government’s Budget on October 28 is expected to address a funding gap of nearly £5 billion in the Defence Investment Plan.
However, the Budget is not expected to provide a complete timetable for the planned increase in defence spending, leaving the broader question of the funding trajectory for the next Spending Review.
The gap has added to pressure on ministers to explain how the armed forces will receive the resources needed to meet their commitments.
Without a published funding schedule, questions remain over when additional money will become available and how quickly the Government intends to expand military capacity.
Healey’s Previous Resignation Adds to Pressure
The latest uncertainty is particularly significant because Healey previously resigned from Keir Starmer’s Government after expressing frustration over the lack of a clear timetable for increasing defence spending.
His earlier position had placed pressure on the Government to establish when the UK would reach the 3 per cent threshold.
Streeting’s confirmation that he shares that ambition may reinforce expectations that the Chancellor will eventually set out a clearer plan. However, the delay until the Spending Review leaves the Government’s immediate intentions open to further scrutiny.
The situation has also exposed differences between ministers’ public expressions of support for higher spending and the formal commitments they are prepared to make.
Confusion Over 2035 Target Fuels Further Questions
The Government’s defence spending plans have faced additional uncertainty following comments by Andy Burnham at Prime Minister‘s Questions that appeared to suggest a commitment to reaching 3 per cent of GDP by 2035.
Downing Street subsequently clarified the position, adding to questions about whether ministers are working from a consistent timetable.
The UK has committed to spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence by 2035, but the precise path towards that target remains unclear.
The distinction between the proposed 3 per cent target for 2030 and the established 3.5 per cent ambition for 2035 is central to the current debate over the pace of Britain’s military investment.
Russia’s Threat Puts Defence Plans Under Scrutiny
The debate is taking place against a backdrop of growing concern about Russia’s military posture and the security risks facing Britain and its European allies.
Critics of the Government’s approach are likely to focus on the absence of a clear timetable, arguing that military planning requires predictable funding over several years.
Ministers, meanwhile, face the challenge of balancing defence requirements against competing demands on public finances and the need to maintain confidence in the UK’s borrowing costs.
Streeting’s position reflects that tension: he supports a faster increase in defence expenditure but argues that a commitment must be accompanied by a credible funding plan.
Spending Review Will Be Crucial to the Next Stage
The next Spending Review is expected to provide the Government with an opportunity to clarify its defence priorities and explain how additional expenditure will be financed.
Until then, Streeting’s comments offer a clearer indication of his personal support for the 2030 target but do not amount to a formal commitment by the Government.
The October 28 Budget is expected to address the immediate funding gap in the Defence Investment Plan, while the longer-term schedule for reaching the spending targets remains unresolved.
The central question is whether ministers can turn their stated ambition into a funded timetable that gives the armed forces greater certainty over future resources.
