20 Jun 25. House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
Defence spending: Public Accounts Committee leads House of Commons debate
The House of Commons will hold a debate on Wednesday 25th June at approx. 3pm on the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) spending plans, led by the Chair and members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
The government aims to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2026/27. There are plans to increase the MoD’s expenditure within 2024-25 by a total of around £1.35bn compared to initial budgets, with the 2025-26 budget allocation likely to increase still further. Given the MoD’s stewardship over such large sums, it is concerning that the PAC has reported on problems with procurement, inventory management, and digital projects.
The debate will focus in particular on the remit of the new MoD role of National Armaments Director. The PAC found in 2021 that the defence procurement system was “broken,” following which the MoD created this new role as part of the biggest reforms in fifty years. The government aims for the role “to ensure the armed forces are properly equipped to defend Britain, to build up the British defence industry and to crack down on waste.”
The PAC also recently published its report on the future of the Equipment Plan, which will inform the debate. The report warns that defence scrutiny remains obstructed with the continued lack of a public Plan, which unacceptably MoD has now refused to publish since November ’22. It also raises concerns at the rising cost of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, and lays out the lessons learned from the MoD’s support for Ukraine, of which it can be rightfully proud.
The debate will take place on one of the House’s Estimates Days, in which public spending by government departments are considered
19 Jun 25. Business and Trade Committee
House of Commons
“Investment without strategy is squandered” – BTC sets out “imperatives” for Defence Industrial Strategy to maximise its role in the growth mission
The Business and Trade Committee today sets “nine imperatives” for the forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy if it is to fulfill the role Government has set for it as a “new engine for growth at the heart of the UK’s economic strategy”.
Rt Hon Liam Byrne, Chair of the Committee, said: “The Government is right to invest in Britain’s defence—but investment without strategy is squandered. That’s why defence must now serve a double purpose. It must shield our shores—but it must also spark our economy. We need every pound spent on security to become a pound spent on prosperity. And that means a Defence Industrial Strategy rooted in ambition, driven by evidence, and guided by nine clear imperatives—from procurement that backs British industry, to budgets that unlock SME investment, to export strategies that marry our military reach with our economic might.”
“In the 20th century, we helped build the arsenals of democracy. Today, we must forge a new arsenal of prosperity—built not just with ships and submarines, but with skills, sovereignty and regional strength. This is no time for drift or delay. What we need is a decade-long mission: clear goals, firm metrics, accountable leadership. A strategy where the Ministry of Defence becomes not a silo of spending, but a cornerstone of national renewal. Get this right, and defence won’t just keep us country safe—it will help make our country strong.”/
In an extended letter to the Secretaries of State for Business and Trade and for Defence, the Committee says the success of the strategy “hinges on getting three basic questions right”:
- What sovereign capabilities does it want for the UK?
- What contribution to growth does it seek from defence spending?
- How will it measure and report progress?
– and on meeting nine imperatives to “maximise the delivery of defence spending to the growth mission”:
- Maximising synergies with industry and industry spill-overs
2.A sophisticated strategy for innovation
3.Maximising regional growth
4.Maximising the positive impact of net exports
5.Transforming defence procurement
6.Guaranteeing multi-year budgets
7.Be clear about where we will ‘buy British’
8.Improve the wider business environment
9.Getting the governance and accountability right
18 Jun 25. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Defence scrutiny obstructed: PAC extremely disappointed at lack of public spending plan
– Questions remain over detail underpinning ambitions in Strategic Defence Review
– Report lays out lessons learned from UK’s support for Ukraine as nuclear costs continue to grow, potentially impacting spending plans on conventional equipment and accommodation The public still lacks a reliable assessment of whether government’s defence spending plans are affordable. In a new report, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) voices its extreme disappointment that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) continues to fail to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of how it intends to manage its funding for military equipment – historically carried out through an annual Equipment Plan, which unacceptably MoD has now refused to publish since November ’22. Its report also lays out the lessons learned from the MoD’s support for Ukraine, of which it can be rightfully proud The government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) set out high-level ambitions, including an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April ’27. But MoD is only midway through the process of deciding how to invest this funding, and has said that the SDR would build upon its already ambitious equipment programme. MoD doesn’t expect to have completed working through the details following the SDR until late ’25 – two years since the PAC was last able to scrutinise MoD’s spending plans. Its last report on MoD’s Equipment Plan found no credible government plan to deliver on desired military capabilities. The PAC’s latest inquiry was held in the sincere hope that government would propose how Parliament and the public would again be able to scrutinise the crucial issue of MoD’s forward spending plans. No concrete plans, or a date for when one might be presented, were forthcoming. The PAC finds this entirely unsatisfactory – MoD must come forward quickly with proposal on how it will update Parliament on its equipment procurement and support plans. As part of the SDR, the government committed to producing a Defence Investment Plan to replace the Equipment Plan in future, due for completion in Autumn 2025. It is yet to be made clear how the new Plan will be reported to Parliament and the underpinning data provided for scrutiny to the National Audit Office, thus allowing detailed and proper scrutiny by committees including the PAC. The report also lays out several lessons MoD has learned from its support for Ukraine, including the need for mixture of capabilities from high-end missiles to affordable drones; the advantages of having fewer systems for easier logistics management; having the industrial capacity to sustain equipment if supply chains are disrupted; and ending programmes with outdated equipment sooner to keep up with the pace of innovation. MoD’s future work with Ukraine should remain responsive and efficient, so that it continues to provide Ukraine with the support it needs. The ever-increasing cost of the nuclear deterrent is also highlighted in the report, with the PAC finding that rising nuclear costs may restrict the money available for conventional equipment and improving poor accommodation – crucial in addressing problems in recruitment and retention. Forecast nuclear costs for the ten years beginning 23-24 have increased by around £10bn to £128bn, yet in 2023 ten-year costs were already £7.9bn more than budget. The report notes that the government has created a ringfence which prevents MoD from using elsewhere money allocated to nuclear, but which does allow money to flow the other way. The implications of the SDR on the balance of investment between nuclear and conventional capabilities have also not yet been worked through by government.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The MoD’s Equipment Plan is the window that Parliament and the country has to hold government to account on the deliverability of its military ambitions. Despite an inquiry held in good faith with government in the hope that together we might facilitate parliamentary scrutiny, that window remains tightly shut. We are left with vague assurances of further details to be made clear in the autumn. Scrutiny does not take place on the government’s timetable, but as the proper functioning of our democracy, and a critical analysis of our nation’s defence plans has been denied for two years now.
“In the context of continuing geopolitical uncertainty, this continued delay in providing figures for public scrutiny is a truly unacceptable state of affairs. This Committee has made a number of recommendations to government to offer it another chance to cooperate. There is also a material risk of the costs of the nuclear deterrent beginning to act as a ratchet mechanism. As well as a fully worked-up picture of equipment overall, we require specific cost details in the specific area of nuclear, to be assured on the risk of funding not being sucked away from other vital areas earmarked for growth in the SDR. If government does not come forward with the requisite details very soon, Parliament will be unable to critically assess the underpinnings of the SDR, and it will remain to be seen how the public can thereby ascertain whether what is planned, including the pledge of 2.5% of GDP on defence spending, is deliverable. This all must be set in context of the SDR, announced since our report, which sets out a highly ambitious target for upgrading our defence equipment. The MoD can, however, be rightfully proud of the role it has played in supporting Ukraine in resisting Russia’s brutal invasion. The adaptability and responsiveness of government in constantly innovating both in the assistance provided and in its own processes has been truly commendable, and this Committee thanks all involved for their continuing efforts.”
The House of Commons will hold a debate on Wednesday 25th June at approx. 3pm on the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) spending plans, led by the PAC Chair and members of the Committee. Find out more on the Committee’s website.
16 Jun 25. Government response: The Armed Forces Covenant repot. Govt agrees to extend Legal Duty following Armed Forces Covenant report. Following the Defence Committee’s report on the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government has committed to extending the Covenant’s Legal Duty to all UK Government departments and the devolved administrations. Today, the Defence Committee publishes the Government response to its report on the Armed Forces Covenant. The Government accepts the Committee’s finding that the Covenant is inconsistently implemented, and that there is currently little data available to measure whether the Covenant is making a difference to the lives of Service personnel and their families. The Government’s response commits to providing an update to the Committee on its efforts to improve data collection and sharing on the delivery of the Covenant. In other areas the Government stops short of endorsing the Committee’s recommendations. For example, the recommendation that it develop a strategy for ensuring more consistent implementation of the Covenant.
Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “I am pleased that the Government has recognised that the Armed Forces Covenant is not applied as consistently as it should be and has agreed to the Committee’s recommendation to extend the Covenant Legal Duty to all central government departments and to the devolved administrations. This is the right thing to do. The Covenant is a solemn commitment that the Servicemen and women who place their lives on the line for us should face no disadvantage due to their service – we need to make sure every part of government lives up to that commitment. While the Government’s promise to extend the Covenant in law is a step forward, legislation is only one piece of the puzzle. In our report we found that Armed Forces personnel face a lottery when accessing services. Consistent implementation of the Covenant is essential if we are to make a positive difference to the lives of Service personnel and their families. In our report we called for the Government to develop a strategy to ensure that the Covenant is implemented consistently, and it is disappointing that today’s response stops short of producing that strategy. We hope that the Government will have more to say about how it plans to improve implementation when it brings forward the Armed Forces Bill in the next parliamentary session.”