Shadow Chancellor: Healey must deliver 3% defence spending pathway at budget – or resign

• Conservatives challenge Chancellor to follow his own principles and resign if he fails to fund a credible pathway to 3% of GDP on defence by 2030
• Healey resigned as Defence Secretary in June, warning that inadequate funding risked making Britain less safe, but has yet to deliver the commitment he demanded
• Challenge comes amid growing Russian threats to NATO, fresh warnings over Britain's military readiness and reports of £2 billion removed from the Army's armoured vehicle programme

The Conservatives have today [Sunday 25 October] challenged Chancellor John Healey to deliver a credible, fully funded pathway to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at next week's Budget or resign.

In June, Healey resigned as Defence Secretary after warning that the Government's failure to provide adequate defence funding would reduce military readiness, increase risks to service personnel and could make Britain less safe.

At the time, Kemi Badenoch praised Healey for doing the honourable thing and putting the country's security ahead of his ministerial career.

In his resignation letter, Healey said, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. And in his resignation statement to the House of Commons, Healey warned that our adversaries do not follow timetables set by the Treasury.

Even after Dan Jarvis published a revised Defence Investment Plan, Healey continued to criticise the Government's failure to establish a credible funding pathway to 3% by 2030.

Labour's own Defence Select Committee chair, Tan Dhesi, has demanded action. Challenging Andy Burnham at Prime Minister's Questions, Dhesi warned against kicking the can down the road and demanded an urgent pathway to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030.

Dhesi told the Prime Minister that, as his own Chancellor had recognised, reaching that target was critical to keeping Britain safe.

General Lord Sanders this week told the Daily Telegraph this week it was incredible that the Chancellor would not explain how the UK will increase defence spending at the Budget.

Now, as Chancellor, Healey is responsible for the very Treasury decisions he previously condemned.

The challenge comes amid growing warnings about the threat posed by Russia to European security. German authorities have attributed an attempted explosives-laden drone attack at Leipzig Airport to Russia, while US media have reported that CIA Director John Ratcliffe travelled to Moscow in August to warn Russia against attacking NATO countries.

In his resignation statement, Healey himself cited intelligence assessments that Russia could attack NATO as soon as 2030. He was referencing the then-Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, who noted the same assessments.

On Thursday, the Defence Committee published a damning report exposing serious gaps in Britain's ability to defend the High North, warning that Russian submarine and sabotage forces pose risks to critical national infrastructure, including undersea cables and energy pipelines, as well as the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph has reported that approximately £2 billion has been removed from the Army's armoured vehicle programme, with three planned vehicle variants cancelled.

There is still a large hole in the Government's Defence Investment Plan, which should have been filled many months ago. And even if Labour were to fill it now, we would still not be on the way to 3%. Simply filling the funding gap in a plan Healey himself considered inadequate would fall far short of the commitment he demanded when he resigned.

This week the Government warned families to Be Ready' for supply shortages and disruptions in the event of extreme weather or conflict, completely missing the fact that it is Labour's decisions that have left us unprepared and exposed to crises abroad. It isn't families that are failing to fund defence it's the Government.

The Conservatives are the only party to have set out a credible, fully funded pathway to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, by making the tough decisions on welfare that Labour has refused to take. The Party's proposals would redirect savings from welfare spending towards strengthening Britain's Armed Forces, rather than postponing difficult funding choices while the threats to national security grow.

Andrew Griffith MP, Shadow Chancellor, said:

By the end of his Budget statement, John Healey must have fully funded 3% defence spending, or resign.

We are living in an era of extraordinary threats, and yet the Chancellor is dithering over finding the money to pay the country's insurance premium.

No firm would be left unscathed by a serious attack on UK soil. It's time for John Healey to get a grip, because you cannot have a strong economy without a strong defence.

James Cartlidge MP, Shadow Defence Secretary, said:

In an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world, with threats growing on multiple fronts, we need to get serious about funding defence and make the tough choices needed to protect our national security. 

That means cutting welfare spending and investing billions into improving our defensive capability. Yet Burnham continues to prioritise a ballooning benefits bill over our national security.

The Conservatives are the only party that has taken the tough decisions and laid out a serious plan to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. 

The Chancellor absolutely has to set out his plan for 3% in the budget anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

When he resigned as Defence Secretary, John Healey was clear about the need to properly fund defence: 

• John Healey resigned as Defence Secretary because Labour's refusal to fund defence would make Britain less safe'. In a damning resignation letter, Healey laid out that Keir Starmer was unwilling to give the MoD what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time'. He specifically said that without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe'(X, John Healey, 11 June 2026, link). 

• John Healey said in his resignation speech that Britain must spend the headmark of 3 per cent on defence in 2030'. HEALEY: Britain must set the headmark of spending 3 per cent on defence in 2030 and a clear path to 3.5 per cent in 2035the commitment all NATO nations have made to each other and to their people' (Hansard, Personal Statements, 16 June 2026, Vol 787 Col 731, link). 

• John Healey said in his resignation speech that a Russian attack on NATO could occur as soon as 2030'. HEALEY: The Prime Minister knows what the country needs for defence. He spelled out the threat this month when he said: 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' (Hansard, Personal Statements, 16 June 2026, Vol 787 Col 731, link). 

• John Healey said that, because of the looming threat of Russian attack, the Government needs to take harder choices' instead of incremental change'. HEALEY: NATO has now said that we mut prepare for war with Russia within the next five years. This is the age of hard power and rising threat. This is not the moment for calibration or incremental change. This means bigger politics, bolder priorities and harder choices' (Hansard, Personal Statements, 16 June 2026, Vol 787 Col 730, link). 

• John Healey said that Britain's adversaries do not operate on Treasury timetables. HEALEY: When NATO needs European nations to step up, we must not fall short. Our adversaries do not follow timetables set by the Treasury' (Hansard, Personal Statements, 16 June 2026, Vol 787 Col 731, link). 

• John Healey said that it was the duty of our political generation' to make Britain ready for an uncertain world. HEALEY: It is the duty of our political generation to ready Britain for the uncertainties of the years to come. The decisions that we make in the months ahead will be judged by those who follow us' (Hansard, Personal Statements, 16 June 2026, Vol 787 Col 731, link). 

DIP fallout   

• £4.7 billion of DIP funding is to be committed at the Autumn Budget. In a written statement given by Rachel Reeves, she admitted a further £4.7 billion over four years will be confirmed at Budget 2026, in a fair and balanced way' (Hansard, Defence Funding, Vol 788, 30 June 2026, link). 

• The Government's own Defence Investment Plan would leave a £10 billion a year gap against the 3 per cent target by 2030. The DIP committed the Government to spending just 2.7 per cent of UK GDP by 2029/30 on defence an uplift of £10 billion a year against the Government's current plans is needed to meet the 3 per cent target that year (The Defence Investment Plan Funding Explainer, MoD, 30 June 2026, link; Quarterly National Accounts, HMT, 30 June 2026, link). 

• Dan Jarvis said tough choices' had been made regarding the DIP, but refused to go into detail. JARVIS: Resetting the programme to deliver this transformation has forced some challenging but necessary decisions involving the cutting of consultants and the cutting of the civil service headcount by 15 per cent, as well as an increased use of technology to drive innovation. There have been some tough choices, and I thought it was right to be honest about those' (Hansard, Defence Investment Plan, Vol 788 Col 809, 30 June 2026, link). 

• The Daily Telegraph reported that the British Army's armed vehicle programme budget was having to make £2 billion worth of cuts. The Daily Telegraph reported that the overall armed vehicle programme budget has now been cut from more than £7 billion to just over £5 billion as a result of funding removal following Army re-prioritisation', meaning that crucial armoured vehicle capability is being sacrificed to save money (The Daily Telegraph, 19 October 2026, link). 

Expert commentary  

• Tan Dhesi asked Andy Burnham if he will stop kicking the can down the road' and commit to the 3 per cent target. DHESI: That is why it is imperative that we invest in our armed forces in the here and now, rather than being sorry later. Indeed, defence is definitely one area where vibes alone just will not be enough. Rather than kicking the can down the road, waiting for a fiscal event in a future year, will the Prime Minister urgently commit to charting a pathway to reaching 3% of GDP being spent on defence by 2030? As his Chancellor rightly noted, that is critical to keeping our country safe.' (Hansard, Engagements, 2 September 2026, Vol 790 Col 168, link). 

• The Defence Select Committee said in a report on the High North that a failure to counter Russia would threaten Britain, our infrastructure, and our nuclear deterrent. The report concluded that Failure to deter Russia in the region, particularly from underwater threats, puts at particular risk sub-sea data cables and energy pipes in adjacent UK waters during peacetime. Failure to counter Russia in the High North during hostilities would also threaten the UK population and entire military and civilian critical national infrastructure, including the nuclear deterrent and Atlantic resupply routes from the US' (House of Commons Defence Committee, Defence in the High North, 19 October 2026, link). 

• General Sir Richard Barrons, the former Commander of Joint Forces Command, said that the gap between where we are' and where we need to be is' enormous'. BARRONS: And that was the second big thought in the SDR is that the defence bar is so much higher now and yet where we are now reflects the end of a very difficult era and a very hard journey, which saw the armed forces essentially reduce in size by half, but more than that reduced in training and logistics and industrial support and reserves and all of those things that make the armed forces big and effective. So the gap between where we need to be and where we are is enormous' (Coffee House Shots, 11 June 2026, archived).  

• General Sir Richard Barrons also said: We are not keeping up with our allies, we are certainly not keeping up with our enemies' (X, BBC Radio 4 Today, 30 June 2026, link). 

• General Sir Patrick Sanders, former Chief of the General Staff said: Most of our allies have set out a credible path they have made the sacrifices that are necessary to get there so there is no reason why we can't do it. These are just about political choices (YouTube, Times News, 24 June 2026, link). 

• Lord George Robertson, former Secretary General of NATO, said: We are underprepared. We are under-insured. We are under attack. We are not safe' (The Daily Telegraph, 14 April 2026, link). 

o    Lord Robertson also said: We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expandingwelfarebudget'(The Daily Telegraph, 14 April 2026, link). 

• Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser, said: We don't have the sense of urgency, which is kind of bizarre really given everything that's happening' (The Guardian, 14 April 2026, link).  

The Conservatives have a plan to fund defence  

• We have a fully costed plan to spend 3 per cent of GDP spent on defence by 2029-30, by taking the tough decisions on welfare. Hitting 3 per cent means finding an extra £10 billion a year for defence. We will take the difficult decisions to get there, from reforming Housing Benefit to reinstating the two-child benefit cap, so our Armed Forces have what they need to keep Britain safe (The Conservatives, Our plan to increase defence spending, 3 September 2026, link).