The defence secretary, John Healey, has resigned over the government’s military spending plans, accusing Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves of putting the country’s security at risk at a time of growing international threats.
In a blistering resignation letter that further undermines the prime minister’s already fragile authority, Healey said the long-awaited defence investment plan (Dip) fell well short of what was needed to protect the UK at such a dangerous moment.
Healey revealed that Starmer was planning to raise defence spending by just 0.08 of a percentage point of GDP between next year and 2030 – from 2.6% to 2.68% – and argued it needed to hit 3% in 2030 to meet the challenge.
The government has committed to increase spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 in line with a Nato target. Starmer has also set out an ambition to raise funding to 3% of GDP in the next parliament. The Dip was scheduled to be published today, but has been delayed.
“You have been unable and the Treasury has been unwilling to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” Healey wrote.
“I would not be able to accept a Dip settlement that does not give our forces the resources they need. I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your defence secretary.”
He flagged the prime minister’s explicit warning last week that UK intelligence had said there could be an attack by Russia on a Nato country as early as 2030.
He also revealed that he had only learned of Starmer and Reeves’s final military spending plans on Monday. The extra support was “backloaded” when “the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years”, he wrote.
“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.”
Healey’s resignation comes at a particularly damaging time for Starmer. The prime minister is meeting G7 allies in France next week, and the Makerfield byelection is on Thursday. He then travels to Ankara for a Nato summit to discuss defence commitments in early July.
Cabinet relations have been badly damaged by the protracted row over the Dip, with the standoff leading to some of the worst infighting since Labour took power. Several departments had agreed to cut their capital budgets by about 1% to pay for additional military spending.
In his letter, Healey wrote: “In funding the Dip, I fully recognise the strain this places on colleagues in other departments, both now as you have required spending switched into defence and in the future.
“I am very grateful to those colleagues who have supported this, and I appreciate how difficult their choices will have been.”
Healey was one of several cabinet ministers who privately urged Starmer to consider his position last month and do what was right for the country and the party to avoid a chaotic leadership contest. Although previously touted as a potential candidate, his allies ruled this out on Thursday.
The prime minister will want to appoint a new defence secretary as soon as possible, with the security minister, Dan Jarvis, and the armed forces minister, Al Carns, both thought to be in the running. Carns, however, has described the Dip as not fit for purpose and said Starmer should reopen it.
Starmer agreed in February last year to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product in the belief that it would be enough to fund the promises made in the strategic defence review, which was being worked on at the time.
That review was published last June to coincide with the cross-government spending review, which confirmed nearly £20bn extra for the MoD over five years. Defence officials, however, said within months that they would need another £28bn over the next four years to pay for the commitments.
Healey ended up requesting about £18bn from the Treasury, but Reeves refused to sign off on anything above £12bn for weeks. In the end, Starmer put heavy pressure on the chancellor to agree additional spending of about £15bn.
This was to be funded in part by other departments cutting their capital budgets by about 1%, with energy and transport particularly targeted because their capital budgets are relatively high.
