Healey insists defence funding will rise to 3% target to meet review aims
The Government has committed to increase spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product from April 2027 but only has an 'ambition' to reach 3% during the next parliament, which is due to end by around 2034.
The authors of the review have suggested reaching that 3% target is vital to delivering their recommendations while US President Donald Trump has pushed for Nato allies to spend 5%.
Mr Healey denied he was gambling on economic growth to meet his target, telling BBC Breakfast: 'I'm 100% confident that we'll hit that 3%.
'The important thing for now is what we can do, and we can do now more than we've been able to do before, because of an extra £5 billion the Chancellor has put in to the defence budget this year and the 2.5% that we will deliver three years earlier than anyone expected.
'It means that a £60 billion budget this year will rise throughout this parliament and beyond.'
The Ministry of Defence announced a £5 billion investment in the 'kit of the future' following the publication of the review on Monday.
The funding includes £4 billion for drones and autonomous systems, and an extra £1 billion for lasers to protect British ships and soldiers.
A new era of threat requires a new era for defence.
The Strategic Defence Review marks a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/EZtoHx6PGR
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) June 2, 2025
Mr Healey said the investment would provide 'the most significant advance in UK defence technology in decades' and 'ensure our armed forces have the cutting-edge capabilities they need to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world'.
Part of the investment will see the establishment of a new 'drone centre' to accelerate the deployment of the technology by all three branches of the armed forces.
The focus on drones comes as the technology has proved increasingly lethal on the battlefield in Ukraine, where it now kills more people than traditional artillery.
At a meeting of allied defence ministers in April, Mr Healey said the UK estimated drones were inflicting 70-80% of battlefield casualties, while on Sunday Ukraine launched a major attack on Russian airfields deep behind the front line using a fleet of small drones.
In addition to investment in drones and AI, the Government has announced an additional £1 billion for the development of 'directed energy weapons' (DEWs) during the current parliament.
This includes the DragonFire laser scheduled to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers from 2027, with a similar system provided for the Army by the end of the decade.
DragonFire and other DEWs are intended to provide a lower-cost form of air defence against targets including drones, costing just £10 per shot compared with the thousands of pounds it costs to fire existing weapons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
The government must ensure the promise of free childcare is delivered
Takeup of the government's offer of free childcare has been one-quarter higher than predicted, which has prompted some voices in the sector to warn of its imminent 'collapse', because it is unclear how the planned expansion of the scheme in September will be funded. Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, in an exclusive interview with The Independent, says the unexpectedly high numbers signing up for the scheme is a 'good problem to have'. There is no doubt that there is a problem, however. The higher takeup meant that the Department for Education spent £2bn on the scheme in the last financial year, covering most of the first year of the Labour government, rather than the planned £1.6bn. That gap was covered by additional funding announced in the spending review in March, but as we report today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the gap will continue to widen as the scheme expands. The next expansion will happen in September, when working parents with children aged nine months and older will be offered 30 hours a week of 'free' childcare. Of course, the care is not 'free' in that it has to be paid for by taxpayers generally – on the grounds that helping the parents of young children to work is a public good. As Ms Phillipson puts it: 'If people are able to work, or work a few more hours, that helps us all as a society as well and it gets economic growth going.' The funding of the scheme will continue to be under pressure, but the most important fact about the scheme so far is that it has not collapsed. The Independent was among those voices warning that it had been underfunded by the Conservative government, but to its credit the new government has increased the money available. The finances of the scheme may be stretched, and many childcare providers continue to say that they cannot recruit enough staff at the wages they can afford, but the gloomier warnings of chaos and thousands of parents left without places have not yet been borne out. It is crucial to remain vigilant as the scheme expands so that remains the case. At the insistence of Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor in the previous government, the scheme was designed to start small, with a limited offer of free hours to older children, before expanding gradually to provide full coverage. This September's expansion is the final stage of that planned rollout, which so far has gone more smoothly than we expected. If the last stage is a stretch too far and some parents cannot immediately find the places they want, that would be a blow to the government's ambitions. Ms Phillipson is right that the problem facing the scheme in its final phase is the problem of success. The higher-than-expected demand means additional pressure on the public finances in the later years of this parliament – pressure that coincides with other increased demands on Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, from slow growth, higher interest rates and a government U-turn on disability benefits spending. Providing greater access to free childcare is a good policy that will help working families. Its success and ambition should be applauded. The government must now make sure that its expansion is a success.
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU chief von der Leyen heads to Scotland for trade talks with Trump
BRUSSELS/EDINBURGH, July 26 (Reuters) - EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen headed to Scotland on Saturday ahead of a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday afternoon, commission spokespeople said, as EU officials said the two sides were nearing a trade agreement. Trump, in Scotland for a few days of golfing and bilateral meetings, told reporters upon his arrival on Friday evening that he was looking forward to meeting with von der Leyen, calling her a "highly respected" leader. He repeated his view that there was a 50-50 chance that the U.S. and the 27-member European Union could reach a framework trade pact, adding that Brussels wanted to "make a deal very badly". If it happened, he said it would be the biggest trade agreement reached yet by his administration, surpassing the $550 billion accord agreed with Japan earlier this week. The White House has released no details about the planned meeting or the terms of the emerging agreement. The European Commission on Thursday said a negotiated trade solution with the United States was within reach, even as EU members voted to approve counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in case the talks collapse. To get a deal, Trump said the EU would have to "buy down" that tariff rate, although he gave no specifics. EU diplomats say a possible deal between Washington and Brussels would likely include a broad 15% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S., mirroring the U.S.-Japan deal, along with a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum. The broad tariff rate would be half the 30% duties that Trump has threatened to slap on EU goods from August 1. It remains unclear if Washington will agree to exempt the EU from sectoral tariffs on automobiles, pharmaceuticals and other goods that have already been announced or are pending. Combining goods, services and investment, the EU and the United States are each other's largest trading partners by far. The American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels warned in March that any conflict jeopardized $9.5 trillion of business in the world's most important commercial relationship.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump bids to release Epstein grand jury files – what secrets might they hold?
As Donald Trump reels from political fallout related to his justice department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, the US president has directed his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, to 'release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval'. It is an effort at damage control for a White House now engulfed in endless speculation – especially among Trump's previously devoted Maga base – about the extent of Trump's relationship with the late, disgraced sex trafficker and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019. Justice department attorneys quickly filed paperwork in Manhattan and south Florida federal courts requesting unsealing of grand jury testimony for Epstein. Justice department officials have also asked a New York judge to release grand jury transcripts for Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's sometimes girlfriend and longtime confidante who in 2021 was convicted of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls into his orbit. A grand jury is a panel that decides whether evidence presented by prosecutors shows 'probable cause' that someone committed a crime, and whether they should be tried. Should the grand jury, which is not the trial jury, find that there is sufficient evidence, an indictment will be issued. But veteran US attorneys, including those who have represented Epstein victims, told the Guardian that any release of grand jury transcripts around Epstein and Maxwell might not provide much insight into Epstein's crimes and whether others were involved in abusing minors – or in covering up his years of predation of young girls and women. The lawyers, however, insist that meaningful information does exist in yet-to-be released Epstein files held by federal law enforcement authorities from multiple investigations into Epstein. Whether the political will – and legal ability – exists to release any or all of those files remains to be seen. 'Grand juries serve two functions: to indict and to investigate. The transcripts may contain testimony of victims or cooperating witnesses if the grand jury was investigating Epstein,' Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, and a former federal prosecutor, said of grand jury processes. The grand jury transcripts could include graphic and explicit evidence, but they could also include more pro forma information about the actions of Epstein and Maxwell, who is serving jail time in Florida. 'If they were indicting Epstein, we can expect to see law enforcement witnesses summarizing the evidence of probable cause to support the charges. That would probably be less interesting, and similar to the factual allegations in the Epstein indictment,' Rahmani said. He added: 'There is likely much more salacious evidence out there than the grand jury transcripts. 'The FBI interview summaries and internal Department of Justice memoranda probably contain the juiciest details. The grand jury transcripts are just a small part of the picture. If Bondi was serious about transparency, she would make public the complete Epstein files, subject to redactions to protect the privacy rights of the victims.' Top lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented multiple Epstein victims, said government files should be made public with several exceptions, such as redaction of victims' names and identifying information, attorney-client communications and material depicting abuse. 'I think there is information that the government could release, such as texts, emails and other electronic communications of Jeffrey Epstein and anyone with whom he communicated. In addition, any communications on behalf of Mr Epstein made by his employees who may have played a part in recruiting or dealing with victims at the request of Mr Epstein and/or Ms Maxwell could be released,' Allred said. 'All evidence in the file of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York which was gathered for the prosecution of Mr Epstein, with the exceptions which I have listed previously, could be released.' Allred believes 'all files, both federal and state that reflect the investigation and potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida should also be made public'. Thorough investigations of Epstein were conducted in New York and Florida, Allred pointed out, and those investigations would be in those files. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments. 'The real documents that the public needs to see are the documents maintained by the FBI and Department of Justice. They have thousands of hours of videotapes and investigative memos and documents regarding the data that was seized at his homes,' he said. Kuvin said that unsealing grand jury testimony was a 'good first step' but limits information to four victims over whom Epstein was charged in New York. 'I am aware that the FBI had interviewed over 40 girls during their investigations. Where are those interviews, where are those reports? 'The abusers should be disclosed to the public so that we may all know who they are,' Kuvin also said, insisting that victims' privacy must be protected in such a process. He called on Trump to act. 'This administration could end the dispute tomorrow by the president signing an executive order demanding the release of all the material in the custody of the FBI and DoJ,' Kuvin said. 'Either Trump has the power to do this, or he must admit that he is not as powerful as he has professed to be to the public and his Maga followers.' Trump's current political woes stem from his backtracking on previous vows to release the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, he vowed to declassify the files, but then attracted scathing criticism when his justice department released a memo claiming that there was no 'incriminating' client list within the tranche of documents related to Epstein. The justice department's claim that they did not find evidence implicating third parties has further fanned the flames of suspicion, especially as last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Bondi had warned Trump that his name appears in the files. A smattering of reports highlighting Trump's friendship with Epstein several decades ago – which reportedly ended following a real estate dispute, several years before the late financier admitted to a state-level charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida – has proved yet another political minefield. Even if federal authorities and Trump drag their feet in releasing these documents, it is possible that new civil litigation could eventually force them to do so raising the prospect of yet more political scandals heading Trump's way. Maria Farmer, an Epstein survivor who in 1996 told authorities he and Maxwell were abusing minors including her sister, is suing the federal government over their handling of these claims. Farmer's suit alleges that the FBI 'chose to do absolutely nothing'. Farmer also claims that the FBI agent taking her call 'hung up on her, and no one at the FBI attempted to follow up with her or pursue her valid and serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if not decades, with wide-ranging tragic consequences.' If this litigation progresses, both sides would exchange evidence related to the claims in a process called discovery. While discovery is typically subject to a confidentiality agreement, and solidified by a court order, information from this exchange could come up in subsequent court papers that are public. 'What this lawsuit could reveal is what the FBI and the department did and did not do, what they failed to do – they failed to do their job,' Farmer's attorney, Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, told the Guardian. Freeman noted, for example, that she has a redacted set of pages from what appears to be a 2006 field interview with Farmer, during which an FBI agent went to her home and spoke with her. Freeman said she had some 20 pages of handwritten notes, 'many of which are redacted'. She said: 'That's the kind of information we need. It's redacted. I've been trying to get this information for years now, through Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but we've been stymied every time.' Neither the White House nor Department of Justice commented.
