Lords demand urgent action on defence spending as peers criticise government delays and lack of transparency. phunhoang

LONDON — Senior members of the House of Lords have delivered sharp criticism of the government’s handling of defence investment, accusing ministers of lethargy, opacity and failing to respond with sufficient urgency to escalating global threats.

During a debate on defence matters, peers from across the House highlighted sustained concerns over the adequacy of defence spending, the slow progress of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), which remains under final consideration on the Prime Minister’s desk.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns opened the questioning by noting that the most painful criticism had come from a political friend and the government’s own defence advisor. She asked why funds already identified and assigned for the Chagos Islands agreement — which many now consider effectively dead — could not be immediately redirected to the Ministry of Defence to help fill its reported £3.5 billion black hole. She also urged the government to prioritise getting warships out of maintenance as a matter of urgency.

Defence minister Lord Coaker acknowledged that priorities across government are constantly reassessed but said he could not give a direct commitment on redirecting Chagos-related funds. On warship maintenance, he stated that the First Sea Lord was working hard to improve availability across the fleet, including through development of a hybrid navy and better submarine readiness.

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former defence minister and serving Army Reserve officer, raised concerns about the impact of potential cuts on reserve forces, noting that reservists now form the first echelon of defence rather than a secondary force. He sought assurances that reserve budgets would be protected in the forthcoming plan.

The minister responded by affirming that reserves are an essential and growing part of national defence and deserve a budget that matches their increased responsibility.

Several peers expressed frustration at the pace of the Defence Investment Plan. Lord Stirrup, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, said the need for leadership was not in doubt and that the Prime Minister had delivered eloquent speeches on the urgency of the situation abroad, yet the issue appeared to remain unresolved on his desk at home. He urged ministers to convey that “the time for leadership is long past” and that further delay was too dangerous given the international security environment.

Lord Coaker reiterated that significant investments were already being made ahead of the SDR’s publication. He cited recent announcements including support for Leonardo helicopters in Yeovil, nearly £900 million for Chinook and Apache maintenance with Boeing UK, major shipbuilding investment in Scotland, renewal of the nuclear deterrent, and the ordering of additional F-35 aircraft.

He pointed to planned increases in the defence budget, rising from £60.2 billion in 2024-25 to £73.5 billion in 2028-29 under current plans — an increase of £13.5 billion in the final year.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former NATO Secretary General and government defence advisor, had earlier raised concerns about the lack of a “whole of society” approach to defence and security as called for in the SDR. He asked when the government would engage the public and all political parties in a proper debate on the threats facing Britain and how to respond, noting that many in the public remain unconvinced that higher defence spending is justified.

The minister confirmed that a debate on defence resilience would take place in the Grand Committee on Monday and said broader conversations were underway. He stressed that the government was not waiting for the SDR before making investments.

Liberal Democrat peers pushed back against suggestions of disengagement, confirming they remain fully involved in discussions on the review and regret the absence of a national conversation led by the Prime Minister. They echoed calls for such a debate to begin as soon as possible so the public understands the changed security circumstances.

Peers also questioned the effectiveness of defence spending, not just the total amount. One asked whether allegations of insufficient defence expertise in the Treasury were justified. The minister said regular discussions take place with the Treasury and that the importance of defence is understood.

Another peer highlighted the need to improve procurement efficiency and value for money. The minister pointed to the establishment of a new National Armaments Directorate and the appointment of a National Armaments Director whose priorities include better procurement practices. He added that lessons from the war in Ukraine — particularly the importance of air defence, new technologies and drones — require a rebalancing between traditional capabilities and emerging systems.

The debate reflected deep cross-party concern about Britain’s military posture in 2026. With ongoing conflicts and rising tensions internationally, many speakers argued that the government must demonstrate clearer leadership, faster decision-making and greater transparency to carry public support for increased defence investment.

While ministers insisted that substantial work and funding are already in progress, critics maintained that delays in finalising the Defence Investment Plan and the lack of a comprehensive national conversation risk leaving the UK under-prepared for future threats.

The session highlighted the tension between fiscal constraints, competing spending priorities such as welfare, and the urgent strategic requirements of national defence. As the Defence Investment Plan moves closer to final approval, further parliamentary scrutiny and public debate are expected in the coming weeks.

Promoted Content