Defence industry warns Starmer spending boost is not enough for ‘wartime'
Defence industry bosses have warned the Prime Minister that his spending boost is not enough for 'wartime'.
Sir Keir Starmer told Parliament on Wednesday that the Ministry of Defence's budget would rise from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2027, speeding up existing plans to increase defence spending.
Kevin Craven, chief executive of defence trade association ADS Group, welcomed the pledge but warned that it stopped short of meeting levels required for 'wartime' production.
It comes amid warnings war in Europe could break out in the next few years, fuelled by Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and fears that Chinese military posturing against Taiwan could bubble over into a full-blown invasion.
Explaining that Western countries' military stockpiles have largely been sent to Ukraine over the past two years, Mr Craven said: 'The rate at which we're replenishing those stockpiles has been at a peacetime rate. So I would expect that rate to go up.
'Not to a wartime rate, because we're not at war. But, again, there's more certainty now, and therefore those orders to rebuild those stockpiles will start happening at a faster rate.'
He said: 'It will not bring an instantaneous surge in capability and capacity,' referring to the £6 billion spending increase.
'We're in a pre-war phase where the threat levels are higher and people can conceive of a conflict in the next three to five years,' Mr Craven continued, adding: 'You've got to open the taps a little bit to be able to plan and deliver a surge when it's necessary.'
Britain spent £53.9 billion on defence last year, according to the House of Commons Library. This year that will rise to £56.9 billion.
Other defence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested the industry is waiting for the Government's promised Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – expected to be published before June – before expanding their abilities to build tanks, ships and missiles.
'It's a welcome announcement but we're waiting for the SDR,' said one insider.
Another said the spending increase was 'welcome' but lacked the detail necessary for companies to invest in renewed arms production, saying: 'If you decide you want A, B and C, [only] then can you set up extra production lines.'
Mr Craven's comments were echoed by Professor Trevor Taylor, of the Rusi defence think-tank, who said the industry would greet Sir Keir's spending pledge with 'relief' but warned that further rises would be needed.
'We have to make sure that spending generates capability that deters Russia. We don't want to be thinking ahead to a war: we want to be thinking ahead to deterring a war,' said Prof Taylor.
He added: 'We are getting towards the amount that we might need for deterrence, but probably we're not there yet at 2.5 per cent or even 3.'
Promises of increased defence spending will be welcomed by arms company bosses. Charles Woodburn, chief executive of BAE Systems, is expected to attend a Washington DC event with the Prime Minister on Wednesday night as the latter prepares to meet Donald Trump.
American foreign policy under Mr Trump has provoked alarm in European capitals over recent weeks, with his warm embrace of Russia forcing members of the Nato alliance – including Britain – to re-assess their defence spending priorities.
British defence spending peaked at 11 per cent of GDP in 1953, falling to an all-time low of 1.9 per cent in 2018. Today it has risen to 2.26 per cent, with the Government saying it will hit 3 per cent by 2034.
Nato has a non-binding target for each of its members to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Scots have ‘voted for change', says Starmer following Labour's surprise win
Sir Keir Starmer has said people in Scotland have 'voted for change' following Labour's shock win in the Hamilton by-election. The Prime Minister congratulated his winning candidate Davy Russell and looked ahead to next year's Scottish Parliament election, saying it is a chance to 'turbo charge delivery'. Mr Russell took the seat vacated by the death of Scottish Government minister and SNP MSP Christina McKelvie. Posting on social media on Friday morning, Sir Keir said: 'People in Scotland have once again voted for change. 'Next year there is a chance to turbo charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. 'I look forward to working with you.' Labour's candidate, who is the deputy lord lieutenant of Lanarkshire, beat out SNP candidate Katy Loudon – who fell to her third defeat since 2023. The win comes against the backdrop of national polls which place Scottish Labour in third place behind the SNP and Reform UK – and will undoubtedly give a boost to Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's bid to become first minister in next year's election. The Nigel Farage-led Reform UK saw a surge which took them into third place, just 800 votes away from the SNP, but fell short of expectations that they may place second. Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice also reacted to the results, saying his party is 'delighted'. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: 'It's truly remarkable. 'We've come from nowhere to being in a three-way marginal, and we're within 750 votes of winning that by-election and just a few hundred votes of defeating the SNP, so it's an incredible result.' At the election count earlier, Mr Tice told the PA news agency he was 'thrilled to bits' with the result. When the votes were counted, Mr Russell polled 8,559, with Ms Loudon coming second on 7,957, ahead of Reform's Ross Lambie, who secured 7,088 votes. Speaking to PA after the declaration, Mr Sarwar said: 'I think people need to change the script, because we've proven the pollsters wrong. 'We've proven the commentators wrong, we've proven the bookies wrong. 'We've proven John Swinney wrong and so many others wrong too.' In the final weeks of the campaign, the First Minister said it was a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform, but Mr Sarwar asked what it says about a Government that has been in power for 18 years and 'all it has to offer in a campaign is vote SNP to stop Farage'. Congratulations to @DavyRussell4HLS and the team on a fantastic victory. People in Scotland have once again voted for change. Next year there is a chance to turbo charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. I look forward to working with you. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 6, 2025 Mr Russell had faced criticism for his perceived lack of media appearances, but Mr Sarwar said such arguments were borne of 'an element of classism and elitism'. Speaking from the stage after his win, Mr Russell said: 'Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse has voted tonight to take a new direction with Scottish Labour. 'Like the people here in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, and right across Scotland, we all feel we have been let down by the SNP.' The newly-minted MSP also hit out at Reform, saying the win 'sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight – the poison of Reform isn't us, it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here'. While First Minister Mr Swinney said Ms Loudon had 'fought a superb SNP campaign' and that he was 'clearly disappointed' they were unable to win. 'Labour won by an absolute landslide in this area less than a year ago – we came much closer tonight, but the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have made clear that we still have work to do,' he added. 'Over the next few days, we will take time to consider the result fully.'
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Long-awaited Trump-Xi call isn't enough to resolve looming critical mineral shortage this summer
BEIJING — A high-stakes call between the U.S. and Chinese presidents on Thursday has yet to resolve a global shortage of rare earth exports that businesses say could halt production of cars and other industrial parts this summer. Rare earths, along with a broader group of critical minerals, are used in weapons, cars and other high-tech products. China has come to dominate the mining and production of those metals, and over the last two years has gradually started to restrict international sales. In early April, China announced new export controls on seven rare earth elements. Unlike other measures, Beijing did not specify whether they were a response to heightened U.S. tensions. After both sides reached their breakthrough trade agreement on May 12, China's Commerce Ministry said on the same day that it held a meeting to strengthen export controls on critical minerals. There was no broad rollback of the restrictions on seven rare earths. This development came as a surprise to many in Washington, who had expected a repeal of the rare earths restrictions, since the trade agreement had said both countries would suspend most tariffs and roll back countermeasures for 90 days. But so far, only some Chinese suppliers of U.S. companies have received six-month export licenses for rare earths, the American Chamber of Commerce in China said Friday, citing a survey of members from May 23 to 28. Among respondents affected by rare earths controls, 75% said their existing supplies would run out within three months, the survey said. The controls mostly affected sectors involving research and development, resources, industrial and tech, but not consumer or services companies, the survey showed. While China did not mention rare earths in its readout of Chinese President Xi Jinping's call with U.S. President Donald Trump, the long-awaited conversation itself signaled that both countries would continue to talk, following accusations from both sides of violating the trade agreement. "I think we're in very good shape with China and the trade deal," Trump told reporters following Thursday's call. "We have a deal with China, as you know, but we were straightening out some of the points having to do mostly with rare earth magnets and some other things." He did not elaborate. But Trump said U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet their Chinese counterparts at an unspecified time. Further trade talks will likely bring the U.S. and China back to where things stood earlier this year, with limited tariffs, Jianwei Xu, senior economist at Natixis, said Friday. He said China could accelerate some rare earths export approvals for commercial use, in return for the U.S. easing its restrictions on some tech exports to China. "I think both China and the U.S. have figured out that each other's immediate weaknesses are not so much about tariffs, but more about non-tariff issues, especially in tech and rare earths," Xu said. The impact of China's restrictions on rare earths extends beyond U.S. companies. Several European auto parts companies have already had to stop production, industry association CLEPA said Wednesday. It warned of more widespread impact in coming weeks, and said China has only approved about 25% of "hundreds of export license applications" that were submitted. China has recently appeared to ease some export controls, albeit to some European companies, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China said Friday. But it warned that it was insufficient to "prevent severe supply chain disruptions for many companies." "Our members are still struggling with the export licence approval process, due to both the time it takes and the lack of transparency, and this is now negatively impacting production lines in Europe and other countries," European Chamber President Jens Eskelund said in a statement. Japanese automaker Suzuki Motor briefly suspended production of its Swift car due to China's rare earth curbs, Reuters reported Thursday, citing two unnamed sources, with manufacturing expected to partially resume on June 13. A Suzuki Motor spokesperson was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC. "China's export control measures are consistent with universal practices. Such measures are non-discriminatory and not targeted at any particular country," China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian said in response to a question about the Japanese automaker on Thursday, according to an official English-language transcript. That echoed Ministry of Commerce Spokesperson He Yongqiang's response to a question last week on Chinese companies restricting sales of a critical mineral stored outside the country at the Netherlands' Rotterdam port. She added during a separate press conference Thursday that China would approve applications for export licenses in line with its regulations, and to "promote convenient and compliant trade." That's according to a CNBC translation of the Chinese. China's restrictions on critical minerals have accelerated in the last several months. Following export controls in Aug. 2023 on gallium and germanium, two metals used in chipmaking, China, a year later, then announced similar restrictions on exports of antimony, which is used in bullets, nuclear weapons production and lead-acid batteries. It can also strengthen other metals. A few months later, China released a broader policy that tightened restrictions on exports of products that could have both civilian and military use. The export controls cover metals such as tungsten that the U.S. has deemed critical. Tungsten is nearly as hard as a diamond, and is used in weapons, semiconductors and industrial cutting machines. There are about 300 grams (10.6 ounces) of tungsten in the average car, the majority of which is lost even with recycling, said Martin Hotwagner, market analyst at Austria-based Steel & Metal Market Research. As supplies run low, he expects Western companies will likely run out of tungsten later this summer.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The net zero fight threatening to blow up Miliband's green dreams
When Ed Miliband took the reins of his old department last summer after 14 years away, the Energy Secretary compared being in government to playing the video game Mario Kart. 'You're driving along, things fly at you and you've got to just keep going,' he joked a few months in. Some of those flying objects may have been easy to anticipate – not least a rural backlash against his approval of vast solar farms and power lines across swathes of British countryside. Yet one row Labour's net zero supremo may not have seen coming was a fight over the rather dry-sounding 'review of electricity market arrangements'. Quietly started in 2023 by Mr Miliband's Conservative predecessors, it includes what has become an incendiary proposal for regional, or 'zonal', electricity pricing. This proposal would divide Britain's national electricity market into several zones, with power prices set in each area based on local supply and demand dynamics. In practice, this would mean that people in the heavily populated South East would end up paying more than those in the North, who are closer to Scottish wind farms that generate a lot of power. It's an idea that has already got energy companies fighting like cats in a sack and is now threatening a political row as well, with Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens all lining up against it. Now, with a decision expected from Mr Miliband next week, Downing Street has let it be known that Sir Keir Starmer may wade in himself to settle the matter – although sources insist the Prime Minister and his team have no firm views yet. For Starmer and Miliband, the stakes could not be higher. Industry sees the zonal question as one with existential consequences for Labour, arguing it has the potential to make or break Miliband's twin pledges to roll out a clean power system by 2030 and lower household energy bills. Failure to deliver one or both could fatally undermine public support for net zero at a time when Nigel Farage's Reform Party is describing the issue as the 'next Brexit'. 'Both sides in the zonal debate legitimately believe they are carrying the flame for decarbonisation and doing something righteous on behalf of consumers,' says Adam Bell, a former top Energy Department official who is now a consultant at Stonehaven. 'The problem is, no one can really be certain about who is actually right.' That has not stopped the various sides from making speeches, publishing studies, filming explainer videos and writing blog posts to plead their case – with the argument pitting some of the biggest names in energy against each other, often in bitter exchanges. For example, after Scottish Power boss Keith Anderson gave a speech last month warning ministers not to 'tamper with a system that works', Octopus Energy boss Greg Jackson branded his comments 'astonishing'. 'It may work for incumbent energy generators but it doesn't work for households or businesses struggling with Europe's highest energy costs,' Jackson tweeted. The implication was that Scottish Power was defending its profits at the expense of customers. Zonal supporters such as Octopus and Ovo Energy, regulator Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator (Neso), say that the switch would shave tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the green energy transition by making more efficient use of the electricity grid. 'It's our job to push prices down in the supply chain,' Jackson has said. 'If that means taking the very big producers to task and working hard to squeeze them to be more efficient, so we can pass lower prices to customers, that is our job.' At the moment, the national pricing system keeps prices in some areas such as London artificially low and prices elsewhere – such as Scotland – artificially high, leading to all kinds of waste and market quirks. For example, Britain is currently spending more than £1bn a year on switching off wind farms in some locations because the grid is too congested to accept their power at busy times, while firing up gas power plants elsewhere to compensate. These 'constraint' costs are expected to balloon to more than £3bn a year under the existing system. Switching to a zonal system would eradicate these kinds of inefficiencies because when there is abundant wind power, prices in places like Scotland would simply plummet, with the inverse true in the South East during peak times. It would theoretically encourage solar and wind farms to locate much closer to where power is needed, dramatically cutting the amount of money that would need to be spent on grid upgrades. One study shared with the Government, seen by The Telegraph, puts these savings at up to £27bn. Though wholesale electricity prices would vary between regions, households in almost every area would be better off overall due to the lack of constraint costs and reductions in grid charges, according to a study by FTI Consulting for Octopus. It estimates that zonal would leave consumers £52bn better off overall over a 20-year period. This equates to something like £50 to £100 off their annual bills, says Jason Mann, an electricity markets expert and the study's author. The South East would emerge as the only regional loser, to the tune of £3.6bn or about £150m per year. Mann argues this could be remedied with some system tweaks, ensuring no households lose out. Another potential upside of cheaper electricity in Scotland and the North could be the potential to attract investment in power-hungry data centres and industrial facilities such as hydrogen electrolysers, supporters say. Yet any suggestion of overt regional differences may prove politically toxic. Mr Miliband warned in April he would 'not introduce a postcode lottery'. 'Whatever route we go down, my bottom line is bills have got to fall, and they should fall throughout the country,' he told the BBC. On the other side of the debate, a formidable list of major players are lining up to warn Mr Miliband off the proposals. They include nearly every major wind farm developer, British Gas owner Centrica, trade bodies MakeUK, SolarUK and Offshore Energies UK, as well as Labour-supporting unions Unite and the GMB. At the crux of their arguments are two key contentions. First, that the problems with the current national pricing system can be solved by grid upgrades and lower-key market reforms; and second, that the poor timing of the zonal proposals means they now risk doing more harm than good, by creating so much uncertainty that they derail Mr Miliband's hopes for a green energy construction boom. Studies produced for wind farm owner SSE by Aquaicity Ltd and LCP paint a starkly different picture to the FTI research, arguing that the consumer savings may be nearly eradicated by price increases. This would be because wind farm developers, less certain of their future earnings under a reformed system, would demand higher prices in the Government's contracts for difference (CfD) auctions, which feed through directly into the bills paid by households and businesses. According to LCP, a move to zonal pricing would only save £5bn to 15bn over a 20-year period. Mr Miliband's clean power action plan – through which he aims to make the grid 95pc powered by renewables in 2030 – rests upon the assumption that the Government will procure unprecedented amounts of new wind farm projects in CfD auctions this summer and next. Any suggestion that zonal is on the way risks chilling investment, developers have suggested. Other critics have rubbished claims that cheaper prices in some regions will really cause businesses to relocate. 'I love Scotland, but who's going to start a big factory there?', says Dale Vince, the multimillionaire Labour donor and Ecotricity tycoon. 'I mean, how do you get your workforce there? There's so many practical problems with zonal. I don't understand why it's still being talked about.' The question of zonal has suddenly taken on more urgency as lobbying ramps up in anticipation of a promised decision this month. Advocates say that without action now the problems under the current system will only grow more unsustainable. The amount of money being wasted on a daily basis by wind farms is now being tracked by a website, Wasted Wind. On Thursday it said more than £4.5m had been spent on switching off turbines and finding replacement power. 'The amount you have to pay windfarms to get constrained off – the amount that we end up with a system that is inefficient – if we do absolutely nothing, I think means it is not economically credible for British consumers to leave it as it is,' warned Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, earlier this year. Although Mr Miliband's officials have backed zonal pricing, the rest of Whitehall is said to be split on the idea and there is growing nervousness in Downing Street about the political consequences if things go wrong. A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insists that the focus will be on 'protecting bill-payers and encouraging investment'. Whatever Mr Miliband decides to do, people on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: he should get on with it urgently to put an end to any doubts. Bell, at Stonehaven, believes the hour is so late now that the Government is most likely to kick the can down the road. Starmer's intervention appears to make that more likely. Downing Street is understood to have requested a further review of the costs and benefits of the policy – raising the prospect that the idea could be killed off or kicked into the long grass. 'If you really just don't want to do this now, you could just say let's put it to one side now and look again in the 2040s,' he says. Ducking the question may ultimately satisfy no one. But at least Mr Miliband will be able to keep careening forward, Mario Kart-style. Until, at least, the next flying obstacle approaches. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
