Delayed defence funding: Is the Armed Forces paying the price?

As a former Defence Secretary, former NATO Secretary General, and the author of the government’s own Strategic Defence Review, he is firmly inside the policy tent. When someone in that position accuses political leaders of “corrosive complacency”, it deserves attention.

His central concern is not simply the overall level of defence spending, but the continued delay in converting strategy into funded reality. The Strategic Defence Review outlined what the Armed Forces need to deter threats and prepare for conflict. What has yet to materialise is a fully funded Defence Investment Plan explaining how and when those ambitions will be delivered.

The practical consequences of delayed spending

At first glance, delay can sound like a technical or bureaucratic issue. In reality, it has practical consequences. Defence capability is not something that can be switched on overnight. 

Ships require maintenance, equipment takes years to procure, and industry needs confidence before it invests. Uncertainty freezes decisions across the system. 

Lord Robertson argues that this hesitation is occurring at precisely the wrong moment. The security environment is worsening, not stabilising. Potential adversaries are investing at pace while the UK debates timetables and funding envelopes. 

From his perspective, postponement itself becomes a strategic risk: capability gaps today are far harder — and more expensive — to close tomorrow.

The impact on service personnel

There is also a human dimension. Prolonged uncertainty affects morale and retention within the Armed Forces, particularly when personnel are asked to do more with ageing equipment and stretched resources. For those serving, funding delays are not abstract policy disputes; they influence daily readiness, training and confidence in the institution that supports them.

Analysts estimate that once nuclear costs are removed, UK conventional military spending is closer to 1.5–1.7% of GDP. This places the UK well below many frontline NATO allies and below the NATO average, once nuclear and US spending distortions are removed. 

Notwithstanding this Ministers maintain that defence spending is increasing and that difficult fiscal trade-offs must be managed responsibly. That may be true. But Lord Robertson’s warning is that without timely decisions, rising budgets alone do not guarantee improved capability, and a strategy without delivery can breed a false sense of security.

Conclusion

So, is the delay in funding actually causing harm? The answer depends on how harm is defined. There may be no single dramatic failure to point to — yet. But Lord Robertson’s message is that risk accumulates quietly. Readiness erodes incrementally. Industrial capacity drifts elsewhere. Opportunities to prepare are lost. 

So, what are the MOD (and/or Treasury) waiting for, when there could be some easy, quick wins now? In defence, waiting is rarely neutral. And that may be the most uncomfortable point raised by his intervention.

Find out more about Irwin Mitchell's expertise in supporting injured service personnel and families at our dedicated military injuries claims section.