Two serving ministers have broken cover to urge Rishi Sunak’s government to “lead the way” and increase defence spending to at least 2.5% at a time of growing threats.
In a highly unusual intervention, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a foreign office minister and former defence minister, and Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and an experienced soldier, published an article online that does not appear to have been sanctioned by Downing Street.
“It’s clear to us that the UK needs to lead the way in increasing our own domestic defence and security spending commitments to 2.5% and beyond,” they wrote in a piece posted on Ms Trevelyan’s LinkedIn page on Friday evening.
“Former defence secretary Ben Wallace and prime minister Boris Johnson made inroads into growing our defence budgets, which had been shrinking in real terms for years. But that only filled the hole. Now we need growth.”
The alarm call by two serving ministers with deep expertise in defence and security comes amid growing disquiet among Conservative MPs and military insiders at a failure by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to announce new funding for the armed forces in his spring budget, even though the defence secretary has warned the UK is in a “pre-war world”.
Instead, Mr Hunt just reiterated a vague pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income – from just over 2% at present – “as soon as economic conditions allow”.
Underlining their focus, Ms Trevelyan and Mr Tugendhat urged the government to strengthen the UK’s nuclear deterrent, regrow the Royal Navy, invest in more weapons and ammunition and accelerate plans to build a new generation of fighter jets for the air force.
They also stressed the need to invest in the UK’s defence industrial base.
“None of this is wasted cash. It’s investment in our own economy. And it protects our future economic security,” the ministers said.
Advertisement
“The sad truth is that the world is no longer benign. Protecting ourselves requires investment. And effective investment means that our industrial complex must grow and strengthen at much greater pace than at present.
“We cannot turn on the complex platforms and weapons which ensure military advantage overnight. We must start that growth now, invest at pace to support our allies and stay ahead of our adversaries.”
How UK defence spending compares to China and Russia
They pointed to how China has just announced a 7.2% rise in its defence budget to $230bn (£179bn) – more than twice what it was a decade ago.
Russia, they said, “is committed to spending 40% of its expenditure on defence and security this year. Vast sums by any standard to fight its illegal war in Ukraine”.
By contrast, UK defence spending has risen 28% from £43bn to £55bn over the last 10 years, they said.
The ministers did not specifically refer to this year’s budget, but military experts have expressed dismay that the level of funding set out in official tables on Wednesday appeared to track a decline of £2.5bn in defence spending in the financial year to March 2025 compared with the previous 12 months.
The Ministry of Defence said this was because the data did not include new money for the military that was pledged last autumn, as well as assistance to Ukraine.
Europe must secure borders, ministers say
Ms Trevelyan, who is charged with the Indo-Pacific region in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, underlined the importance of Europe stepping up to secure its borders as the United States increasingly focuses on the challenge posed by China.
Mr Tugendhat underlined the threats he sees at home “funded by illicit drug money, weapons trafficking and the abuses of modern slavery and people trafficking”.
He warned: “Those who wish our country, and our way of life, harm are more active than ever.”
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Advertisement
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.