Prime Minister Andy Burnham has announced a significant £8.4bn investment into the UK’s nuclear submarine programme, framing the project as a dual commitment to national security and domestic economic growth. Speaking ahead of a visit to Barrow-in-Furness, where the new Dreadnought-class submarines are currently under construction, the Prime Minister emphasized that his government’s security strategy prioritizes both the hardware being built and the workforce behind it. He stated that security is not only about what is built, but also about who builds it and who benefits from the process.
The funding is designated to advance the development of the new vessels, which are intended to replace the existing fleet of four Vanguard-class submarines that have been in operation since 1992. The Vanguard vessels, which carry the UK’s nuclear deterrent missiles, are scheduled for retirement in the 2030s, aligning with the entry into service of the new Dreadnought-class fleet. This multi-billion pound project has been in development for two decades, with its origins dating back to a 2006 announcement by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, followed by formal parliamentary approval in 2016. Thursday's announcement marks the start of the fourth phase of the project.
This expenditure was already accounted for in the Defence Investment Plan, which was published in the final days of Sir Keir Starmer’s government. That plan set out £63.6bn over the next four years for the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. Of this total, £47bn is earmarked for keeping the current nuclear submarines in operation, continuing with the Dreadnoughts, starting work on what might replace them in 30 years' time, and constructing several other new submarines while upgrading the UK's naval docks and manufacturing facilities.
Burnham highlighted the economic impact of the project, stating that the initiative currently supports roughly 47,000 British jobs and apprenticeships. The government forecasts that this figure will rise to 65,000 by 2030, including 22,000 apprenticeships by 2035. "British money, spent on British workers, British firms and British skills, in the places that were written off for 40 years," the Prime Minister said. He noted that the investment aims to change lives in towns like Barrow-in-Furness and others like it.
In a further step to address youth unemployment, the Prime Minister indicated that the public procurement process, used to decide how to spend taxpayer cash, will favor companies offering 45-day work placements. Speaking to the Jimmy's Jobs of the Future podcast, he said there would be more social value weighting in public contracts, with a particular focus on firms offering such placements. He noted the move was inspired by his time as Greater Manchester mayor, though the announcement offered little detail on the extent of the changes or how they would be implemented.
The announcement drew mixed reactions from political figures. Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge welcomed the progress but accused Burnham of failing to commit to fully funding defence. Burnham has stated he wants to honour the UK's commitments on defence spending, including meeting a Nato target of 3.5% of national income by 2035. Both he and his new Chancellor, John Healey, face the task of finding the extra money needed to fulfil that pledge. Defence must cut waste and maximise value for money, according to Streeting, while the BAE boss has warned that the UK is complacent about the war threat.
Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson James MacCleary called for the use of defence bonds to raise dedicated funding to rebuild capabilities across the whole of the armed forces. For Reform UK, Danny Kruger dismissed the announcement as a rehashed spending plan that did nothing to address the crisis in the UK's nuclear programme, arguing that the Prime Minister should commit to a significant increase in spending and a total overhaul of the nuclear enterprise. Green Party Westminster leader Ellie Chowns questioned the decision to spend billions of pounds on weapons that she argued must never be used, stating that ministers should not pretend that the best way to create employment is by funnelling ever-increasing sums into the nuclear weapons programme.
