Douglas Carswell's Blog

From defence fixing to fixing defence

Something has gone badly wrong at the Ministry of Defence.

Britain has the fifth largest defence budget in the world, yet we struggle to supply our armed forces with the kit that they need, when they need it.   

We have spent twice what we could have buying helicopters – yet our armed forces suffer from helicopter shortages in Afghanistan. We have blown over £20 billion on a fighter airplane designed to combat Soviet MiGs – yet our armed forces lack enough unmanned aircraft. Again and again, Whitehall commissions a cosy clique of favoured suppliers to build from scratch weapons systems that our allies could provide us with right away, at a fraction of the cost.

Too often, Britain’s defence budget has been spent in the interest of defence contractors and lobbyists – rather than our armed forces. Money that ought to have been spent buying the best kit often seems to have been siphoned off in order to build equipment that it suits various vested interests to supply.   

In any market, when you restrict the range of suppliers, the seller sets the terms of trade.  So, too, in defence.   Unable to compete for business in terms of quality or price, I wonder if perhaps we have constructed a system of defence procurement that almost encourages the contractors to plough millions into lobbying?

Philip Hammond, the new defence secretary, has an opportunity to change all this. I am hopeful that he understands the problem and confident that he will tackle it.

Britain’s armed forces have for years been asked to do too much on too little. But before we make any assumptions about cutting back commitments, or wish there was more money, we ought to first ask how efficient we are at converting what financial muscle Britain still has into military punch.

The new minister should drive the vested interests – the contractors and the lobbyists – from the MoD.  Much of the cloak of secrecy surrounding MoD spending decisions exists to conceal cosy deal making, not protect national security.     

We need to allow senior military staff to make transparent procurement decisions - and then be held directly accountable to the Treasury and to the Commons for how they do so.

Back to all posts