Effective defence procurement

I was in Westminster this week at the launch of a paper on defence procurement I wrote for the Prospect trade union. 

The launch included interesting contributions from the Shadow Minster for Defence Procurement, Chris Evans MP, Andrew Kinniburgh (Made in UK) and Prospect’s Bob King. Chris welcomed the report and stressed the importance of a new approach to procurement based on the mutual respect of all the procurement parties. He pledged that a future Labour Government would prioritise sovereign capacity in defence procurement, recognising the sector's importance to local communities. Andrew focused on the role of SMEs in moving away from the increasing reliance on defence imports. Finally, Bob King emphasised the role of Prospect members in delivering for UK defence.

My report starts by looking at the UK defence strategy, or more accurately; it's far too many strategies. The UK Government has published and recently refreshed an Integrated Review, but in my experience, many strategies can lead to confusion. Particularly when they cover more than one department. In fairness, defence strategies often date quickly, and the war in Ukraine has turned much of the 'Global Britain' rhetoric on its head. We are back to war in Europe with tanks, infantry and artillery.

The chatter about a 3% of GDP defence budget has quickly dissolved thanks to Truss economics. 2.5% is now a target ‘when conditions allow', which is unlikely anytime soon. However, as a new analysis shows, Britain still has the biggest defence budget in Europe at a time when just about everyone outside Africa is spending at Cold War levels. 

The UK defence industry supports around 260,000 mostly quality jobs and is a big exporter. These jobs are spread across the regions and nations of the UK, including Scotland. This has a vital economic spin-off, what the Dunne Report called a 'Prosperity premium'. However, there are challenges, with skill shortages and a shortfall in research and development. A staggering fact is that Amazon spends more on R&D than the worldwide defence industry.

Defence procurement, not just in the UK, needs a better record of delivering outcomes. The recent Public Accounts Committee report is brutal. 13 formal reviews in 35 years tell their own story. But, in fairness, purchasing defence equipment is unlike buying cornflakes and paper clips. Military equipment is developed over a long timescale, during which ministers and even governments come and go, domestic priorities change, and external threat assessments are varied. Larger projects often require international collaboration, which brings additional challenges. The MoD also needs help recruiting and retaining staff with the requisite skills to manage often overcomplicated processes.

I also looked at international procurement practices. There has been a noticeable worldwide shift to local production or offset arrangements. The UK has the most open market, while the EU, NATO and countries like Türkiye and India have explicit strategies to support their defence industries. I explain why they do this and why the UK should follow suit.

The report's core describes the current defence procurement regulations and my recommendations for a new approach. This is an explicit UK by default strategy linked to an industrial strategy, with workforce planning and social value at its core. Social Value measures the direct, indirect and induced impact of procurement. Around one-third of defence spending returns to the Treasury, so it makes no sense to recognise this in bid evaluation. This comes through various taxes and public and private sector pay. Procurement should also support public policy considerations, including the real living wage, employment standards, and ending tax dodging. I propose a mix of regulation and guidance to achieve this. Guidance is more flexible but doesn't necessarily deliver the necessary cultural change.

My report concludes:

“Without a thriving defence industry, the UK puts at risk its freedom to act in defence of the country’s interests at home and abroad. And the armed forces risk losing their technological advantage over actual and potential enemies. Achieving these aims requires a commitment to sustain and strengthen national defence design, manufacturing and support capabilities in a partnership between the MoD and industry. The UK by default.”