Is there a black hole in Defence?
Listening to the House of Commons Defence Committee this
afternoon was a fairly tortuous process, in a session that, regardless of what
else was covered will be remembered for the assurances by PUS that ‘there isn’t
a black hole in Defence’.
Listening again to his words it is clear that he is being
very precise – and technically he is right. The black hole of 2010 came about
due to the large amount of unfunded aspirations across the equipment programme
that had no identified pool of cash to draw on. Part of the SDSR in 2010
involved ruthlessly cutting those programmes, and establishing over time a pool
of funds that would be released to programmes as required (so-called
contingency).
Technically PUS was accurate – the way MOD funding is
done, it is the case that there isn’t the same type of ‘black hole’ as in 2010.
But this does not take away the wider picture that no matter how you want to
spin it, Defence is in a very bleak financial position indeed.
When pushed for details on efficiency saving programmes
dating back to 2013 & 2015, totalling some £30 billion over a 10-15 year
period (not far off the equivalent of an entire budgetary year for MOD), it was
admitted that only £25bn has been ‘identified’ (whether this means they’ve
actually been taken isn’t clear, nor was it clear what they mean by ‘identified’).
It was also dragged out that in fact there is a further £5bn in ‘efficiency’
savings yet to be found across Defence, just to meet current required
efficiencies.
What is depressing listening to these committees is the
level of spin that goes into great head spinning details, without giving
straightforward answers to questions. When pushed on whether there are defence
cuts looming, the response was ‘we have a growing defence budget’. There was no
examination as to why a growing defence budget would need to conduct a savings
led capability review only two years after the last five yearly review was
completed.
An honest answer would probably have been ‘Under the current
Governments mandate the MOD is required to keep service manpower unchanged,
deliver four new Trident submarines, grow the equipment budget by 1% a year and
deliver significant efficiency savings. It has to do so against a backdrop of
inflation and a collapse in Stirling to significantly below planned exchange
rates, meaning our ability to buy as much of what we wanted has decreased. At
the same time the global environment is changing, we may need different
capabilities in future and less of what we have now. To deliver what the
Government wants of the MOD means tough decisions which will require us to
deliver more in some areas, and do less or remove capability in others under
our current financial settlement’.
Instead the attempt to make out that the MOD isn’t in the
middle of planning for potentially the worst defence cuts since 1991 or even
1974, and that its all a matter of routine not only smacks of spin, but
challenges the intelligence of those who work in defence and want honest
answers to difficult questions.
Overall the MOD is lucky to have a motivated, willing and
highly capable workforce of civilians and service personnel. They are not
stupid, and you only have to talk to them to know they want to be treated like
the intelligent adults that they are. To hide behind the line ‘we have a
growing defence budget’ at a time when many of the workforce are having to identify
how to hack, slash and delete wholesale capabilities that are of critical importance
to the nation is a disservice to the men and women of Defence.
There is a constant talk of ‘challenge’ and ‘honest open
communication’ as the new management buzzwords. To pretend all is well is not
honest. By all means explain the many positive benefits Defence has, and set
out how well it is doing in many areas. But to pretend that a growing defence
budget means there is no problem, and to try to wave away likely cuts fundamentally
damages the trust between the workforce and its leadership. Humphrey is now very relieved that he no longer has any links to Defence if this is how bad things are getting.
People in Defence, civilian and military, are deployed
regularly and make huge sacrifices up to and including their lives for the
Department. They deserve to hear the honest truth about the situation and how
bad it really is – not spin.
Honesty is not a virtue that comes naturally to people at the Ministry of Defence.
ReplyDeleteThe political imperative of needing to put a positive slant on everything the Government does or will do, irrespective of whether it is true or not, is the reason why spin has become the centrepiece of this Government’s communications strategy. And because Government has got a monopoly on inside information (enabling it to maintain extremely tight control), it uses spin to divert attention away from the key issues that really matter to citizens and consequently, succeeds in suppressing alternative views and criticism from those on the outside, including Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
The Ministry of Defence is particularly apt at this dark art of spinning – a skill perfected whilst defending a particularly appalling record of performance, over the last several decades. Increasingly, there is a lack of trust in the claims made by MoD about its work and achievements. MoD is able to get away with blatant lies and cover-ups because it relies on spin as its primary tool to deflect criticism – reinforced by the weapon of secrecy.
Indeed, there is a massive gap in the minds of interested observers outside the Ministry of Defence such as those in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, BEIS, the National Audit Office, academic institutions, think tanks and the press & media on how it supposedly functions on a day-to-day basis, as depicted in official UK Government publications (which remain within the editorial control of MoD), and how it actually operates in reality.
In addition, the culture of intense secrecy within MoD has not only allowed its leadership to extend this discrepancy even further, but also conceal appallingly poor policy-making and huge failings in its defence procurement procedures, from select committees of the House of Commons – such as the Public Accounts Committee, Defence Select Committee and Public Administration & Constitutional Affairs Committee – severely undermining their parliamentary function of scrutinising the performance of MoD.
What’s more, MoD discourages free thought and self-criticism of its internal business processes, and is consequently completely reliant on outsiders to identify, and point out shortcomings in its defence procurement policy.
The more secretively it works, the more incompetent it becomes. The simple fact of the matter is that secrecy breeds incompetence, whilst openness breeds competence.
@JagPatel3
"is the reason why spin has become the centrepiece of this Government’s communications strategy."
DeleteSpin really didnt start in 2015....
Well I agree in part, with most of what's said, but it is a civilian perspective to only ask about efficiencies and maintaining cuts, instead of asking about the military opposition and peace keeping / military challenges facing the three services w.r.t. technology improvements and growing defence budgets in foreign navies, foreign air forces and foreign armies.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Airforce and Navy has done a Stirling job in the Caribbean, using up expensive parts and maintenance budgets on helicopters and other equipment; some of the British press were sniping and claiming that the overseas aid budget should not be used to compensate for military high tempo equipment wear and tear, because some Caribbean civilians were deemed not poor enough!
The military budget has been in a war of financial attrition since just before the Falklands war; SDR reviews have been used as a whipping tool to cull military ambitions! and remove any incentive to compete with foreign militaries. Not competing with foreign militaries means that capability gaps have been created. It is now almost impossible to regenerate lost experience and knowhow without calling on allies to help train British service people. In addition, it’s not uncommon for foreign allied aircraft to be patrolling British HOME waters looking for Russian submarines, and I could give a long list of examples here, to amplify the fact that there is a lack of military assets to patrol home waters / skies.
It is beyond depressing to see year after year, attacks from the British press, MPs ignoring capability gaps, whilst expecting the military to do more with less equipment, less research and development, and less manpower. What was the butterfly effect when Cameron sacked 80 trainee pilots / airman after he got into government? What was the butterfly effect of the Labour party building fewer ships than were being lost due to wear and tear?
In the Falkland’s the UK fielded over 100 ships at sea (42 warships, counting RFAs and support ships this was over 60 ships, if you counted the civilian ships that were commandeered, it was in excess of 100 ships. It was heartening to see aircraft carriers being made out of container ships; whilst it was equally depressing, to see aluminium ships burn after being struck with phosphorous munitions.
The Falkland’s taught us that British ships were ill equipped to fight in a number of ways, they could not power up their radars and communication equipment at the same time. Can we find the civil service civilians responsible for this particular funding equipment gap and ask them if they think that they did a good job? We lost a ship that was radar blind, got hit by an Exocet, whilst communicating with REDACTED. All because some ships did not have the power capacity to power up all weapons and communication systems at the same time? Sailor’s died because of cheap poisonous PVC wiring, that burned and gave of toxic fumes. In my opinion, the possibility of a ship on fire whilst at sea, was not adequately catered for, in terms of heat protection against burning aluminium and giving fire fighters protection against toxic fumes, etc.
Being wise after the fact is not what Whitehall should be attempting to achieve
SDR budgets do not appear to ask military questions, such as, will four LaWS systems of at least 100KW be sufficient to mitigate against a todays zircon missile flying at Mk6 or a tomorrow’s Zircon missile flying at Mk8?
ReplyDeleteSDR budgets are defence orientated!!!, this immediately puts the military on the back foot, and creates a moral problem; it also gives a prospective enemy something to hold on to.
It would be pleasurable to see some of these Whitehall SDR civil service civilians and MPs standing next to a supped up gatling gun, in the middle of a fire fight, having to contemplate if enough money was spent on putting enough phalanx systems onto HMS Queen Elizabeth, or perhaps, pondering if they did indeed, miss a trick in not considering LaWS and Mk41 launch tubes and some money put into ground to air missile defence for a capital asset with over 1600+ souls on-board.
INSTEAD OF THESE LONG DISCUSSIONs concerning efficiencies, KPIs, pushing back delivery milestones and all that none military financial babble – because there is nothing more effective at focusing the mind on where money should be spent, than having to stand on a platform that might sink and disappear right from under your own feet in the middle of the ocean.