Freedom isn't Free

There was wry amusement in some corners this week when it was revealed that the Chancellor was banned from using MOD air transport until such time as the Treasury paid his bill for using the air transport fleet. Although payment was forthcoming, the story helped expose light on an often forgotten aspect of MOD policy -  namely that its services do not get provided for free.

There is a common assumption that once something is in service, it can be used in a variety of ways to support wider government work. This could be as simple as providing troops to support the civil power during a natural disaster, or it could be providing a VIP jet service to allow senior members of the Government access to speedy travel options.

What is often forgotten though is that these sort of services cost money to do, particularly if it is for an operation that is not part of the MODs core output. Putting troops on the streets to do flood relief is essential, but will incur costs that are not budgeted for – for example there will be unexpected travel and subsistence bills, vehicles will need fuel, and a lot of single use military equipment items like clothing, sleeping bags and other essentials that cannot be reissued might be used up to help relief efforts.

On one level it is absolutely right and proper that MOD assets be used to help protect UK citizens from disasters, or provide support. But there needs to be financial reckoning to ensure that units are not of pocket for helping – for example, putting a small unit of infantry on the ground to help flood relief isn’t part of its core job. It will rack up a large bill for doing something that it isn’t expected to do – which means either core activity needs to be substantially reduced (thus depriving the MOD of its ability to train the unit and use it in its intended way) or the money needs to be paid back.

More widely there is a danger that councils see the MOD as a sort of ‘knight in shining armour’ able to ride to the rescue and provide assistance when there is trouble. The problem is that this knowledge can cloud their ability to plan effectively for disaster relief. When your back up plan informally involves ‘ringing the armed forces up’, what happens when there is no one or no capability to send? What happens if the MOD says no, no assets are available?  Charging for use of the military is a helpful way of encouraging local authorities to look locally for solutions. It also helps them understand that while support is available in a crisis, it comes at a cost – it may be easier to pay local companies fees for plant hire, than it is to bring in a specialist unit of engineers to solve a specific issue.

Similarly, using VIP air transport fleets to travel to specific locations isn’t cheap. There are certain people entitled to use the assets in a very strict priority order, but if you aren’t on that list, and want to use the aircraft, then you need to be prepared to pay. Otherwise it will be flying somewhere it isn’t funded for, delivering a service that has come at a cost that will reduce their ability to support their designated users.

'Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

Charging is an emotional issue, people assume that because the armed forces are funded by taxpayers, that they are free at the point of delivery. That simply isn’t the case – using the Armed Forces to do something that isn’t their core job, isn’t what they are funded to do and stops them from doing what they are there to do isn’t a great use of resources. There are often far better ways of doing things – for example flying commercially to a destination rather than rely on a VIP aircraft.

At a time when the MOD is financially stretched, it simply does not have the spare cash available to replenish stocks of equipment, buy fuel or support travel costs for staff doing a job that they are not meant to do on behalf of someone else. It makes perfect sense to expect people who don’t have a direct need to access a capability to pay for it when they want call on it, to make them think very carefully about the implications of what they are doing.

While the story about Phillip Hammond may have been amusing to read, it did highlight a simple key point – freedom isn’t free and you need to be prepared to pay for things you want to use. It is perhaps ironic that the Treasury, ever the champion of recovering costs, was in the dog house on this issue though.

It will also help build the image of the new Secretary of State as a man who is prepared to stand up to the Treasury, and also listen to the press too. In a week he has managed to reprieve two dogs from death row to the delight of the tabloid press, engage in a war of words with the Chancellor that is delighting the pro defence wing of the party, and make his department hold the Treasury to account to pay its drinks bill. It is hard to escape the conclusion that SofS is himself on manoeuvres – something that may not necessarily endear him to others who hold the purse strings.

There is a sense that the woes of the defence budget are the public stage by which future leadership contenders are setting out their stall. The constant leaking, bickering and counter briefing between Ministers over how the defence review will go seems as much about cementing SofS chances for a future leadership bid, as it is about genuine concern over the defence budget.

One thing is certain though, only the very bold, or the very foolish in Whitehall openly challenge the authority of the Treasury. The Secretary of State may wish to ensure Cronus sleeps with several of his eyes open…