In a report today the Public Accounts Committee argues the
Russian invasion of Ukraine raises concerns that the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) has not “identified the modern battle-winning
capabilities our armed forces need” in the face of “a number of
potential adversaries rapidly developing new military
technology”.
The Committee is concerned by MoD’s “inability to control costs
in its large programmes” including the Dreadnought class of
nuclear submarines. The current Plan relies on “billions of
pounds of future cost reductions” but without plans supporting
how £4 billion of these “expected” savings might be
delivered.
Two-thirds of this £4 billion saving needs to be achieved by
March 2025 even though contractual commitments limit the
flexibility to make savings in the short term, and higher
inflation means that any decisions to deliberately delay projects
would be costly: the Committee says “without a realistic
plan to achieve savings, the MoD risks remaining caught in a trap
of short-term, affordability-driven decisions”.
The Committee is also concerned that MoD “sees the Dreadnought
programme ‘contingency’ held by HM Treasury as a “blank cheque,
freeing it from the need to control costs” in its largest
programme.
Chair's comments
, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
“The MoD trumpeted a step change in this year’s Equipment Plan
after the Integrated Review, with new priorities and a huge cash
injection - but the invasion of Ukraine has cast in stark relief
the realities of current and future warfare.
Year on year we report on the MoD’s failures to balance its
budgets and the immense costs racking up on current projects that
are delayed by years. We can find little cause for optimism that
the MoD will become a better custodian of the taxpayers’ money
that needs to be spent developing next-generation capabilities.
Senior officials appear unable to recognise the poor state of
affairs in MoD’s procurement or the deep-rooted issues that
undermine our confidence that it will actually get a grip on the
situation. A diminished role in global security, and
enhanced risk to our national security and the service personnel
defending it, are the unacceptable costs of the Ministry’s
ongoing and repeated failures.”
