Defence firms and industry bodies have raised concerns in evidence to Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that engagement around the UK’s security plans has been limited, with one group saying consultation “consisted only of a few roundtables of experts” while civil society was “otherwise absent”, and techUK pointing to a “shortage of formal engagement with the private sector and notably the tech industry”, calling for government to “conduct widespread engagement with industry”.
Concerns over transparency were also raised during the inquiry into the 2025 National Security Strategy, with ADS warning that the absence of a published China Audit is making it harder for companies to understand policy direction, while the committee itself noted that “the lack of publicly available detail, particularly around the issue of China, risks eroding public trust” and complicates efforts to bring industry and wider stakeholders along.
Witnesses told the committee that the way policy is being delivered across government is adding to the problem, describing “fragmented initiatives” and a lack of clarity over who is responsible for what, with techUK arguing for clearer ownership through “department leads to certain delivery ambitions”, echoing wider concerns that better “oversight and co-ordination would benefit day-to-day work and crisis response”.
Funding uncertainty is already affecting behaviour in the sector, with companies saying they need clarity on what counts towards the Government’s 1.5% of GDP target for security and resilience in order to plan investment, as Northrop Grumman UK said spending should include activity that “genuinely strengthens UK security and resilience”, while Thales argued it must cover supply chains and critical infrastructure, with the report noting it is still “not wholly clear where funding will come from” for longer-term upgrades.
Skills and workforce issues were also highlighted during the inquiry, with evidence indicating “we just do not have an understanding of where we have skills shortages” and warning that “erosion in [the] underlying skills base is slow but ultimately more dangerous than crisis shocks”, while in areas such as artificial intelligence there is a pipeline of graduates but concerns that industry can be “somewhat extractive” and that they “could well do with more time in the lab to develop … skills”.
On the industrial side, firms pointed to structural weaknesses in the UK base, with evidence that there is “good capacity for assembly of final products” but a lack of “immediate component production capacity”, and operational experience showing that sourcing items such as propulsion systems, motors and compute can be “incredibly hard”, underlining calls for a clearer assessment of gaps and priorities.
The continued delay to the Defence Investment Plan was repeatedly raised as a core issue, with industry warning that government has “not yet indicated how funding will be allocated across the sector”, making it difficult to align research and development with national priorities and leaving smaller firms exposed, particularly in a system where “we do not allow anything to move from the ‘S’ to the ‘M’ in ‘SME’”.
