The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the newly established Defence Industrial Joint Council (DIJC) will hold its first meeting in June 2025, replacing the Defence Suppliers Forum (DSF) as the UK’s main strategic body for engagement with the defence industry.
In written answers to a series of parliamentary questions from James Cartlidge MP (Conservative, South Suffolk), Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated that the DSF was formally disbanded following the announcement of the Defence Industrial Strategy Statement of Intent on 2 December 2024.
“At this point the Defence Suppliers Forum was disbanded, but strategic engagement with Industry and the Defence Sector has continued via the Defence Industrial Strategy Consultation and at Official level,” Eagle explained.
The last main DSF meeting took place on 15 November 2023, with the DSF Executive Group meeting for the final time on 25 September 2024. These forums had served as key platforms for dialogue between the Ministry of Defence and industry stakeholders.
The DIJC is intended to be broader in scope and more representative of the full spectrum of the defence industrial landscape. According to Eagle, its membership will include “defence primes, Small and Medium Enterprises, mid-tiers, investors, academia, trade unions and trade associations.” She added that subject matter experts will be part of the council to reflect the diversity of the UK defence sector.
The initial composition of the DIJC’s Top Level Council has not yet been announced, but the Ministry has said this will be confirmed in due course.
The formation of the DIJC is part of the MOD’s wider effort to modernise its industrial engagement and support delivery of the Defence Industrial Strategy. Officials state the aim is to create a more agile, inclusive, and strategic body that supports innovation and resilience across the UK defence supply chain.
Agile, inclusive and strategic. Sounds like the way-2-go.
Or is it just another new GUCCI department…
OK most people are going to expect tangible indentifiable outputs from this forum. However, my experience of top down initiatives like this is that very little seems to filter down to the sharp end, at least, there is very very rarely any kind of cause and effect chain that you identify and understand that the stuff you are doing is as a direct result of discussion held months ago between a bunch of people you only ever see in the corporate news letter.
So what’s the point? My reading of it is that this forum will help to build relationships between the various groups at a high level. It is the relationships that really matter. If good relationships can be built then new understandings between individuals and groups can also develop. These ‘social’ factors are the lubricating oil in any complex human ‘machine’. Business is about relationships. From good relationships and better understanding of each others challenges and capabilities, come new opportunities. Furthermore, if this grouping can develop and buy into a broad strategy identifying which opportunities are likely to generate the best outcomes for our armed services and the country at large will be easier as the strategy will provide the context within which decisions can be made. Think of the strategy as the commanders mission intent statement which guides junior commanders in their planning and operational responses when things go haywire, and the forum meetings as ‘O’ groups.
The Military Industrial Complex is complex by name and complex by nature. Complex has a specific meaning in systems analysis, it refers to complicated set of interactions that produce indeterminate outputs, either because we do not or cannot know how the system works; or because the system self adapts to changing circumstances. In human relationships both of these apply.
So I think this will have a positive impact, quite possibly a very significant impact, but good luck trying to quantify that impact based on hard data…
Cheers CR
Whatever you call it, does it have real teeth or just another filter, which the Treasury can scrutinise and change? if so, the overall benefits may be less inviting. Russia is flexing its military muscles along its NATO borders, which is not an indicator that matters will improve, so an energised UK defence posture is now more vital than since the Cold War.
Ah, well mate I was in an optimistic mood when I wrote that post.
However, I still believe that, as Paul.P point outs, if well facilitated the forum can have a positive impact. It needs to. As you say Russia is threatening NATO boarders.
The Treasury can always throw a financial spanner in the works unless, of course, the UK agrees to the rumoured 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2032 at the June NATO summit. There is also a proposal that an extra 1.5% should spend on nontraditional defence spending, so the 3.5% should go on core defence capabilities. We hope.
Cheers CR
An inclusive group has several advantages if well facilitated: it will bring out more issues, identify more dependencies and generate more creative solution options and better clarify priorities. Most importantly, when decisions are reached by a group in which all members have their say you will form relationships and can expect commitment to any projects which are initiated. The whole process of going from problem through priorities, analysis, dependencies, constraints to commitment, strategy, actions and projects is much faster because you bypass the normal to-ing and fro-ing and turf protection which characterises traditional ways of working. Japanese Total Quality Improvement for Ministers 🙂
Will Hamas be a member via its UK supporters strident voice I wonder.
Another talking shop, or will it do something ? No money..no purchases. Simple as that.
This government have ordered nothing, Geoff.
Zilch.
So far they’ve lumbered defence with a long term 10 billion Chagos Bill, which when one looks at the major projects portfolio has one of the biggest yearly expenditures.
And cut 2 LPD, 2 Waves, Watchkeeper ( still in service ) Puma, and some early Chinooks.
I exlude Northumerland as she was past it.
On the plus, pay rises for personnel, and the usual big contracts to mates in industry.
1.5 billion to Qinetiq, half a billion to Rolls Royce last few weeks.
Supporting defence costs an awful lot of money, and that is where their interest lies.