The Government has failed to clearly define what it means by ‘sovereign capabilities’ or to set out which technologies it intends to prioritise, according to a parliamentary committee, raising concerns about how industry and defence planning can align with national security goals.
In a detailed section of its report on the National Security Strategy, the Joint Committee says there is “no agreed, written definition” of sovereignty across government, despite the concept sitting at the centre of plans to strengthen the UK’s security and industrial base.
While sovereignty is broadly understood as the ability to “autonomously develop, sustain and control critical technologies”, the committee found that, in practice, there is little clarity about what this actually means for policy. Industry groups warned that it remains unclear which capabilities the UK intends to fully own, and where it will continue to rely on international partnerships.
Ministers themselves appear to acknowledge the limits. Evidence to the committee suggested that full “end-to-end” sovereignty is “realistically near impossible”, with the focus instead on controlling key parts of the value chain where the UK has strength.
The report goes further, warning that this lack of definition is already having practical consequences. It says uncertainty is complicating research, development and investment decisions, particularly in fast-moving areas such as artificial intelligence, where the UK is seen as having a strong skills base but no clear strategic direction.
MPs and peers also highlight the need to be more selective after witnesses argued that the government should be willing to “pick winners” and concentrate effort on areas of genuine advantage, rather than attempting to maintain broad but shallow capability across too many sectors.
A range of priority areas is identified, including the nuclear deterrent, AI and autonomous systems, drones, munitions, communications networks and energy supply, alongside underpinning industries such as steel. However, the committee says there is still no clear statement from the government on which of these will be treated as core sovereign capabilities, or to what degree.
There are also warnings about skills. Evidence suggests the UK does not currently have a clear understanding of where critical shortages lie, with one witness cautioning that the “erosion in the underlying skills base is slow but ultimately more dangerous than crisis shocks”.
The committee concludes that while the strategy recognises the importance of sovereignty, it stops short of providing the detail needed to make it actionable. It states plainly that there is “no clear definition” and “no sufficient indication” of which technologies will be prioritised. It recommends that the Government set out a formal definition of sovereign capabilities, including different levels of sovereignty, and clearly identify which technologies it intends to develop and protect.
Why am I not surprised.
I am done getting frustrated and annoyed about the defence of the U.K. sand its interests.
If the government clearly don’t give a f**k, why should I?
The only people I feel sorry for is the civilians that will die when the missiles start arriving and our brave people in uniform who will be sacrificed on the alter of yet another incompetent Governnent.
Thing is that it is now past even the Emperor’s New Clothes moment.
Everyone now knows that we haven’t got this sorted.
The other problem is that the services focus is still on mountains of Gucci kit rather than the masses of cheap stuff that is needed for low end anti drone warfare.
There is an utterly bonkers discontinuity driven by the cirular argument
People are expensive
So we need less people
As we have less people we need fewer higher tech platforms that are 100% able to prosecute targets
The platforms become exquisitely capable and eye wateringly expensive
So few can be purchased that they cannot cover the taskings
Then there is the multi tasking fallacy – we can only have one new something therefore that something has to cover three previous taskings.
This can iterate a number of times.
And this sucks budgets from the super cheap stuff that UK forces need mountains of……
If they mean military sovereignty, then start with the basics. small arms ammunition (5.56 & 7.62). That means brass, projectile, propellant & primer. If you can’t do that, you have a problem. Sort that & go from there. Hand grenades & basic artillery/mortar shells next. The fact that RN main naval gun no longer has air burst & even HE has to come from Belgium is a nonsense. Where is Challenger 2 ammo coming from? I even heard Australia was supposedly manufacturing certain unusual 30mm ammunition for Switzerland. Old, out of date equipment suddenly becoming un-obsolete perhaps? The whole global economy idea has its pitfalls if things go pear shaped.
Iron out the basics, because that’s where the greatest weakness as a nation lies. Yes 4.5” gun is yesterday’s news, but not a single RN ship currently has a 40mm, 76mm or 127mm gun (not even the rather pointless 57mm). Yet all of these are available off the shelf. NSM? These are not difficult upgrades. But where are they in a UK context?
“Uk lacks clear plan” is all you need to say on this subject and probably any other in any field of government endeavour. Amateurs in politics, disinterested Civil servants and a PM with all the inspiring leadership skills of boiled potato.