The Defence Committee has published highly critical report on UK defence procurement.
Today the Defence Committee published its report: ‘It is broke – and it’s time to fix it’.
The six-month inquiry into Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), led by Sub-Committee Chair Mark Francois MP, found that the UK’s defence procurement system is “broken” and that “multiple, successive reviews have not yet fixed it.”
The Sub-Committee discovered “a UK procurement system which is highly bureaucratic, overly stratified, far too ponderous, with an inconsistent approach to safety, very poor accountability and a culture which appears institutionally averse to individual responsibility.”
In consequence, despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK has been left with “an extremely limited reserve of fighting equipment, including warships, modern armoured vehicles or combat aircraft.”
Rewarding failure
The report calls on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to stop rewarding failure and take a more robust attitude towards contractors, if programmes get into serious difficulty. It underscores a reluctance throughout the procurement system to cancel failing programmes, calling on officials and Ministers to stop exercising constant “optimism bias” and cancel programmes when they are obviously failing.
The MOD should also be willing to learn from international best practice. In particular, Israel, which employs 300 staff in their Procurement Department, in comparison to the approximately 11,500 staff employed by DE&S.
Lack of urgency and slipping timelines
The Committee states that programmes are often delayed or “slipped to the right” to spread out cost due to the funding cycle and a lack of fixed long-term budget.
The MOD should make greater use of the Urgent Capability Requirements (UCR) method. The MOD should adopt a “UCR mindset” and ultimately review whether the barriers in the standard processes could be removed altogether from all defence procurements.
The report also calls for “the obsession with annuality” to change. The Committee urges the MOD to ensure that it uses funding flexibility offered by HM Treasury to the full extent necessary, highlighting that the Treasury has “grown weary” due to multiple, costly, high-profile procurement failures.
Aligning accountability and responsibility
The report calls for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of DE&S to be given a seat on the Defence Board, chaired by the Secretary of State. The CEO should also be made the Accounting Officer to Parliament on all equipment and support matters, rather than the Permanent Under-Secretary, as at present.
Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) are critical to the success of a procurement programme. However, the Committee found that high turnover, frequent multiple hatting and tension between SROs and DE&S can have a negative impact. The Committee calls for SROs to be given more power, including the ability to go straight to Ministers and the CEO of DE&S if programmes start to go badly wrong.
Procurement case studies
The report includes three specific case studies of highly troubled programmes, one for each of the Services, to illustrate the problems with our procurement system, in detail. These are: Type 26 ASW frigate (for the Royal Navy); E-7 Wedgetail AWACS aircraft (for the Royal Air Force) and the Ajax Armoured Fighting Vehicle (for the Army).
Each case study also highlights the adverse operational consequences of serious delays to the three multibillion-pound projects in question.
Safety system in need of overhaul
Following permanent injuries inflicted by the Ajax trials, the report recommends that the Army’s safety system should now be subject to a rigorous overhaul, incorporating the detailed lessons learned and evidence within the Sheldon Review.
Chair of the Defence Sub-Committee on Defence Equipment and Support, Mark Francois MP, said:
“Our report finds that the Ministry of Defence’s approach to procurement is well and truly broken. Bureaucratic, siloed and slow-moving – this is a dysfunctional system that has left multiple programmes floundering in its wake. This urgently needs to change. Bureaucratic buck-passing and the shirking of responsibility has meant that there is all too often no one to hold personally accountable when highly expensive programmes fail. Today’s report outlines how to align accountability with responsibility, to prevent this in the future.
Worst of all, this dysfunction has put Armed Forces personnel in harm’s way, with some Troops suffering permanent injuries. The Ajax trials are a black mark on the record of the Ministry of Defence. Concerns around safety should not be swept under the rug, and we are calling for the Army’s Safety System to be completely reviewed. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the world a more dangerous place: this is now a matter of urgency. This report offers a roadmap for reform – including 22 practical recommendations for the Ministry of Defence to take forward. We need to act now.”
Wow, 300 for the IDF and 11,500 for the MOD. That’s truly insane.
Though Israel is handed kit on a plate by the US I believe? That probably helps.
Also, not all those 11,500 DES are in procurement, DES has other responsibilities.
Who does them for the UK if DES was 300 strong?
DE&S used to employ 43,000 if memory serves. They weren’t all involved in procurement – many were in equipment support roles. Quite bizarre to compare UK to Israel; a comparison with France might have been more relevant.
Many would say that the cuts to civilian staff in DE&S has contributed to procurement cock-ups – one small example is fewer staff doing QA on contractors – we used to have QA staff embedded in major factories – now we don’t – if staff had been in GDUK in their Welsh factory, I doubt we would have had such problems with Ajax.
Are there any responsible grown ups in the room who can fix these shinaningans? Where’s some accountability and a bit of old fashioned do a good job for your country and people? Hope BWs successor is not letting people continually get away with this stuff?
It’s bad enough taking the MOD to task here on UKDJ so the chances of any real changes in the department itself are somewhere around zero. The temporary freeze on recruitment should be permanent with the need for every new appointment having to be proven. If this was Bae they would be bankrupt in six months.
It is PMs & Chancellors that are the driving culprits for cuts, cuts & more cuts. I’d place most of the blame there.
How do you expect to do a good job for your country when you are bound by a bureaucratic process with no permitted escalation routes to respond when things get kafkaesque? And if you do have escalation routes you need to ensure that they involve people who understand all the consequences of circumventing process. I spend a lot of time suffering the consequences of technical debt incurred by people who decided they didn’t need to follow procedures- but weren’t altogether qualified to make that call.
If there is one thing of which we can be certain, it is that despite this report absolutely nothing will change. After almost every DE&S cock-up similar reports are issued, nobody gets fired, failure is rewarded with higher civil service grades and the taxpayer gets to pump more £billions into their next procurement disaster.
🖕
transfer 10k fm DE&S to the Army, it needs more troops or even RFA so can reactivate Forts 🙂
Transfer 10k to the Ukranian army, they would be very useful as meat waves.
£10k would not even cover a single army Private’s salary.
People not money!
Civil servants, mostly at DE&S, of course.
The Government is happy to get rid of kit to save a few quid, it should take the same attitude to the civil service. We only need 80,000 soldiers or 13 frigates. Apply that thinking to the civil servants we only need 250,000 of them (not 500,000). Same apples for an NHS whose staff have ballooned forum 1 million to 1.7m in the last years – most of whom aren’t on the front line.
The sweltering, non productive, useless, pay check slaves of the middle classes. Welcome to post Brexit uk.
No. Welcome to Tory Britain. It’s all because of trying to deliver business models into public services and the compulsory need to go out to contract and bring in private companies. The NHS is no different to all public services the managers genuinely believe if they have a problem in any one area the answer is to bring in 20-30 highly paid administrators to deliver efficiency. Then when that doesn’t work. Which it won’t as the issue isn’t efficiency is capacity and resources. They then bring in another 20-30 administrators to manage the efficiency programme. Then when that doesn’t work,… Read more »
That’s right blame BREXIT🙄 not as if these people didn’t have the same job before it is there? This culture is only going to get worse with the next lot that gets in!
Aha, 01’s mate is back 🙃
Here he goes again with his Brexit fetish and his strange belief that working/middle/upper classes can nowadays be defined as such! Pray do tell us your criteria for doing so my little “don’t like to answer direct questions “ troll, good lad.
Agree about the NHS bureaucracy. It’s insane. Almost 1:1 ratio now of administration staff who are not public/ patient facing and clinical staff. I don’t need an administrator to tell me how to do my job efficiently after working over 2 decades on the frontline in the NHS and then a good bit of time in other public service role I’m already efficient, know how to carry out my duties and see and treat as many patients as I can in any given 13 hour shift. The NHS could easily lose 300,000 admin workers and not adversely affect in anyway… Read more »
I can’t believe that 11,500 in procurement. That’s just crazy.
We need a bonfire of quangos across public services. There are tens of billions being wasted on duplication , nothing jobs, stratified managerial structures. It’s just insane. Cut the jobs and invest the money saved straight back into the services.
Yes but then you will need another level of govt to decide who gets the chop🙄
Not all are in procurement, DES has other roles.
It’s a crazily small number. Used to be 43,000.
If you cut procurement staff, you cut the quality and speed of procurement work.
Simply not good enough from the uk government
Three particular projects are highlighted. Ajax we know has serious issues, and E7 order was cut to 3 but 5 radars had already been procured. Presumably its the build time for Type 26 and the delays in ordering it?
The Type 26 is delayed because DE&S constantly wanted changes to the design. This increased costs and delayed the project.
Although some parts on the civil service side definitely need to improve, I think requirements changes usually come from the senior military. It’s a general problem in our military culture that we seem to constantly want the best rather than something “good enough”. So a programme will be part way to completion and someone will decide to change the specification. It will then be delayed and delayed again. In the meantime are troops will be making do with an inferior piece of equipment.
Many defence procurements take 10 years or more from Concept to ISD. A lot can change in that time – threat profile, force structure, new technology arriving, political decisions. It would be amazing if the Requirement did not chnage during that 10 years. Ajax only had one significant time when the Requirement changed.
Most defence procurements now take longer to develop and enter service than the entire length of the Second World War. Imagine – the DH98 Mosquito took its first flight on 25 November 1940 and was Introduced into Squadron service on15 November 1941. Presumably those working under Lord Beaverbrook to achieve this were “Superhuman”, certainly by today’s standards!
My historic example is that the Dambusters project (Op Chastise) took 89 days during which they moved from very small-scale prototypes to building and testing full prototypes and then bulk manufacture of the bombs, selecting and training the crews, modifying the Lancs etc.
Indeed the usual, useless gold plating. Just watch the cheap ridiculed Type 31, like the Flower Class in WW2 become a go-to ship once we see what countries like Poland do with it. We get what we don’t need by design, and eventually what we do need by accident, necessity or desperation.
No mate. HMG did. See Jonathans detailed timeline on the other thread. That goes way back to other administrations who are now enjoying retirement.
There’s a few ‘nothing changes’ comments which is absolutely correct, there’s an excellent book Lions Donkeys & Dinosaurs written by Lewis Page that’s a few years old now and superbly details the abject procurement within the military. I particularly love the section ‘we’ve more Admirals than ships’ 😳
The problem is there is no common sense anymore, to much political correctness and many of the decision makers have no military experience. For procurement you need all of these and the ability to drive a hard bargain.
In my military career the defence committees and such like groups that visited were like a wet weekend in Skegness at best.
Alas it’s the civil service overmanned to guarantee the highest paygrade and ranking for the million pounds pension. This is in the NHS and the BBC and staffing in London a reform of the civil service is well due, also independent inquiry into their efficiency and political views
The CS was savagely cut several times in DE&S. Most staff are junior and middle grades who are on quite poor money compared to the public sector.
I wonder how many here actually are aware of the makeup of the organisation, DES, that they are all commenting on?
It has other responsibilities beyond procurement teams.
Don’t let facts get in the way of complaining.
Civil service do great things and are required in every functioning country.
They do need a check on every now and again.
The great projects that have been delivered on time on budget never make headlines like the few failures.
True. The project I ran at DE&S was a tiny one – just £60m including the long support package. It was delivered on time and was well regarded by the troops.
It’s nothing new. At one time it was MOD (PE).
All they do is change the name on the signs and headed paper. Big press release about change and improvements. Same people same offices same job and responsibilities.
End result same as always crap service to the front line.
Indeed, rebranding and then announcing the “new” thing is a constant. They did it a few years ago when 16AA became the GRF and is “new”
Wasn’t the GRF originally 16 AA Bde plus the Cbt Avn Bde? It seems to now be 16x, a light bde and a log bde.
Yes, although the Avn Bdes assets are also committed elsewhere, so not the entire Bde.
I’ve not seen anything official at its new ORBAT, but assume it’s also including elements of 1 UK Div, so those formations you mention may be correct.
As always, window dressing spin. Those formations already exist and they assign them to a “new ” formation and make noise about it.
What I want to see: 7 Bde placed in 3 UK Div, so it has a 3rd Manoeuvre Bde. 7 Bdes Light Gun Reg replaced with Archer, and it’s Infantry Bns Foxhounds in time replaced with Boxer. Boxer goes to it’s RA and RE formations too. DSRB remains as the DAG for 3 UK and it’s AS90s, in 2 Regs, replaced with Archer, or K9 SPG. Gives 3 UK a more respectable divisional formation, with 2 Bdes up and one, 7, in depth, with DSRB. GRF, of: 16AA Bde. 4 inf Bde ( with full regular CS CSS! Not bloody… Read more »
Sounds like a plan, mate. I do like the idea of a 3rd reserve division; would be a good place for the RR guys many of whom will be in their 40s and 50s!
To be fair they do seem to be mostly procurement and project management according to their website: from https://des.mod.uk What we doAs an arm’s length body of the Ministry of Defence, we negotiate and manage defence contracts on behalf of the UK Armed Forces. From fighter jets to food deliveries, from patrol boats to protective clothing, we deliver effective and innovative kit to our front-line forces, swiftly and safely. Our teams make sure every item is properly sourced, stored and maintained, and every contract represents value for money for the taxpayer. We are also responsible for decommissioning and disposal when… Read more »
Very small headcount for the work they do across so many sites. Used to be 43,000.
A Wiki entry (from 2016 but still should be close to today’s situation) gives another view on DE&S locations and activities: Main locationsAs of 2016 the main locations (with staff numbers) were: MoD Abbey Wood (7,920) – Head Office DM Beith (220) – Defence Munitions MoD Bicester (140) – Logistics HMNB Clyde (100) – Fleet Support and Defence Munitions HMNB Devonport (220) – Fleet Support and Defence Munitions DM Kineton (240) – Defence Munitions DM Longtown (120) – Defence Munitions Ministry of Defence, London (90) – Policy RAF Northolt (210) – British Forces Post Office HMNB Portsmouth and DM Gosport (350) – Fleet Support and Defence Munitions Rosyth Dockyard (120) – Fleet Support… Read more »
So let’s assume that the smaller locations are doing the “other stuff” (2K people), and the procurement is happening at Abbey Wood (8k people). It looks like most of the people are in procurement. So it all comes back to our opinions on what are these 8K up to.
The 8k people at Abbey Wood are procuring kit from manufacturers and also support & services from engineering and logistic companies. Of course a number are involved in corporate work for the organisation. What else do you think they would be doing?
I was one of the 8k in 2009-2010.
What else do I think they would be doing? Some of the other tasks that the DE&S has responsibility for.
I was responding to Daniele’s post that not all of them do procurement. Thanks for the answer – 8K.
It’s all about jobs for the boys. Every project launched is delayed and over budget. Never see them make a decision, stick to it and deliver on time for the people on the ground to use. I agree, doesn’t help when military are moving goalposts constantly these days, as they cannot agree to any strategy and stick to it. Worked for both Tory and Labour governments, equally as bad as each other I’m afraid, as always it’s the quality of the soldiers Sailors and Air staff luckily keep us in good stead. If only they had the proper kit and… Read more »
‘Every project is delayed and over budget’. Really? The project I ran wasn’t.
Nothing will change as the whole system is corrupt. Meanwhile they just blame everyone at the bottom of the pile. Continue to pay crap wages to those of us doing a good job and as others have said self awarding themselves for failure. Sick of people saying all civil servants are over paid. My wage for being in the job for 10+years covering two highly skilled jobs (since my colleague retired around 8 years ago) and being qualified to degree level, is just £11.67 per hour. Around £22860 per year. As for the pension, terms may be ok, but will… Read more »
UK are 6th in the NATO table of defense spending by GDP. In fact we spend as much as Russia in real terms. So where does the money go?. 148 main battle tanks is pathetic. 2 large carriers in practice without jets, a joke – have to rely on US to help with escorts. So an army of 73,000. Far to small. It’s got to be asked – *** is the UK Defense spending – buying that we can see. It really is a fair question. Is money being wasted and why can’t the government able to spend more? Big… Read more »
most Top Nato countries have an arms industry supported by the Government, something the UK doesn’t have
I agree 100%.
I have no formal qualifications on military matters other than a lifelong interest in military history but, for crying out loud, most of us with even a basic understanding realise that minimal forces with no reserves, mothballed or otherwise, of equipment, spares and ammunition will last only until they are neutralised and that could be in days should a shrewd opponent realise that early attrition will reduce us to literally throwing rocks!
Its down to money. The unfortunate fact is that the UK is a declining power on the world stage relative to others. By this stage we should probably consider specialising in one thing. But for historic reasons, nobody wants to admit this and they still want to have an all singing all dancing force. Problem is, its paper thin. In a real conflict the ammunition would run out in a very short time. Its not just us though. France does the same. If you want to look at military power, compare what the Ukraine can field to what we can…