On Monday afternoon the Prime Minister will announce to Parliament the outcome of the Security and Defence Spending Review. Its timing, so close to the tragic atrocities in Paris, calls into focus the extent to which the threat landscape has changed since the Review – as we now know it – was first introduced by the Coalition Government in 2010.
The last SDSR was delivered against the backdrop of heavily constrained public finances and international recession, and as such is often described as ‘controversial’ in current reporting. Jonathan Beale’s piece for BBC online published on Friday morning highlights the specifics of the cuts made and their long term impact.
At the moment, coverage can only be speculative, and while the Government’s commitment to an above-inflation increase to the defence budget, coupled with the agreement to meet the two per cent NATO target on defence spending, provided an early indication of greater domestic spend on defence and security, questions are being articulated by media as to the priorities for that spend.
Writing in Friday morning’s Financial Times, Peggy Hollinger provides a broad overview of the health of the UK’s defence industry; highlighting its value to national prosperity, and quoting Paul Everitt, CEO of ADS as saying that: “What industry does expect, however, is a “clear direction of travel”, setting out the areas in which it will have to invest if it is to meet Britain’s defence and security needs.”
Looking ahead to next week, ADS will focus on highlighting to media the extent to which Government and industry has engaged in the delivery of this SDSR, and the value this brings to national security and prosperity; our overarching message is that a number of factors other than price should determine Government spending decisions on defence and security, and that on-going investment in R&D is crucial to delivering the innovation needed to stay ahead of threats and compete effectively within the international market.
