Consultation outcome

Review of MDP public consultation responses

Updated 18 December 2018

Background

In January 2018, the Defence Secretary launched the Modernising Defence Programme (MDP). In the context of a global security situation characterised by sharply increased complexity and risk, the MDP has two headline goals: to strengthen our world-leading Armed Forces against the harder threats that we and our allies now face; and to put UK Defence on an enduringly affordable footing, so that our contribution to national security and prosperity is sustainable over the long term.

In pursuit of these two headline goals, the Modernising Defence Programme consists of four workstreams:

Workstream 1

MOD Operating Model: establishing a refreshed and clearer Operating Model for Defence, to enable better and faster decision-making and more efficient and effective delivery of Defence outputs.

Workstream 2

Efficiency and business modernisation: providing confidence in the MOD’s ability to realise existing efficiency targets, and a set of options for future efficiency and business modernisation investments.

Workstream 3

Commercial and industrial approach: assessing how MOD can improve on commercial capability and strategic supplier management.

Workstream 4

Defence policy, outputs and military capability: analysing the global security context and its implications for Defence policy, the roles and tasks that we prioritise, and the opportunities or imperatives for modernising our workforce, military capabilities and force generation processes.

At the start of March, the Ministry of Defence published a public consultation on the MDP. It invited views on the measures that the Department should consider across all four workstreams in order to achieve its two headline goals. The consultation closed at the end of April.

Responses

We received over a 100 responses to the consultation. The largest proportion were from members of the general public, with significant numbers also from Defence personnel (civilian and military) and industry. We also received contributions in smaller numbers from groups including academia, think tanks, Parliamentarians, Local Authorities, trade unions and charities.

Responses spanned the subject matter of all four workstreams, but the majority were focused on workstream 4, with workstream 2 the next most frequently addressed. A very wide range of views were offered. We provide a summary of some of the key, recurring themes below, organised according to workstream.

Change and Efficiency (workstreams 1 and 2)

A large number of responses made recommendations for realising greater efficiency in Defence. Many of these concerned the everyday business processes and practices used in Defence. We received ideas for: more intelligent use of IT to support remote working; better use of project management, procurement and budget management at the smaller scales of departmental business; and improvement of performance recruitment and management.

Workforce issues were also a popular subject. Many felt that greater efficiency could be achieved by making better use of the workforce’s skills: there should be a greater focus on the value of expertise, with less reliance on generalists, a more targeted and considered use of contractors, and greater care taken to place people in roles that allow the fullest possible use of their expertise and qualifications. Others advocated for a less hierarchical, top-heavy structure in Defence, and more uniformity across the 3 services’ professional functions and policies.

Several contributors suggested that efficiencies currently underway in other government departments could provide a valuable lessons for Defence.

Industry and prosperity (workstream 3)

Around a quarter of responses covered workstream 3 themes.

Many of these responses warned against the MOD procurement system becoming too conservative and overly reliant on a small number of suppliers. Some suggested that Defence should pursue more collaborative, long-term relationships with a broader range of suppliers. This would be helped by better engagement with industry, increased visibility of MOD’s forward programme of work, more opportunity for sub-contracting to SMEs, and better scrutiny of suppliers’ capabilities to ensure they remain both competitive and fit for purpose.

Some proposed that Defence should ensure that it has the right mix of skills by investing more in commercial awareness and specialisms such as negotiation and through-life costing. A two-way secondment programme between Defence and industry would help on this front, and should contribute to better development and retention of highly skilled staff, and less reliance on external support.

There was consensus amongst respondents that supply chain management and procurement processes can be simplified and improved, in part through more intelligent use of data, digital transformation, and automation.

A significant number of responses highlighted the importance of Defence for UK prosperity.

Defence policy, outputs and military capability (workstream 4)

We received around 70 responses which focused on workstream 4, looking at defence policy, outputs and military capability.

International policy

The centrality of NATO to UK defence policy was widely endorsed. Some responses suggested that the UK should play a greater role in the NATO Defence Planning Process, to increase the degree to which NATO capabilities align with UK interests.

More broadly, some respondents proposed that we could gain much more from strong international collaborations than we do at present.

Others noted the importance of striking the right balance between maintaining our position as a leading partner in any coalition effort and securing operational independence. Many advised against the UK becoming too reliant on a single relationship, regardless of how stable and well-founded it is.

Existing conventional capabilities

The majority of responses highlighted existing capabilities, equipment or platforms that should be retained, or increased in number. Among the most frequently referenced were Challenger II tanks, Warrior armoured vehicles, Apache, Type-26, Type- 31e, Offshore Patrol Vessels and F-35B.

Many responses touched on the UK’s amphibious capability, arguing for retention of the Royal Marines in their current numbers, and retention of the Albion Class Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), or their replacement with a modernised class of LPDs.

Development of new capabilities

The need to develop new capabilities in order to modernise the force was widely accepted. Many respondents offered a view on which new capabilities should be developed to realise this vision, though they frequently accompanied their recommendation with the caveat that new and niche capabilities would not remove the need for conventional war-fighting capabilities.

The capability areas most commonly cited as requiring investment were: ballistic missile defence; precision strike; information, surveillance and reconnaissance; cyber; information operations; and CBRN. Many respondents urged a greater dedication of resources to R&D and innovation in order to develop these new capabilities more quickly.

More broadly, respondents suggested a greater focus on multi-role equipment that isn’t too highly specialised or limited in its utility to very few scenarios. They suggested that we should aim to develop equipment that can be produced quickly and cheaply, and that offers strong export opportunities.

Armed Forces personnel

A range of views were offered on the size of the Armed Forces, though there was no consensus on how large each service should be. For example, some argued that the Army should consist of more than 82,000 Regulars, while others suggested that the current recruited size of the Army was adequate, and that the focus should be on recruiting more Regulars to the Royal Navy. A number of respondents argued in favour of making greater use of the Reserves.

Defence Budget

The majority of responses on workstream 4 did not set out the detailed financial implications of their policy or capability recommendations, though they often recognised that they would require financial headroom in the Defence budget to accommodate them.

Many respondents stated that 2 per cent of GDP should be the minimum size of the defence budget. A few advocated for an uplift to anywhere up to 3 per cent of GDP. A small number of responses proposed that the budget for the nuclear programme should be separate from the overall Defence budget, and a handful of responses identified the Royal Navy as the service in most need of a budget increase.

What have we done with responses?

MOD does not offer any comment on the views summarised above. Shortly after the closure of the consultation, all responses were shared with the MOD officials working on the relevant elements of the MDP. They have been, and will continue to be, a valuable part of the MDP evidence base.