Labour has accused the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of wasting £13bn of taxpayers’ money since the Conservatives came to power on failed procurement projects, overspends and other administrative errors.
In a 16-page dossier, that they say highlights a string of examples of financial mismanagement, including £4bn of waste since 2019, the opposition says the Government has “no grip” on the MoD’s finances.
In a statement John Healey, the Shadow Defence Secretary said the scale of waste was “significant and systemic.” Highlighting official Whitehall assessments, he said none of the MoD’s 36 projects are rated green i.e., “on time and in budget.”
The MoD has an annual budget in excess of £40bn a year – with nearly half that money spent on equipment. It manages a fifth of all Government major projects.
Many examples of overspend highlighted in the dossier have been featured in scathing reports by the National Audit Office and the Commons Public Accounts Committee including:
- an extra £1bn on building a new nuclear warhead manufacturing facility at Burghfield near Reading, which is already 76 months behind schedule
- building seven Astute Class attack submarines, which is costing £1bn more than originally planned
- the RAF’s fleet of new Protector drones is already £325m over budget and 28 months late
The Government was keen to point out that problems with financial management at the MoD date back many years, including to Labour’s time in government. The development of RAF Nimrod spy planes plagued the Labour Government prior to 2010. The Conservatives cancelled the programme shortly after taking office in 2010 yet this programme was included in Labour’s dossier at a cost of £3.7bn, the largest single item identified. In addition, £2.8bn of overspend relating to the development of the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers, commissioned by the last Labour Government is included.
The Ministry of Defence said it was “serious about investing in Defence modernisation” and that it was prepared to take “tough decisions to replace old equipment and halt programmes that no longer fit requirements” even if it meant writing off spending.