If this is genuinely going to be a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works,' then the Comprehensive Spending Review will need to leave room for risk and innovation
The Treasury is
clearly in the driving seat for the forthcoming Spending Review. For the MoD, maybe this is a good thing. Alex Barker at the FT
says that if the MoD's past form is any guide, the Treasury has good reason. Currently there is a gaping £36mn black hole in Defence funding. Clearly someone has not been keeping a strict eye on the finances.
And yet, commentators have spoken about the opportunity presented by the looming cuts to radically transform (for the better) the way government operates and provides public services. There is an inherent tension here between ‘safer' spending on things of demonstrable value and more risky investment in as yet unproven innovations which have the potential to bring radical transformations and savings.
In the realm of Defence, Nato's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
warned that too deep cuts in defence budgets might have a long-term negative impact on economic growth due to a rise in international instability and insecurity: ‘If cuts are made primarily within the more stationary parts of our military and if new investments are directed towards more flexible and more mobile and more modern armed forces, then budgetary constraints could be turned into something positive.' The phrase ‘direct new investment' is crucial. The most significant savings are made when a new innovation revolutionises the field into which it is introduced. These innovations will not come from, or be invested in, by the Treasury. If government spending is examined purely through the prism of provable value-for-money, innovation will be suffocated. There is a fine balance to be struck between the roles of the Treasury and the Armed Forces in the Spending Review. Perhaps that equilibrium is yet to be found.
The Defence budget could face cuts in the region of 20%. With this kind of pressure on getting value for money, resources will be spent on things with provable outcomes. I am not suggesting that resources be diverted away from frontline troops, leaving them
under-equipped or vulnerable. But what if current strategy - armored vehicles, drones and well-equipped foot patrols - is not the answer in Afghanistan? What if fully committed investment in blue-sky thinking about the war in Afghanistan could pay off in a way that continued spending under a strategy that has seen UK forces fighting there for close to a decade cannot?
Take Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), the
‘biggest single killer of troops in Afghanistan'. Are better armored vehicles and intelligence-gathering drones the solution? What if the answer to the threat posed by IEDs lies in the technology being developed by the US Military which involves high-tech beams being used to prematurely trigger IEDs being built, laid or transported by insurgents. Marine General James Mattis, head of the U.S. Joint Forces Command that looks to transform military capabilities has said that ‘This is an offensive capability that will change the face of this war'. This innovation is yet to be refined and the potential for it to cause civilian casualties and collateral damage has certainly not been fully addressed. The weapon, which was used in Iraq in 2005 and 2008, mainly at checkpoints, also requires a tractor-trailer-size vehicle to transport it, rendering it currently impractical in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. But what if investment in this innovation resulted in a suitable weapon which minimised civilian casualties?
The Chancellor George Osborne has said that this moment provides a ‘once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works'. But this must involve innovation. And if spending across government is limited to things which have immediate demonstrable value, and investment in radical new solutions is deemed too risky, then this will be an opportunity wasted.