Britain's MoD aims to cut spending on military support contracts - FT

Mon Feb 3, 2014 7:31am GMT

A British soldier works on a vehicle which will be re-deployed to the UK at Camp Bastion, outside Lashkar Gah, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan December 20, 2012. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

A British soldier works on a vehicle which will be re-deployed to the UK at Camp Bastion, outside Lashkar Gah, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan December 20, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Stefan Wermuth

Related Topics

Quotes

   

(Reuters) - Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) plans to cut 1.5 billion pounds from the money it pays defence companies annually to help maintain and retool its military equipment, the Financial Times reported.

An MoD spokeswoman declined to confirm the figure, but said the MoD was looking to make savings across all of its contracts.

The paper said the cuts, which are equivalent to a fifth of the MoD's 7.5 billion pound annual spending on support contracts, would likely take several years to roll out. (link.reuters.com/gep56v)

The ministry would need to wait until many of its existing support contracts expired before it could renegotiate them, the FT added.

The Defence Equipment and Support unit, the MoD's procurement arm, spends about half its annual budget on servicing equipment, outsourcing the work to companies such as BAE Systems and Babcock International Group.

(Reporting by Richa Naidu in Bangalore; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
high_isp wrote:
The MoD should concentrate not on saving money on procurement of items, but on wasting money in the fat and incompetent way it handles the procurement process. It’s a shambles and the BILLIONS wasted would easily cover identified shortfalls in men and equipment.

Feb 03, 2014 8:11am GMT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.