QA
I don’t think we differ too much, but to clarify;
2) MOD always had to pay DERA for services, so I dont think cuts to front line capability can be directly attributable to the formation of QQ.
Agreed DRA/DERA had to be paid for in the past but my comment was a project office viewpoint. They were paid for centrally, so the Customer (RAF/RN/Army) didn’t have to make specific LTC/EP provision for their services. The same applied to workshops who would, for example, modify aircraft or equipment; and to many other core services. The funding you had was for, say, Development and Production. Then, the central funding stopped and costs had to be attributed to the individual project. Fine, from an accounting viewpoint, but the point I made was that the central funds were (a) no longer sufficient to pay for DERA/QQ etc (as they were out to make a profit and IPTs suddenly required extra commercial resource and time to negotiate contracts, as opposed to simple tasking) and (b) the central funds were not distributed anyway – as far as I can see they were offered up as a “saving”. Projects had to fund very expensive work from existing funds. That can only result in reduced capability as something has to give; and is effectively a cut in the Defence Budget. Clearly, in time, this settled down as new projects knew to bid for what used to be termed intramural costs, but it only “settled down” within the constraints of a Defence Budget which has reducing in real terms for many years. (Oh, and we haven’t discussed the sell-off of estates; a one-off boost for the QQ books at a convenient time!).
3) QQ doesnt make the big stuff (tanks, planes, ships) so any privileged position in conducting/knowing the research hasnt (and likely will not) land any contracts for them away from the likes of BAES, RR, Thales, GKN etc..
To date, QQ’s agreement with MoD has precluded them from manufacturing (in simple terms, they can make prototypes but not production quantities, although it seems this is shortly to change). They still retain the knowledge I spoke of and are effectively a directed sub-contractor. Ask small/medium size companies. The word from MoD is very clear – if QQ don’t actually bid, whoever they choose to partner with stands the best chance. In many such cases, QQ are actually determining who wins in advance.
6) The real reason front line capability gets compromised is because of the shoddy conduct (late and overbudget) of the big programmes (read the NAO reports). There are many reasons for this, ranging from "simple" incompetence through to "jobs for the boys" or votes, pipe-dreams for career progression, inter-service rivalries and many other factors that everyone in defence (govt, mil, servant, suppliers, contractors) have some shared blame.
Agreed, to which I’d add the hidden costs of corrective action, the most obvious recent example being the projects created or rescheduled to bale BOWMAN out. Sorry, I bang on about that particular disaster, but there really is something fishy going on when, on one hand, BOWMAN is touted as the dogs ******** yet on the other the NAO quietly buries a one-liner in their report saying “another project” is to replace large parts of it. As you say, jobs for the boys and career progression (and career protection as progression has already taken place). If corrective action is needed and money has been approved, ask why the project responsible is not told to fix it.
Again, I have nothing but the highest regard for most QQ people I have met, in particular Boscombe Down. But the disquiet you mention at DSTL is, I think, shared within QQ. There was another raft of redundancies earlier this year and, as usual, it was those at the coal face who bore the brunt. When a project manager sees that happening, he automatically reschedules as he knows the reaction time will be longer, delaying introduction of capability. That is the practical effect of privatisation.
Regards