The Blair government recognised this and published a policy paper called the "Defence Industrial Strategy" which codified (for the first time in the UK) the concept that certain industries and capabilities were nationally-significant strategic assets that should not be permitted to wither or be foreign owned.
On becoming Minister of Defence in 2010 Liam Fox (being a brainless arse who was under the impression that every day was "bring your best buddy to work day" in the Ministry of Defence) scrapped this policy as "ideologically unsound" saying that it was "socialist garbage" to even have such a strategy to interfere in the operation of the market. It was his view that Her Madge should always buy her military equipment off-the-shelf and from the lowest bidder, irrespective of nationality and regardless of the strategic consequences. Camoron, being very nearly as brainless in all respects, backed him in this in an act of neglect of his responsibilities for the defence of the realm that should really have resulted in some mild rebuke (like being hung, drawn, quartered and then having his head placed on a spike in whitehall as an example to others).
That this was a "bad idea"[tm] was a view which had cross-party support expressed loudly and frequently, for example in the 7th 2012-2013 session Defence Select Committee Report which said:
We believe that the absence of a defence industrial strategy which supports appropriate national sovereignty puts the UK at a disadvantage against competitor countries. Furthermore, we do not understand how we can have confidence in a national security strategy which does not show a clear grasp of what is needed for the defence of the United Kingdom, and how this can be ensured. We recommend that the Government reconsider the wisdom of not having a defence industrial strategy.
But wisdom and the camoron administration are essentially complete strangers. So whilst the USA (as standard-bearer for free-market capitalism) protects its strategic industries with rigid legislation like the Title 10 commitments [eg 10 USC Sec. 2464 and 10 USC Sec. 2466] the camoron administration carries on as a paid consultant and advocate for chinese industry and US defence contractors. To suggest this is less than ideal would be like calling the shooting down of MH17 an act of mild social deviation...
PDR