The relationship between the government and the defence sector is unique in British industry.

It is a relationship born of Britain’s imperial past and the continuing co-dependency is a legacy of this country’s efforts to maintain its influence on world affairs.

If you add up the direct and indirect subsidies for arms exports, the British taxpayer pays out nearly £900m a year to help the industry.

But defenders of the government’s backing for the defence sector say the cash is an investment and they point to the benefits for UK industry – jobs and the development of weapons for our own armed forces.

And perhaps the most important function of exporting arms is the prestige and political influence that being a major player in the arms trade brings the British government. Key to the UK’s foreign policy objectives is the country’s ability to export weapons and expertise, arming allies and rewarding favours.

As Brinley Salzmann, the Defence Manufacturer Association’s export director, told Blue Skies: "Defence exports go hand in hand with the government’s foreign policy and diplomatic agenda. If the UK exports to a particular government or country it can indicate support for an ally and signify our aims overseas."

Salzmann says the British government’s support for the defence industry is merely a reflection of the state backing which arms manufacturers also enjoy in other countries.
He identifies the US and France in particular as fervent supporters of their own defence sectors and suggests that without the current level of government support, British jobs, expertise and prestige would be lost.

Salzmann identifies the intervention of senior government figures and the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), an entity set up by the government, as the most useful aids in promoting and assisting in export deals.

Asked if there are lessons for other industries in the relationship between government and the defence business, Salzmann identifies the DESO as a potentially helpful model for other businesses.

"We certainly find the DESO very helpful. It’s possible that other industries could benefit from a similar arrangement," he says.

However, the lessons other industries can learn from the defence-government relationship are probably limited.

The defence industry insists on highlighting the benefits that government support brings and says the unique arrangement delivers returns through political and technological advantage.

However, others question the value of the relationship, believing it corrupts the body politic as it involves too cosy a relationship between those who benefit and the state. And to those more concerned with a cost-benefit analysis, critics also say the relationship is poor value for money.

Looking at the figures it is easy to see their point. The Ministry of Defence estimates that around 60,000 UK jobs are dependent on defence exports, while the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) says the government subsidises arms exports to the tune of £888m a year. That means every job in the sector costs the taxpayer nearly £14,000 a year.

A CAAT spokesman told Blue Skies: “Even if the subsidy was smaller (or even negligible), the lack of a significant economic benefit for the UK removes the standard justification for the arms trade. As the subsidy is actually several hundreds of millions of pounds, it provides a positive economic reason to stop the trade and, given the political will, the resources to help that happen.”

But whatever your view on the morality of the government’s support for arms exports, it seems the lessons for other industries are limited – the arms trade is a law unto itself.