National security strategy criticised

Britain's national security strategy does not show "a clear grasp of what is needed for the defence of the UK", and ministers should do more to protect jobs here rather than buying cheaper equipment from abroad, a report has warned.

MPs on the defence select committee also criticised the flip-flopping over which type of jets should fly from the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers, saying the changes had already cost the Ministry of Defence £100m.

Their report said the decision to opt for one type of Joint Strike Fighter in 2010 was "rushed and flawed", a point that appeared to be proved when the MoD announced a U-turn and chose another variant of the JSF last year.

The committee said if the government wanted the UK to retain its status as a major international power it must decide which programmes are critical to national security, and ensure they are protected. By doing so, Britain would retain key skills and have more control about which technologies could be exported. Spending on defence science and technology should also increase, the report says.

MPs urged the government to spend 2% of the annual defence budget on research to support UK defence businesses and to guarantee that the armed forces have the most up-to-date equipment.

Philip Dunne, the defence minister, said the government had worked "tirelessly to eliminate the multibillion-pound black hole we inherited".

He defended the decisions made about the carriers in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, and said reforms of the body responsible for procurement, Defence Equipment and Support, would save money for the MoD.