Mechanisms to prevent lobbying from pushing for unnecessary military spending include parliamentary oversight, independent audit bodies, and transparency initiatives, but their effectiveness is often limited by loopholes, a lack of enforcement, and the secretive nature of the defense sector.

Parliamentary Oversight and Select Committees

In both the UK and the EU, legislative bodies are designed to provide a check on the executive branch's defense spending.

• UK Defence Committee: The House of Commons Defence Committee is a key body. It's tasked with examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). It holds public hearings, questions ministers and senior officials, and publishes reports on defense programs. These reports can expose inefficiencies, cost overruns, and questionable procurement decisions. For example, the committee has previously criticized the MoD's procurement system as "broken" and called for major reform.

• EU Parliament's Role: In the European Union, the European Parliament and its committees, such as the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, scrutinize defense spending. They hold hearings and can pressure the European Commission to ensure that EU defense funds, like the European Defence Fund (EDF), are used efficiently and transparently.

Limitations: While these committees are essential, their effectiveness is often hampered by limited resources, a lack of deep technical expertise, and an inability to access classified information. The executive branch can also ignore or only partially implement their recommendations.

Independent Audit and Anti-Corruption Bodies

Independent organizations play a crucial role in scrutinizing defense spending and identifying areas where lobbying may have led to wasteful spending.

• National Audit Office (NAO): In the UK, the NAO is a non-governmental body that audits government departments, including the MoD. Its reports are highly respected and often expose major problems with defense procurement, such as cost overruns, project delays, and technical failures. The NAO's findings provide a factual basis for parliamentary and public criticism.

• Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO): The SSRO was established in the UK to regulate non-competitive defense contracts and ensure fair pricing. It is a safeguard against the inflated costs that can result from a lack of competition. However, its effectiveness is debated, with some critics arguing that its powers are limited and that it cannot fully counter the pressure from large defense firms.

• International Initiatives: Organizations like Transparency International and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) conduct independent research and advocacy to expose corruption and a lack of transparency in the defense sector. They develop indices and reports that grade countries on their defense governance and military spending transparency.

Limitations: The findings of these bodies, while important, often come after a decision has been made and a contract has been signed. They can provide accountability but are less effective at preventing a bad decision in the first place.

Transparency and Accountability Measures

Governments have implemented measures aimed at making the procurement process more transparent and therefore less susceptible to lobbying.

• Lobbying Registers: Both the UK and the EU have lobbying registers that require some lobbyists to disclose their activities. In the EU, the Transparency Register provides some public insight into which defense companies are lobbying and what their budgets are. However, the UK's register has a major flaw: it does not cover "in-house" lobbyists, the vast majority of whom are employed directly by defense companies. . This makes it difficult to track most of the defense industry's influence.

• The "Revolving Door" Regulations: Both the UK and EU have rules to manage the movement of officials from public service to the private sector. The UK's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) and the EU's ethics committees are meant to prevent a conflict of interest. However, these bodies are often criticized for their lack of enforcement power, as their recommendations for "cooling-off" periods are not legally binding.

Limitations: The ineffectiveness of these transparency measures and the "revolving door" regulations means that the most crucial and influential discussions between lobbyists and government officials remain largely hidden from public view. This allows lobbying to have a profound impact on defense spending without effective oversight.