Defence reforms can be a blueprint for Whitehall It was the Home Office that was memorably described by its Secretary of State as "not fit for purpose" - but the description applies equally to the Ministry of Defence, its perennial rival for the title of Whitehall's most dysfunctional department. In the case of the MoD, a chronic inability to spend wisely has ensured that equipment arrives years late, at vastly greater expense than was predicted, and often proves eminently unsuited to the job. This wastes colossal sums, and the lives of many servicemen. The full extent of the MoD's problems - including the existence of a £36 billion black hole in its finances - was brought to light in 2009, in a report by Bernard Gray. "It seems," he wrote, "as though military equipment acquisition is vying... with the delivery of civilian software systems for the title of 'world's most delayed technical solution." Even British trains cannot compete. Elsewhere, he noted that "the problems, and the sums of money involved, have almost lost their power to shock, so endemic is the issue." The Coalition wisely decided to appoint Mr Gray to fix the flaws he had identified, as head of Defence Equipment and Support. He is to submit three alternative plans to ministers in the new year: each will involve the dismissal of thousands of civil servants, and the bringing in of experts from outside the public sector. Such a move is bound to provoke the usual howls of outrage about privatisation and cost-cutting. Yet the need is clear. As one defence industry chief says, the MoD is "underskilled but overmanned." That is putting it politely. Procurement decisions are made by those without the expertise to negotiate the best deal; meanwhile, the Services clamour for the latest and shiniest pieces of kit, whether or not they are suited to the nation's needs. As for overmanning, Mr Gray's DES alone employs 20,000 people, contributing to a ratio of bureaucrats to soldiers that has grown increasingly lopsided. Dr Liam Fox's reforms started to address many of these problems; it is to be hoped that Mr Gray - and Philip Hammond, the new Defence Secretary - can give the process fresh impetus. There is also a broader lesson here for Whitehall. In terms of applying private-sector expertise, defence is obviously a special case: since so much of its budget goes straight into buying equipment, the need for first-class procurement is vital. Yet it is hard to argue that the taxpayer gets the best value for money in health, or education, or a host of other fields. As Sir Gus O'Donnell wrote on these pages yesterday, civil servants know they need "to deliver better for less." Stripping out the dead wood, and bringing in the skills and knowledge of the private sector, would help to make that happen.