IN Brief:
- CILT(UK) has warned that transport investment cuts could weaken national resilience.
- The warning responds to reports that transport and net-zero spending could be reduced to support defence funding.
- The institute says logistics, freight, ports, rail, aviation, and decarbonised transport are part of the UK’s national security capability.
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK has warned that reducing transport investment to help fund defence spending could weaken the infrastructure that supports the UK’s economic stability, supply chains, and national resilience.
The warning follows reports that transport and net-zero spending could face cuts as the Government prepares its Defence Investment Plan. CILT(UK) said defence capability remains a national priority, but transport and logistics should not be treated as separate from security.
Daniel Parker-Klein, Director of Policy and Communications at CILT(UK), said: “CILT(UK) recognises the need to strengthen the UK’s defence capability in response to growing global uncertainty – national security must remain a priority.
“But transport and logistics are not separate from national security – they are part of it. The UK’s ability to move people, goods, equipment, fuel and essential supplies quickly and reliably is fundamental to both economic stability and national resilience. Whether supporting everyday supply chains or responding to major disruptions, transport networks keep the country moving.
“Cutting investment in these networks may offer short-term savings, but it risks creating longer-term weaknesses in the infrastructure that underpins growth, productivity and resilience.”
Previous spending rounds have already placed pressure on transport budgets. Following the 2010 Spending Review, the Department for Transport’s overall spending was reduced by 15% in real terms by 2014–15, with resource spending reduced by 21% and capital spending by 11%.
Sue Terpilowski, Chair of CILT(UK)’s Public Policy Committee, said the Government needed an open discussion about transport’s place in spending priorities. Freight, ports, rail, aviation, and decarbonised logistics all support economic growth, supply chain resilience, and the country’s ability to respond during disruption.
“Transport should not be seen as competing with defence and security,” Terpilowski said. “It is one of the foundations that helps make them work.”
Transport investment is increasingly inseparable from national preparedness. Freight networks support food, fuel, medicines, construction materials, defence equipment, emergency response, and industrial production. When disruption occurs, resilience depends on the ability to move goods through ports, roads, rail terminals, airports, warehouses, and distribution networks without avoidable friction.
The debate is therefore more complex than a choice between defence and domestic infrastructure. A country can increase defence spending while still weakening the civil logistics systems that armed forces, emergency services, manufacturers, and consumers depend on. Military readiness relies on roads, ports, fuel systems, maintenance supply chains, warehousing, and skilled logistics labour as much as it relies on procurement programmes.
Private-sector freight security work is moving in the same direction, including a certified freight exchange developed by Trans.eu and TAPA EMEA to support verified carrier activity. Secure, well-funded, and well-governed logistics systems reduce exposure to disruption, fraud, theft, and emergency response failure.
Net-zero transport investment is also part of the resilience equation. Charging infrastructure, rail freight, low-emission vehicles, cleaner port operations, and decarbonised logistics networks require long-term funding certainty. Cutting those programmes would delay fleet transition and potentially increase future operating costs for freight operators already facing margin pressure.
The risk is not limited to cancelled projects. Policy uncertainty can slow private investment as logistics operators, warehouse developers, ports, rail freight providers, and fleet owners wait for clarity on infrastructure, regulation, and funding. Transport systems are planned over years, not spending cycles.
CILT(UK)’s intervention places logistics infrastructure inside the national security discussion. Defence capability and transport capability are not parallel systems. The UK’s ability to respond under pressure depends on both, and savings made by weakening transport capacity could leave the country less resilient when movement matters most.
