Sixth Report: The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, HC 621, published 6 July 1998
Government Response: Fourth Special Report, HC 1109 published 3 November 1998
|
That DTI officials with R&D budgets at their disposal could be more formally involved in the advisory and decision making process for MoD's R&D programmes (paragraph 12).
|
Response generally suggests that DTI involvement is already good, although the National Advisory Committee of the Foresight D&A Panel should improve awareness of technology transfer opportunities
|
Technology-transfer to be a key component of our follow-up 'Defence Research' inquiry
|
|
White Paper on Defence Diversification Agency published in November 1998
|
That Ministers clarify how 'advice to Ministers' ought to be construed and reconsider its application in respect of accountability to Parliament (paragraph 13).
|
No clarification given. DERA Corporate Plan denied to Committee because in dealings with options for DERA's future it constituted "advice to Ministers on policy options".
|
Committee to follow-up in inquiry into provision of defence-related information to Parliament in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
To conduct a fuller inquiry into the level of defence research funding and its allocation between DERA and other research institutes (paragraph 16).
|
"Research is not exempt from continuing search for VFM". Response does not note, however, that MoD's Chief Scientist is reviewing funding needs
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99
|
|
Out-going MoD Chief Scientist's review of defence R&D expenditure due "Autumn 98" (not yet published).
|
To provide assurances that the final organisation of DERA continues to provide a source of honest and independent advice for MoD (paragraph 21).
|
Importance of independent advice accepted. PPP plan still to be subject to consultation.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
That any proposal for DERA's future status recognises the importance of maintaining it as a broad, multi-disciplinary centre of excellence for defence research (paragraph 23).
|
MoD see PPP as way of strengthening ability to secure world-class research.. PPP plan still to be subject to consultation and details yet to be fixed.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
That whatever solution is finally decided for DERA's future, it should not compromise in any way the access we enjoy to US technology (paragraph 29).
|
Accepted implicitly; in that under PPP those parts of DERA that ensure "cooperation with allies, particularly with respect to highly sensitive areas of joint interest," will be retained within the MoD.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
To conduct an inquiry at an early date Once Ministers have finalised their plans for DERA, which will look closely at the justification for and financial consequences of their decisions (paragraph 32).
|
MoD look forward to helping Committee's inquiry.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99.
|
|
Final PPP plans, after wide consultation, to be decided "early in 1999".
|
That if more work is placed in industry or academia, extreme care will be needed to manage this in such a way that DERA retains sufficient expertise to discharge properly its role as MoD's expert and independent technical advisers (paragraph 34).
|
Importance of independent advice accepted. PPP plan still to be subject to consultation.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99.
|
|
|
That the privatisation of some of the most sensitive areas of DERA's work, such as Porton Down, would be abhorrent and that the partial privatisation, in the shape of Public Private Partnerships, would be unacceptable and against the public interest. (Paragraph 35).
|
No firm decisions yet, except that "privatisation of DERA in its entirety has been ruled out". Final PPP plan still depends on consultation.
|
Committee to follow-up in 'Defence Research Expenditure' inquiry in Session 1998-99.
|
|
|
Seventh Report: Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy, HC 675, published 23 July 1998
Government Response: Fifth Special Report, HC 1131, published 3 November 1998
|
That the DTI be representated on the Equipment Approvals Committee. (paragraph 10).
|
Rejected. DTI input possible without being EAC members
|
|
|
|
That the UK Government play its full part in making the NATO procurement review a success, to put NATO procedures on a firmer footing as new members address their re-equipment requirements (paragraph 16).
|
Accepted |
|
|
|
That the UK play a full part in continuing to keep OCCAR centred on a manageable nucleus of countries able to secure decisive action based on commercial imperatives. including requiring member countries to abandon juste retour as a pre-requisite for jointing OCCAR (paragraph 17).
|
Accepted; except suggestion that within a non juste-retour framework, other countries could still be added.
|
|
|
|
That the UK continues to give close attention to bilateral collaborations with the US, especially where the US offer the technologies essential to our future operational capability. Collaborations should be driven by operational requirements, not by any desire to aid industrial restructuring (paragraph 18).
|
Accepted. Committed to collaborations with partners best suited to technical solutions required.
VFM is key criteria for entering collaborations
|
|
|
MoD Response cites TRACER as example of continuing US collaboration. TRACER is one of projects in the Committee's projected annual Major Procurement project monitoring inquiry.
|
That Parliament ought to be more closely involved in assessing the merits of proceeding with major collaborative projects at the initial conceptual and successive key stages in their progress. (paragraph 19).
|
Rejects any formal approval system for Committees. Rather, MoD will provide information on projects to Committees "as necessary".
|
Committee took informal evidence from ASTOR contract bidders on 1 March 1999
|
|
|
That access to strategically important technologies and manufacturing capabilities, is secured by ensuring mutual inter-dependence. (paragraph 22).
|
Agreed. Security of supply remains a key MoD focus, as part of wider VFM assessment.
|
Evidence on ammunition propellant contract taken from Minister for Defence Procurement on 24 February 1999
|
|
Report from Committee on Strategic Supply Security due Spring 1999
|
That the UK continue to give careful attention to bilateral collaborations with the US. (paragraph 25).
|
Committed to collaborations with partners best suited to technical solutions required.
VFM is key criteria for entering collaborations
|
|
|
MoD Response cites TRACER as example of continuing US collaboration. TRACER is one of the projects in Committee's annual Major Procurement inquiry.
|
That the UK defence industry, and the UK taxpayer, should be expected to meet the costs of restructuring companies in other European states. (paragraph 29).
|
Agreed |
|
|
|
That the imbalance between the industries of the US and Europe requires urgent attention (paragraph 32).
|
Agreed. 'Tri-lateral statement' is meant to increase the tempo of measures to improve the situation.
|
|
|
|
Govt to be wary of extending six-country initiation to more states (paragraph 41)
|
Extension of initiative "unlikely in near future".
|
|
|
|
That, in Europe, the need to restructure is most pressing in the aerospace and defence electronics sectors (paragraph 42).
|
Agreed. But restructuring in other sectors also "crucial".
|
|
|
Meeting with DASA and Rheinmettal on visit to Bonn, 3 March 1999
|
That the UK and other governments insist on cast-iron commitments that France will not exercise its ownership rights in any new industrial structures (paragraph 48).
|
Not accepted. It is for industry to decide whether moves in France are sufficient.
|
|
|
Discussed with Defence Committee of Assemblee Nationale on visit to Paris, 19 January 1999
|
That reform or repeal of Article 223 of the Treaty of Rome would still provide a useful means of opening up the defence market in Europe (paragraph 50).
|
Committed to promoting liberalisation of market, which may include more consistent application of Article 223.
|
|
|
|
That the UK Government must use its influence in Europe to avoid any undue European-preference policy emerging in WEU and other Europe procurement organisations (paragraph 55).
|
Govt does not support creation of a 'Fortress Europe', and has opposed Euro-preference which is incompatible with competitiveness
|
|
|
|
The extra effort being made to clear the backlog on licence applications. should not be reduced until the standard times are routinely being met (paragraph 59).
|
"Every effort" being made to clear backlog, including additional DTI staff involved in screening applications
|
See 2nd Report from Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998-99, HC 65, paras 61-65.
|
|
Committee has proposed joint inquiry with Foreign Affairs Committee, International Development Committee and Trade and Industry Committee on Government's annual report on strategic export controls.
|
That the early inclusion of the three new NATO Members in the NATO and WEU procurement organisations would point the way ahead for cooperation in procurement with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and that this should be followed by the inclusion of Partnership for Peace allies (paragraph 66).
|
Accepted, in that MoD ready to see various collaborative bodies (incl. NATO) opened to new member states.
|
|
|
Defence industry cooperation MoU with Slovenia, signed 12.10.98 (MoD press notice 250/98)
|
Eighth Report: Strategic Defence Review, HC 138, published on 10 September 198
Government Response: Sixth Special Report, HC 1198, published on 3 December 1998
|
That the status of the Supporting Essays to the SDR be clarified (para 55)
|
See HC 1198, Annex para 3
|
|
|
|
That the government initiates a study of the resources spent on security across central government and publish its results (para 69)
|
Rejected (HC 1198, para 4)
|
|
|
|
That the government publish annually a statement of its security policy and priorities and the contributions made to advancing those by MoD, HMT, FCO, DTI, DfID, the Home Office and Intelligence Services (para 70)
|
Rejected (HC 1198, para 4)
|
|
|
|
That the government consider creating an advisory group on security policy (para 71)
|
To be considered (HC 1198, para 4)
|
|
|
|
That the MoD defines its 'transformation strategy' (para 81)
|
Accepted in part (HC 1198, paras 6-9)
|
|
|
|
That the government keep the Committee informed of methods of assessing the effectiveness and cost of defence diplomacy (para 149)
|
No response |
To be followed up in annual expenditure inquiry.
|
|
|
That the government clarifies the UK's strategic and sub-strategic nuclear policy (para 152)
|
Accepted (HC 1198, para 28)
|
|
Still awaited
|
|
To monitor whether readiness targets are manageable for individual service personnel and formations, and coherent across the 3 Services (para187)
|
N/A |
See evidence of 10 February 1999, HC (1998-99) 241-i
|
|
|
To monitor progress in tackling problems of defence medical services, and to examine work of the Defence Secondary Care Agency in detail (para 201)
|
N/A |
Committee to undertake an inquiry into Defence Medical Services in Session 1998-99.
|
|
|
That training for operations other-than-war is taken seriously (para 204)
|
See HC 1198, paras 36 and 37
|
|
|
|
That ballistic missile defence R&D, etc is adequately funded (para 207)
|
Noted (HC 1198 para 38)
|
|
|
|
That more detail is provided on NBC protection for deployed forces, as such threats proliferate (para 208)
|
No response |
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring
|
Expansion of TA Role announced in November 1999
|
|
That future SDEs clearly identify costs of stationing forces in Germany (para 214)
|
No response |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
To monitor progress with, and added-value from, new joint initiatives—Jt Helicopter Cmd, Jt Force 2000, Jt Doctrine Centre, CJO, CDL (para 224)
|
N/A |
|
|
|
That MoD examine the scope for, and progress with, improving capabilities of existing aircraft carriers (paras 234 and 235)
|
See HC 1198 paras 49 and 50
|
|
|
|
To monitor new carriers' progress (incl. air groups) (para 236)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual Major Procurement Projects inquiry.
|
|
|
To monitor impact of reduced submarine and frigate/destroyer flotillas (para 237)
|
N/A |
|
|
|
That future SDEs have a clear statistical analysis of actual training times and operational deployments under Army's new 'readiness cycle' structure, identify causes of significant deviations and shortfalls, and set out proposals to remedy them (para 241)
|
No response |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
That MoD set milestones for route to completion of Force Structure package and publish monitoring analyses of progress against these (para 257)
|
No response |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
That decisions about restructuring of TA will be announced by statements in the House (para 260)
|
Accepted (HC 1198) para 64
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
See statement of by Secretary of State of 17 November 1998
|
|
That proposed cuts in the TA be reconsidered (para 268)
|
Rejected |
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
Increase in establishment from 40,000 to 41,200 announced
|
|
That NBC unit within Royal Yeomanry be retained (para 269)
|
No response |
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70, paras 14-16
|
Increase in Yeomanry's NBC unit from one to two squadrons announced in statement of 17.11.98 and confirmed in A Territorial Army for the Future.
|
|
That compulsory call-out for reservists be confined for the TA to formed units and sub-units (para 271)
|
No response |
|
|
|
That volunteer units, rather than Sponsored Reserves, be trained to reinforce medical support services (para 273)
|
Noted, see HC 1198, paras 66-67
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
|
Inquiry into Defence Medical Services to be undertaken in Session 1998-99
|
That Officer Training Corps and Specialist Reserves are removed from TA establishment (para 277)
|
No response |
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
See A Territorial Army for the Future.
|
|
That MoD establish the costs and benefits of assigning different roles to the Reserves (para 280)
|
Rejected, but introduction of RAB may help (HC 1198, para 73)
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
|
|
That TAVRAs are included in decisions about their own future structure (para 286)
|
Accepted (HC 1198 para 77)
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
|
|
That TAVRAs are involved in decisions about estate disposals (para 287)
|
Accepted (HC 1198 para 77)
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
|
|
That direct funding of TAVRA budgets is restored (para 289)
|
Rejected (HC 1198 para 78)
|
See First Report, Session 1998-99, Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 70
|
|
|
That MoD make transparent all options considered for future acquisition of airlift fleet (para 298)
|
Noted for further action (HC 1198, paras 79ff)
|
|
|
|
That MoD regularly test the availability of 'long-tether' ro-ro ships (para 299)
|
No response |
|
|
|
To monitor how Ro-Ros and additional airlift and acquired; and use of PPP for equipment more generally. (Para 301)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
To monitor whether Chief of Defence Logistics organisation is cost-effective (para 302)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
To monitor impact on equipment programmes of Abbey Wood (Procurement Executive) rationalisations (para 341)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry.
|
|
|
To examine the basis of decision to have PPP in DERA (para 344)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's inquiry into Defence Research Expenditure in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
That future SDEs include statement of 'smart procurement' savings (para 350)
|
Noted (HC 1198 para 90)
|
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
That a standardised method of measuring overstretch in all three services is introduced (para 359)
|
Being examined (HC 1198, para 97)
|
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To monitor progress against Army manpower shortages (para 361)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
That proposals for a new pay structure are tailored to fit the special needs of the Armed Forces (para 366)
|
No response |
|
|
|
That there is careful evaluation made of education and training (para 368)
|
See HC 1198, paras 98-101
|
|
|
|
That future SDEs report planned v. actual improvements to single living accommodation (para 369)
|
No response |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
That Veterans' Cell is granted sufficient independence to act as an impartial advice centre (paras 371/372)
|
Noted (HC 1198, para 102)
|
|
|
|
To monitor ethnic minorities and women numbers (para 374)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To monitor progress with qualitative and quantitative measures of the effectiveness of recruitment/retention programmes, and the results (para 377)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
That government confirms that baseline for budget in year 2002-03 will not be affected by asset sales receipts in 2001-02 (para 389)
|
No response |
|
|
|
To monitor progress with asset sales against £700m/£250m budget estimates (para 391)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To monitor progress against 3% efficiency targets and whether 'genuine efficiency' claimed. (Para 392)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To monitor introduction of RAB (paras 402)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's inquiry into Defence Research Expenditure in Session 1998-99
|
|
|
To monitor whether use of private sector, including PPP, represents VFM (para 404)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To monitor the quality of financial information given to Parliament and the extent to which the defence budget is sufficient to implement the SDR undertakings (para 405)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's annual reporting cycle inquiry
|
|
|
To press for better quality financial information and to assess sustainability of defence budget (para 405)
|
N/A |
To be followed up in Committee's inquiry in provision of defence-related information to Parliament in Session 1998-99.
|
|
|
