SECOND REPORT
The Defence Committee has agreed to the following
Report:—
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ANNUAL REPORTING CYCLE
INTRODUCTION
1. The Defence Committee has traditionally examined
the annual Statement on the Defence Estimates and reported
to the House before the two day defence debate which customarily
took place as soon as the House returned from its summer recess.
In this new Parliament we anticipated continuing this tradition.
2. However there has not been a Statement on the
Defence Estimates since 1996. There was none in 1997, following
the general election of 1 May that year. The Strategic Defence
Review was immediately set in train, and its results were eventually
published in July 1998, so that there was no separate Statement
on the Defence Estimates in that year either. It was also
announced, following the review, that there was to be an annual
White Paper on defence, rather than the Statement on the Defence
Estimates, as part of a rethink of the way in which information
was distributed across the documents in the MoD's annual reporting
cycle. These consist of:
- a report (first introduced in February 1991)
published in the Spring, setting out the expenditure plans of
the Department for the next three financial years;
- a 'Performance Report' (first introduced in December
1995) reviewing achievements over the previous financial year,
published towards the end of the calendar year;
- the White Paper (previously the Statement
on the Defence Estimates) published around May;
- the annual Defence Statistics, which until
1992 formed volume two of the Statement on the Defence Estimates,
but which are now published separately, generally around May/June;
and
- the new annual report on the Department's investment
strategy for the next three years, which was published for the
first time last year.
It is obvious from this short account that the ways
in which defence-related information is presented to Parliament
have been evolving, and continue to evolve. However, so long as
the information presented is improving accountability, we would
not necessarily feel that the MoD should feel bound by traditional
forms as long as historic comparisons can continue to be made.
3. We were told in February 1999 by the former Secretary
of State (Lord Robertson) that the distribution of material across
the different publications in the cycle was being reviewed.[13]
The components of the MoD's intended annual reporting cycle for
1999-2000 are as follows—
- The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000-01 to
2001-02: Ministry of Defence (Spring 2000)
- The Defence White Paper 2000 (during 2000)
- Defence Statistics (Spring/Summer 2000)
- The Annual Report of Defence Activity 1999-2000
(July 2000)
- Ministry of Defence Performance Report 1999-2000
(Autumn 2000)
- Ministry of Defence Departmental Investment Strategy
2001-02 to 2003-04 (Autumn 2000).[14]
- The Appropriation Accounts 1999-2000 (Winter
2000-01)
4. Due to the delay in publishing the 1999 White
Paper, and our wish to report before the House holds its annual
two-day defence debate, we have had to produce this report under
considerable time pressure. We have not therefore examined every
aspect of the defence budget and the MoD's activity, but rather
sought to draw attention to what we consider to be key issues
of concern. For the rest, the evidence will have to speak for
itself. We are very grateful to our Specialist Advisers, Professor
Michael Clarke, Rear-Admiral Richard Cobbold, Professor Keith
Hartley, Professor David Kirkpatrick, Professor Colin McInnes,
Major-General Peter Sheppard and Air Marshal Sir John Walker who
have assisted us in this inquiry.
5. In this report, we first examine the overall structure
of the information presented to Parliament through the MoD's reporting
documents. We then turn to an examination of their contents, beginning
with the implications of events in the world security situation
they record since the Strategic Defence Review was published in
July 1998. We examine the MoD's successes and failures so far
in implementing the strategy and force structure, and other plans,
set out in the SDR. There are a number of issues conspicuously
absent from our report. We do not examine in any detail the implications
for defence policy and planning of the Kosovo campaign. This
is the subject of a separate inquiry we are conducting, upon which
we hope to report in the early summer. Nor do we consider in
detail the current state of development of the European Security
and Defence Identity. We are taking evidence on this from
the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 February 2000, and will
report on that separately. Finally, although we consider equipment
issues, particularly insofar as they affect questions of force
structure, strategy and budget, we do not examine major equipment
programmes in detail. These will be the subject of a separate
inquiry and report as part of our annual survey of major procurement
projects, upon which we hope to report in the Spring/early Summer.
13 Ev p 184 Back
14
HC Deb 11.11.99, c712w Back
|
