House of Commons - Defence

Select Committee on Defence Fifth Report

2 Core Tasks and Inquiries

3. This part of our report describes how we sought to cover each of the core tasks recommended by the Liaison Committee.[6] A table summarising this can be found at Annex 1.

Examination of Government and European Commission policy proposals

4. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 1 encourages us to scrutinise policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where we consider appropriate.

5. In December 2005 the Government published an important White Paper setting out its vision for the future of the UK's defence industry: the Defence Industrial Strategy.[7] We held an inquiry into the Defence Industrial Strategy, taking evidence from industry and expert commentators, as well as from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).[8]

6. The MoD's Defence Technology Strategy, published in October 2006, sets out the MoD's research and development priorities for providing future UK military capability.[9] We are considering this in our current inquiries into the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Defence Industrial Strategy update.[10]

7. In December 2006, the Government published a White Paper on the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent.[11] We announced that we would be conducting an inquiry into the White Paper, the third of a series of inquiries on the future of the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (see paragraph 11 below). This inquiry will examine the arguments put forward by the Government for the retention and renewal of Trident, the role of nuclear deterrence and the international legal implications of renewal. This will be the focus of our work in the early part of 2007.

8. We have continued our contribution to the 'Quadripartite' Committee on Strategic Export Controls, together with members of the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry and International Development Committees. The Quadripartite Committee carries out detailed scrutiny of the Government's controls on exports of equipment and technology with a military application. In August 2006 it produced a report on the Government's Strategic Export Controls Annual Report for 2004 and Quarterly Reports for 2005.[12] In 2006 for the first time the Committee took evidence from HM Revenue and Customs and the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office on the enforcement of exports control.

9. The Quadripartite Committee's 2006 Report pursued a range of issues, including the future of the arms embargo on China, its support for an international Arms Trade Treaty and the need to tighten controls on those trafficking and brokering arms. It concluded that with the loss of the "ITAR waiver" the Government's priorities should be to put in place arrangements which will allow the transfer of goods and technologies from the US, to ensure that the Joint Strike Fighter programme is not impeded and to assist those companies that would have benefited from the transfer of unclassified defence items, technology and services.

Examination of emerging and deficient policy

10. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 2 encourages us to scrutinise Government policy and to identify where a Committee inquiry would be worthwhile.

11. At our first meeting of the Parliament, we agreed that a key issue for us to examine would be the future of the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, on which the Government had said there would need to be a decision before the end of the Parliament. Rather than launching an all-encompassing inquiry on the merits of replacing the Deterrent, we decided it would be more productive to hold a series of focused inquiries leading to factual reports intended to encourage and inform the public debate. The first of this series was into the strategic context and the timetable for decision-making. The MoD declined to provide us evidence to this inquiry on the grounds that Ministers had themselves not yet considered the options for the future of the deterrent. Instead, we took evidence from a witnesses from academic institutions, think tanks, campaigning organisations and industry.[13] The MoD co-operated fully with the second in this series of inquiries, which focused on the manufacturing and skills base.[14]

12. Under this heading also falls our inquiry into Delivering Front-line Capability to the RAF, in which we examined the Government's plans to concentrate support and maintenance of RAF fast jets "forward" at RAF Main Operating Bases, and the implications of these plans for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and its facilities at St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan. Our inquiry into Educating Service Children examined the delivery of education to the children of Service personnel both in the UK and overseas.[15]

13. Our inquiries into military operations may also be said to fall into this category. We published a report on the UK deployment to Afghanistan in April 2006, and a report on UK operations in Iraq in August 2006.[16]

Examination of legislation

14. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 3 calls for Committees to conduct scrutiny on any published draft bill within our responsibilities.

15. The MoD has presented no draft legislation to Parliament since July 2005, but Session 2005-06 saw the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill—which our predecessors scrutinised in draft in 2004-05—introduced. This Bill sought to harmonise the separate systems of military law for the three Services into a unified and cohesive Tri-Service system. We published two reports on the Bill. The first, published in time for Second Reading, argued that the Government's proposals for an independent element in the complaints system was inadequate; and called on the Government to reinstate the requirement for Parliament annually to approve the renewal of Service law (which it did).[17] The second, published in time for Commons consideration of Lords Amendments, argued that the Government's proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner—introduced by amendment during the passage of the Bill—fell a long way short of the independent investigatory body recommended by our predecessor Committee in its 2005 report on the Duty of Care.[18]

Examination of specific output from the Department

16. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 4 calls for us to develop a framework for being informed of secondary legislation, circulars and guidance, treaties and previously identified casework decisions, so that they can be drawn to our attention where necessary.

17. The MoD has provided us with copies of all secondary legislation laid. While we have kept a watching brief on it, we have found nothing that has required further investigation. We have, however, indicated to the MoD that we will be taking a very close interest in the secondary legislation which will be brought forward under the Armed Forces Act 2006, particularly that implementing the proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner.

18. In general, we have found the MoD efficient and, for the most part, helpful, in providing documents which we have asked for, but perhaps less good at proactively providing information that is likely to be of interest to us.

Examination of Departmental expenditure

19. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 5 calls for Committees to develop a systematic framework for committee scrutiny of the Department's Main and Supplementary Estimates, its expenditure plans and its annual accounts.

20. We have succeeded this year, with the assistance of the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit, in establishing a framework for scrutiny of the Estimates, and have reported on the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005-06, the Main Estimates 2006-07, and the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2006-07, in each case before the House was asked to agree to the Estimates.[19] The Ministry of Defence's Supplementary Estimates are of particular interest since they reveal the costs of military operations, which have traditionally not been covered in the Main Estimates. Our report on the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005-06 was debated in the House.[20]

21. The time available between the laying of the Estimates and their agreement by the House is very tight, leaving little time for Committees to identify and report on matters of concern. The Liaison Committee may ask Committees to nominate subjects for debate on the approaching Estimates Day before they have had an opportunity properly to consider the Estimate. This tends to result in already existing reports, only indirectly linked to the Estimates, being chosen for debate. We recommend that the Liaison Committee reconsider its system for identifying reports for debate on Estimates Days. The House of Commons tends to forget that its power to grant, or to deny, the Government's requests for resources represents a formidable control over the Executive.

22. In addition to our scrutiny of the Estimates, we have held an annual inquiry on the MoD's Resource Accounts, as set out in its Departmental Report and Accounts. A key area we have focused on is losses, which totalled some £400 million in 2004-05: we have examined the lessons learned from individual cases and the MoD's approach to reducing losses.[21]

23. We have monitored the MoD's Expenditure Plans which are published each year, providing details of the Government's plans for defence expenditure for that and the following year. We are currently considering how we will examine the outcome of the 2007 Spending Review and its impact on defence capability.

24. Around 20% (£6 billion) of the MoD's budget is spent on the procurement of defence equipment. We have followed the practice of our predecessor Committee in holding an annual Defence Procurement inquiry. Our report on Defence Procurement 2006 examined progress on a number of major defence equipment programmes and some small equipment projects. We also examined the proposed changes to defence acquisition set out in the MoD's Enabling Acquisition Change Report.[22] We plan to follow this practice in future, but—in line with the MoD's new focus on through-life equipment costs—we intend to focus on defence equipment through-life, rather than on acquisition alone.

25. In addition, we have inquired into a number of individual procurement programmes: the Future Carrier and Joint Strike Aircraft[23]; and the Future Rapid Effect System (report due in February 2007)[24].

26. As part of our examination of expenditure, we have monitored the Departmental Minutes which the MoD has laid before the House of Commons in line with the requirement on Departments to inform the House when they propose to make a gift of a value exceeding £250,000. We sought additional evidence on two:

One relating to the gift of 475,182 Operational Ration Packs worth £3,114,845, to the United States of America following Hurricane Katrina (laid on 6 February 2006). These were not used for the intended purpose, because of US Department of Agriculture objections to European Union products.[25]
One relating to the gift of military equipment to the value of £500,000 to the Afghan Government (laid on 30 October 2006). The MoD's response told us the nature of the equipment supplied, but cannot be published owing to its "Secret" classification.

We identified some slackness in the MoD's reporting of these gifts and its observance of the rule by which Departments should not make the gift until fourteen days (exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays) after the issue of the Minute, except in cases of special urgency. We intend to scrutinise any future MoD Departmental Minutes in the same way.

Examination of Public Service Agreements and targets

27. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 6 calls on Committees to scrutinise Departments' Public Service Agreements and associated targets.

28. We have held annual inquiries on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts—the Department's report to Parliament on its performance in each financial year.[26] These inquiries have examined the MoD's performance against its Public Service Agreement targets. This has involved oral evidence from the Permanent Under-Secretary of State and the Finance Director.

29. Our inquiries on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts have also considered the targets set for the MoD's Agencies and their performance against those targets. Our report on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts 2005-06 called on the MoD to ensure greater consistency in the number of targets set for Agencies and the level of challenge which they present.[27]

Scrutiny of Agencies and other associated public bodies

30. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 7 encourages Committees to monitor the work of the Department's Executive Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other associated public bodies.

31. The MoD has 17 Defence Agencies, and five Trading Funds.[28] As noted above, we have looked at Agencies' performance across the board in our annual inquiries on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts. Our report on the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts 2005-06 noted that the MoD had implemented a programme to reduce the number of agencies and had plans to reduce its number further. We expressed concern that the programme might be a symptom of a wider centralist tendency in the MoD and lead to a loss of transparency.[29]

32. In addition, we agreed at the beginning of the Parliament to adopt a rolling programme of short inquiries scrutinising the work of individual MoD Agencies. We reported on the work of the Met Office in 2006 and are currently inquiring into the work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.[30]

33. We examined the performance of the Defence Procurement Agency in our report on Defence Procurement 2006, taking evidence from the DPA's Accounting Officer (the Chief of Defence Procurement) in October 2006. This report also considered the Government's plans to merge the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation.[31]

34. Our inquiry into Educating Service Children examined the performance of the Agency Service Children's Education, and also considered the role of the Duke of York's Military School (an MoD Agency) and the Queen Victoria School (which had Agency status until 31 March 2005).[32] Our report on Delivering Front Line Capability to the RAF considered closely the role of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency.[33]

35. The MoD also has a number of other associated public bodies.[34] We have not scrutinised the work of the MoD's Non-Departmental Public Bodies so far this Parliament: this is a matter which we will consider in future.

Scrutiny of major appointments

36. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 8 calls for scrutiny of all major appointments by the Department, envisaging that Departments would notify committees in advance of these appointments.

37. We have kept a watching brief on senior appointments made by the Ministry of Defence but have seen no reason to take action upon them. The MoD does not at present inform us of major appointments, and we recommend that in future it should do so.

38. We have taken evidence regularly from MoD Ministers. We held introductory evidence sessions with Dr John Reid MP, then Secretary of State for Defence, in November 2005, and with his successor, Mr Des Browne MP, in July 2006.[35]

39. We noted the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff, and of Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy as Chief of the Air Staff in April 2006, of Admiral Sir Jonathon Band as First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff in February 2006, and of General Sir Richard Dannatt as Chief of the General Staff in August 2006. We did not take evidence from any of the Service Chiefs in the period under review: we plan to do so in 2007.[36]

40. We noted the appointment of Mr Amyas Morse to the new post of MoD Commercial Director in June 2006, and questioned him on his role when he gave evidence on the Defence Industrial Strategy update inquiry in December 2006.[37]

41. In September 2006, the MoD announced that General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue would be the first Chief of Defence Materiel, the head of the new Defence Equipment and Support Organisation (DE&S), to be formed from the merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation in April 2007. We plan to monitor the progress of the merger and expect to take evidence from the Chief of Defence Materiel in 2007.

42. We have taken a close interest in the Ministry of Defence's proposals for a Service Complaints Commissioner. Our report on the Armed Forces Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner welcomed the proposal for a Commissioner set out in outline in amendments to the Armed Forces Bill but highlighted concerns that the Government's proposals did not go far enough in ensuring independence in the complaints process.[38] We will be monitoring the detailed arrangements, as they are brought forward in secondary legislation, and will be keen to ensure that an individual of sufficient stature is appointed to this important new post.

Examination of implementation of legislation and policy initiatives

43. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 9 encourages Committees to examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives, calling on us to develop a framework of progress reports from Departments.

44. We have followed this practice in respect of the Government's Defence Industrial Strategy, holding an update oral evidence session with the Minister for Defence Procurement in December 2006, to assess progress a year after publication of the Strategy.[39] We are also following this practice in respect of the implementation of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

45. It is our intention to follow up our predecessors' report on Future Capabilities in the year ahead, and we will continue to take close interest in the issues raised in our predecessors' report on Duty of Care.

Production of reports for debate

46. The Liaison Committee's Core Task 10 calls for Committees to produce reports which are suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall and debating Committees.

47. Our report on the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005-06 was debated on the Estimates Day on 20 March 2006, and our predecessors' Quadripartite report on Strategic Export Controls was debated in Westminster Hall on 16 March 2006. Our predecessors' report on Future Capabilities was tagged as relevant to the Defence Debate on 7 July 2005 and our report on the Armed Forces Bill was tagged as relevant to the debate on second reading of the Bill on 12 October 2005.

6 In June 2002, the Liaison Committee issued guidance to Select Committees, setting a number of objectives and core tasks, following the Resolution of the House of 14 May 2002 inviting the Liaison Committee to establish common objectives for Select Committees. See Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2002-03, Annual Report for 2002, HC 558, Appendix 3 Back

7 Ministry of Defence, Defence Industrial Strategy, Cm 6697, December 2005 Back

8 Defence Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, The Defence Industrial Strategy, HC 824 Back

9 Ministry of Defence, Defence Technology Strategy for the demands of the 21^st century, October 2006 Back

10 Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee, 28 November 2006, HC (2006-07) 84-i, and 19 December 2006, HC (2006-07) 177-i Back

11 Ministry of Defence / Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, Cm 6994, 4 December 2006 Back

12 Defence Committee, Twelfth Report (First Joint Report of the Quadripartite Committee) of Session 2005-06, Strategic Export Controls: Annual Report for 2004, Quarterly Reports for 2005, Licensing Policy and Parliamentary Scrutiny, HC 873 Back

13 Defence Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2005-06, The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Strategic Context, HC 986 Back

14 Defence Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Manufacturing and Skills Base, HC 59 Back