4 Departmental Responses
74. The MoD is to be commended for responding to
all our reports, within or shortly after the agreed two month
deadline. It cannot be said that the Government has always responded
to our recommendations as positively as we would wish, but on
the whole the responses have been reasonable in quality. For
the future, we would hope that the Government's responses will
deal more fully with the whole argument contained in the report,
and not restrict themselves to the bold recommendations and conclusions;
and it would be pleasing if they could be more generous in acknowledging
where our inquiries have contributed to changes in Government
policy.
75. The MoD has taken action in response to a number
of recommendations in our reports. Examples include:
- In its response to our report
on the Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2004-05,
the MoD stated that:
Following the Committee's comments we are introducing
a number of changes to the way data [on Defence Agency performance]
is presented in the 2005-06 Annual Report and Accounts.
- In its response to our report
on the Costs of peace-keeping in Iraq and Afghanistan: Spring
Supplementary Estimate 2005-06, the MoD accepted our recommendation
that significantly more detailed information on the costs of operations
should be provided in the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts. More
information was provided in the Annual Report and Accounts 2005-06.
- In its response to our report, Educating Service
Children, the Government accepted our recommendation that a Service
children marker should be included in the DfES Pupil Level Annual
School Census (PLASC) exercise. The PLASC will include a Service
children marker from 2008.
76. We and our predecessor Committee have taken a
close interest in the issue of technology transfer on the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) programme. Technology transfer is required
from the US to allow the UK to operate and maintain the aircraft
independently. Assurances from the US that the required information
would be provided were obtained in December 2006. Lord Drayson,
Minister for Defence Procurement, acknowledged that our contribution
had made a real difference.[49]
77. One point of issue that we have with the MoD
is that our communication with the Department and its Agencies
is required to be through the Liaison Officer in Whitehall. We
believe that the flow of information between us and the Department
would benefit if our staff were permitted to liaise directly with
policy officials on particular inquiries and with those on the
ground over the arrangements for visits.
78. In general,
however, we believe that a constructive relationship has existed
between the Committee and the Department this Parliament, which
we hope will continue in the Sessions ahead. We will not hesitate
to criticise the Department when this is merited, but will also
give praise where it is due.
49 Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee,
19 December 2006, HC (2006-07) 177-I, Q 75 Back
|
