Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-88)
MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE & DEFENCE
ESTATES
MONDAY 14 MAY
2007
Q80 Mr Williams: How long have those
provisions been in place?
Sir Ian Andrews: The dates are
in the Report.
Mr Williams: I have not read every bit
of it.
Sir Ian Andrews: We announced
the initial programme of regional prime contracts back in 2001,
and we rolled out the fifth on target in 2005. We did the same
with our water and waste water contractors, and they are quite
properly even more focused on such issues than we were under the
previous management arrangements, which from my perspective were
frankly wholly inadequate. I have much greater confidence in the
arrangements that we have in place now, even with the number of
staff that we have. We have identified the needs that are to be
met and, as Admiral Laurence was saying, we are driving that as
hard as we possibly can. I dispute your statement that it is something
to which we do not attach priority, particularly as far as health
and safety are concerned.
Q81 Mr Williams: So does that mean
that the information that we are working on here will soon be
outdated, but that with only 900 upgrades a year, it will take
more than 20 years to upgrade? Are we going to see an improvement
in that?
Sir Ian Andrews: Sorry, but I
do not think that that is related to the issue of numbers of safety
staff.
Q82 Mr Alan Williams: You are being
specific about the safety side? Okay.
I shall switch back then for one moment, because
a note has just been passed to me. I referred to the July 2007
date for the delivery of guidance, and although I missed this
point, I am told that you, Mr Jeffrey, did not recognise the date.
The note points out that the date is at the end of paragraph 2.23
on page 26, which says, "The Department intends to produce
detailed guidance on responsibilities by July 2007." Earlier
in the paragraph, the Report says that the expected date on which
the site people will have their work prepared is April 2007.
Bill Jeffrey: I do apologise,
Mr Williams; I had overlooked that. The fact remains, though,
that the plan is to introduce the estate management plans themselves
by September this year.
Mr Alan Williams: Thank you very much.
Chairman: Mr Mitchell has a supplementary.
Q83 Mr Mitchell: When the contract
was let to Modern Housing Solutions, you had to cough up an additional
£20 million, and one of the reasons why was a greater than
anticipated backlog of work from previous contracts. Does that
not indicate that the Department is not supervising its contractors
adequately, if it does not know about the backlog of work?
Bill Jeffrey: It certainly indicates
that before the housing plan contract was entered into, the system
was much more dispersed. There had been more than 50 individual
contracts, and the fact is that the contractor to whom we awarded
the overall contract inherited more outstanding problems from
the predecessor contractors than they or we expected. They started—it
is fair to say—with less than effective information management
themselves, but it is something that, as the Report brings out,
we have turned around substantially in the past nine months.
Q84 Mr Mitchell: So, essentially,
it was a problem of dispersal rather than inadequate supervision.
Bill Jeffrey: You could argue
that it makes the case for the approach that we have taken, having
a single contract for the whole housing estate in England and
Wales, because there is better information underpinning it. We
now have a better sense with our contractor of the demand levels.
To take some figures that appear in the Report, the help desk,
which was a problem with the contractor, now responds to almost
all calls within 30 seconds, there are better call-out times,
and the customer satisfaction ratings from those at the other
end of the service is 94% or better. We were not in that position
nine months ago.
Q85 Mr Mitchell: I saw that and did
not comment, because it does not provide an open nerve to jump
on.
I have one final question. You do not know the
total value of the estate. Is that because you do not know what
is going on, or because you would rather that the total value
were kept quiet? If it is known publicly, the Government will
want to start to getting rid of some of it.
Bill Jeffrey: The total value
of the estate.
Mr Mitchell: Yes.
Bill Jeffrey: We can estimate
it, and indeed, an estimate appears in the Report. As was brought
out in our earlier exchanges, there is a difference between book
value and potential market value.
Mr Mitchell: Okay. Ta.
Q86 Chairman: If you look at paragraph
2.31 on page 28, you will see that there is a scheme to reduce
energy usage at RAF Kinloss. It resulted in annual savings of
£340,000, which is very impressive, but why has it not been
replicated in other parts of the defence estate?
Bill Jeffrey: The short point
is that something like that saving is being replicated, but I
look to Ian Andrews, who leads on sustainability and energy issues
for us.
Sir Ian Andrews: The Kinloss project
was a pilot project with the Carbon Trust, with which we entered
into a strategic relationship three years ago. Since the Kinloss
example, which the Report identified, we have increased the total
number of projects across the estate to 10, identifying some £2
million of potential savings for an up-front investment of about
£2.3 million—much of that in-year. We are now rolling
out a similar process across another 15 sites, and we intend to
complete the process for all the high-energy-using sites in due
course. It is a very good example of precisely the sort of thing
that we can do by involving people who understand the relationship
between energy generation and what is discharged into the atmosphere.
By coming in to look at that, professional people can help us
deliver a more sustainable estate over time.
Bill Jeffrey: The other point
is that, right across the Department, we now have 15% energy efficiency
targets built into our budgets, so there is an incentive for people
to do exactly this sort of thing.
Q87 Chairman: Lastly, Vice Admiral,
Mr Dunne earlier asked about rats in barracks. I do not know whether
there are still rats in Royal Navy ships. Are there? That may
be a rather facetious question. Presumably, during the 30 years
that you have been in the Navy, accommodation on board ships has
transformed, but what do ratings say to you when they talk about
how accommodation on board a ship compares with the accommodation
ashore?
Vice Admiral Tim Laurence: It
is right that accommodation in modern ships is significantly superior
to how it was when I joined the Navy 34 years ago. But what is
interesting is that the accommodation that we are building ashore
in Portsmouth—I was there last week at the opening of a
new block—and in Faslane, for example, is now hugely superior
to what we had 20 or 30 years ago. Standards across the piece
are increasing. Of course, when they are at sea, sailors accept
that life there is uncomfortable. You have to accept that, so
they put up with it, to be honest.
Q88 Chairman: But they do not moan
to your face about the accommodation ashore. Or do they?
Vice Admiral Tim Laurence: Sailors
will always moan, given half an opportunity.
Chairman: Yes, that is my experience.
Vice Admiral Tim Laurence: When
they are living in substandard and old accommodation, we certainly
hear about it.
Chairman: It has been a very interesting
hearing, gentlemen. Thank you very much for your attendance. We
are very grateful.
| 
