Letter from Bill Jeffrey CB, Permanent
Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence
You asked on Tuesday for a detailed explanation
of why the Department did not meet the timescales the Committee
set for answering its follow-up questions on the Ministry of Defence
Annual Report and Accounts. I would like once again to apologise
for the fact that we did not do so.
The Committee formally commissioned work from
the Department on 9 October (though we had some indication of
the likely questions a few days before) with a request for a response
by 31 October. This was subsequently extended until 5 November
recognising that the material sought by the Committee was substantial
and not in all cases straightforward. I was in the United States
on business from 29-31 October, returning on 1 November. The Department
submitted a draft memorandum on 31 October for my consideration.
Given the closeness of this to the Committee's deadline this was
copied to the Secretary of State's office in parallel. I received
a further version of the draft on 2 November, which reflected
comments from officials in the Secretary of State's office, although
the Secretary of State himself had not had the opportunity to
consider the text as he was in Iraq that week. I reviewed the
draft over the weekend of 3/4 November, when I raised a number
of detailed questions. In the light of responses to these, I cleared
the draft memorandum on 5 November and submitted it to the Secretary
of State's office on 6 November. The Secretary of State raised
a number of additional points on the draft text, which his office
communicated to the Department on 8 November and asked for further
advice. This advice was submitted on Friday 9 November and the
Secretary of State agreed that a provisional version of the memorandum
should be sent to the Committee's staff pending his clearance
of the final text. The final version (formally cleared by the
Secretary of State), together with the Department's 2007-08 1st
Quarter Public Service Agreement Report, was signed off and provided
to the Committee on Monday 12 November.
In preparing draft responses to the Committee
for consideration by me and the Secretary of State the Department
aims to submit far enough in advance of the Committee's deadlines
to allow us each to consider the material and ask for further
advice as necessary. In this case the position was complicated
by my and the Secretary of State's being overseas at the crucial
time. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have insisted on
receiving the draft material early enough for both the Secretary
of State and me to consider it before our departures, and for
any necessary follow-up work to be done while we were away. We
will, I assure you, learn from the experience, and do better in
future.
I mentioned during the second set of exchanges
on Tuesday that I had inadvertently given the Committee the wrong
information about when I myself dealt with the relevant papers.
The correct position is as I have described it above. On examining
the transcript, I find that my memory also failed me when I responded
to your question (Q6) about when it was plain to me that the assessment
of our performance against readiness targets would have to change.
Although the judgements in it were not settled until later, I
saw a draft of the PSA Performance Report for Quarter 1 in mid-September
which included the assessment that the readiness target was unlikely
to be met. I apologise for that, and will ensure that we offer
a correction as a footnote to the transcript of evidence.
I would be sorry if this episode, and the Committee's
understandable annoyance at our failure to observe its requirements,
had damaged the relationship between the Department and the Committee.
As I hope the Committee knows, it is a relationship to which I
personally (and indeed the Secretary of State) attach great importance.
Although we failed to do so on this occasion, our aim is to work
closely with the Committee and provide it with all the support
it needs to do its job.
15 November 2007
|
