Managing The Defence Budget And Estate

The Ministry of Defence (the Department) is responsible for over £42 billion of annual expenditure. It has failed to exercise the robust financial management necessary to control its resources effectively in the long term, and there is a shortfall in planned expenditure against likely funding of up to £36 billion over the next ten years. The Department's consistent pattern of planned overspend demonstrates serious organisational failings and a dangerous culture of optimism. There are systemic failings: a tendency towards financial over-commitment, weaknesses in the financial planning processes and a division in responsibilities and accountability for financial stewardship. The Accounting Officer has not discharged his responsibility to ensure that expenditure represents value for money, and there is no explicit financial strategy linking funding to priorities. When financial savings have to be found there is then no clear basis for determining where cuts should be made. The appointment of a professionally qualified Finance Director is welcomed. The defence estate is valued at over £20 billion, and costs an estimated £2.9 billion per year to run. The built estate in the UK has been reduced by 4.3% between 1998 and 2008, achieving £3.4 billion in sale receipts. But more of the estate should have been released. The Department does not assess its estate against clear objective criteria. The Department does not collect centrally the information and data that would allow it to manage its estate in an effective way. It appears to lack urgency in its plans to improve its information base.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has an extensive and complex estate of some 24,000 hectares, and after the Forestry Commission, is the second largest landowner in the UK. The estate is valued at over £18 billion and costs some £3.3 billion to operate. The estate is seen as essential to the delivery of military capability and the welfare and morale of Service personnel. This report, from the Committee of Public Accounts, has taken evidence from the MoD on the standard of living accommodation, the Department's ability to prioritise estate projects effectively, and its response to staff shortages. It follows on from an NAO report (HCP 154, session 2006-7), Managing the Defence Estate: Quality and Sustainability (ISBN 9780102944679). It sets out 9 recommendations, including: more than half of single living accommodation and over 40% of family accommodation does not meet the Department's definition of high-quality accommodation and is therefore substandard; that poor accommodation has a negative impact on retention rates; there is no information on when poor accommodation is to be upgraded, with some military personnel and their families having to continue to live in substandard housing for the next 20 years; there are gaps in the Department's understanding of estate costs; the Department employs only 56% of safety works staff and 57% of quantity surveyors that it needs; that implementing energy saving measures at its' defence sites would bring environmental benefits and savings of more than £2 million annually.

The Ministry of Defence has a worldwide estate valued at some £18 billion and is the second largest landowner in the UK. The total annual operating cost of the estate was estimated at £3.3 million in 2005-06. This report, following on from an earlier report in 2005 (ISBN 9780102932768), looks at the changes introduced to reverse the deterioration in the quality of the estate and also the programme of estate rationalisation. It is in two parts, the first is entitled 'delivering an estate of the right quality' and the second 'managing, measuring and planning'. The conclusion is that new arrangements have improved the delivery of estate services, however it is still too early to say that this will result in a better quality estate. For this to happen there needs to be continued commitment, supplier innovation and client leadership, with sufficient stability of funding.

The Department has addressed the £38 billion funding gap that emerged prior to 2010 between the funding it expected and the forecast cost of Defence over the following ten years. It has also cut its costs to live within a reduced budget. However, this has been achieved not just by delivering financial savings, but also by deferring some costs into future years, at the risk that these costs could increase because of the delay. The stability of the Department's financial position depends on the accuracy of a large number of assumptions it has to make, many of which have proved over-optimistic in the past, and its ability to: control its costs, achieve the significant savings anticipated in the equipment and infrastructure budgets, and manage the cost of the Department's portfolio of nuclear-related programmes.

The reports published as HC 470 (ISBN 9780215555106); HC 440 (9780215555144); HC 471 (9780215555205); HC 439 (9780215555243); HC 538 (9780215555434); HC 424 (9780215555496); HC 553 (9780215555502); HC 503 (9780215555571); HC 573 (9780215555595); HC 610 (9780215555656); HC 594 (9780215555717), session 2010-11

There has been little analysis of the constitutional framework for management of the UK economy, either in constitutional law or regulatory studies. This is in contrast to many other countries where the concept of an 'economic constitution' is well established, as it is in the law of the European Union. Given the extensive role of the state in attempting to resolve recent financial crises in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, it is particularly important to develop such an analysis. This book sets out different meanings of an economic constitution, and applies them to key areas of economic management, including taxation and public borrowing, the management of public spending, (including the Spending Review), monetary policy, financial services regulation, industrial policy (including state shareholdings) and government contracting. It analyses the key institutions involved such as the Treasury and the Bank of England, also including a number of less well-known bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is also coverage of the international context in which these institutions operate especially the European Union and the World Trade Organisation. It thus provides an account of the public law applying to economic management in the UK. This book also adopts a critical approach, assessing the degree to which there is coherence in the arrangements for economic management, the degree to which economic policy-making is constrained by constitutional norms, and the degree to which economic management is subject to deliberation and accountability through Parliament, the courts and other institutions.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is one of the largest landowners in the UK, with a total estate (including land and property) valued at around £18 billion. Defence Estates (an Agency of the MoD until April 2007 and now re-integrated as part of the MoD) has responsibility for managing the defence estate, with an annual budget of £1.15 billion. The Committee's report examines the work of Defence Estates, focusing on the standard of accommodation for Service personnel and their families. The report highlights concerns about sub-standard accommodation, particularly in relation to the operation of the regional prime contracts for single living accommodation and the maintenance of service families accommodation under the housing prime contract. It argues that the provision of good quality accommodation for Service personnel and their families, modern and efficient office accommodation, and a well-maintained training estate, play a vital role in contributing to the effectiveness of our Armed Forces, particularly important given the current high tempo of operations. Overall, the report finds that although Defence Estates is doing much good work, there are considerable challenges ahead. A substantial increase in investment in the defence estate is required and the MoD must resist the temptation to take from the estates budget when the defence budget is stretched.