Ministry Of Defence Main Estimates 2011 12

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) must put into the public domain the full cost of military operations in Afghanistan. This report notes that although there are obvious standing expenses, the Afghan deployment brings with it additional costs in terms of training opportunities cancelled or deferred and equipment wear and tear that will eventually have to be met. The Committee is also disappointed by the Department's inability to provide the detailed information requested about expected write-offs such as Nimrod and the Type 22 Frigate. The MoD was not clear but the Committee deduce that some of the 2010-11 provision for depreciation and write-offs will be carried forward to 2011-12 or even later years. There is also concern that the voluntary redundancy programme has been over-subscribed and that applications (or even resignations) have been received from individuals who might have achieved high command and asks the MoD to show how it will ensure that the voluntary redundancy process does not impact on the future leadership capability and effectiveness of the Armed Services

The MoD sought, in the Estimate, a net increase in Capital and Resource Expenditure (Departmental Expenditure Limits-DELs) of £2,804 million which generated an additional cash requirement of £644 million. It also sought a reduction in Annually Managed Expenditure of some £1,063 million. The Committee welcomes the MoD's efforts to improve the management of assets and stock. They recognise that such exercises and the implementation of the Strategic Defence Security Review are likely to result in significant write-offs, but we would expect the MoD to have a greater understanding of the financial implications of these write-offs and, therefore, greater certainty of the non-cash costs by the time the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates for 2012-13 are prepared. They recommend that, if the way expenditure is classified is changed in future, the MoD should provide a comparison of expenditure on a like-for-like basis between years within its memorandum on the Supplementary Estimates and should also provide full details of the items and amounts affected and the reasons for the changes. In general, while the Committee has no argument with the content of the MoD's Supplementary Estimate, it is unreasonable to expect Committees and Parliament to scrutinise the Supplementary Estimates in less than three weeks. More time is needed to consider the Supplementary Estimate, the associated memorandum and the MoD's responses to questions on the Estimate.

The MoD is requesting net resources of some £39.8 billion and capital expenditure of some £10 billion for 2012-13. Within the total requested the MoD has asked from some £3.6 billion to cover the costs of operations, some 18 percent less than 1011-12. Resource expenditure is also planned to fall in line with the Spending Review 2010. The Committee recommends, along with other requests and general recommendations, that the Main Estimate for the MoD is approved by Parliament and have indentified no issues which require a debate before it does so

This book explores the process by which defence policy is made in contemporary Britain and the institutions, actors and conflicting interests which interact in its inception and continuous reformulation. Rather than dealing with the substance of defence policy, this study focuses upon the institutional actors involved in this process. This is a subject which has commanded far more interest from public, Parliament, government and the armed forces since the protracted, bloody and ultimately unsuccessful British military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The work begins with a discussion of two contextual factors shaping policy. The first relates to the impact of Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the United States over defence and intelligence matters, while the second considers the impact of Britain’s relatively disappointing economic performance upon the funding of British defence since 1945. It then goes on to explore the role and impact of all the key policy actors, from the Prime Minister, Cabinet and core executive, to the Ministry of Defence and its relations with the broader ‘Whitehall village’, and the Foreign Office and Treasury in particular. The work concludes by examining the increasing influence of external policy actors and forces, such as Parliament, the courts, political parties, pressure groups and public opinion. This book will be of much interest to students of British defence policy, security studies, and contemporary military history.

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

Technologies such as GPS, vital to the financial markets as well as the military, are known to be vulnerable to the effects of space weather or the EMP resultant from a nuclear weapon exploded at altitude. It is also possible to build non-nuclear devices which can disrupt electronic systems, though so far only over a limited area. A severe space weather event is not necessarily seen as a military problem in the first instance, but it would be likely to meet the definition of an "emergency" under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and call for the help of the Armed Forces. The reactive posture described by the Government appears somewhat complacent. The Committee is very concerned that there appears to be no one Government Department identified to take immediate lead responsibility should there be a severe space weather event. The Government must make clear exactly where lead responsibility in relation to EMP disturbances lies both nationally and within the MoD. Defence alone cannot protect against the threat of EMP. It must be a concern of the National Security Council and civil contingency planners, with proper standards of protection developed with the vital service industries most at risk. The effects of a High Altitude Electro-Magnetic Pulse Event as a result of a nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude, would be so serious that only government action could be expected to mitigate it. Security of satellites is a matter of growing concern as our reliance upon such systems and the sheer number of satellites in orbit increase.

The Defence Committee believes that the Government will need to make some difficult decisions on prioritisation if it embarks on a future mission similar to the Libya operation now that the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is taking effect. Although the UK was able to satisfy both operations in Libya and Afghanistan and its other standing tasks and commitments, the Libya operation was conducted before the implementation of many of the SDSR decisions on capability reductions. The Committee commends UK Armed Forces for their significant contribution to the successful conclusion of the Libya operation and comments on particular aspects and equipment used in the operation. It notes that at times the Royal Navy was unable to carry out several other important tasks owing to meeting the Libya commitment. Given the high levels of standing maritime commitments it is likely that this type of risk taking will occur more frequently as the outcomes of the SDSR are implemented. For the time being, there will continue to be a heavy reliance on US command and control functions for future NATO operations. The Committee also concerned that future NATO operations will not be possible if the US is not willing or able to provide capabilities such as unmanned aerial vehicles, intelligence and refuelling aircraft. It should be a priority for NATO to examine this over-reliance on US capabilities and assets. This challenge will be heightened by the US stated intention to shift its military, geographic and strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

This report notes mounting concern that UK Armed Forces may be falling below the minimum utility required to deliver the commitments that they are currently being tasked to carry out let alone the tasks they are likely to face between 2015 to 2020 when it is acknowledged that there will be capability gaps. The Committee is concerned that UK Armed Forces will be continually operating at the maximum level envisaged by the Defence Planning Assumptions. The Committee is not convinced that this aspiration can be achieved by co-operation with our allies given the challenges of aligning political with operational needs. The SDSR identified seven military tasks and the Defence Planning Assumptions that underpin them. However the Review fails to show how decisions such as those on the Aircraft Carriers and Nimrod MRA4 will lead to the Armed Forces being able to undertake those military tasks. The Committee has serious concerns over the realisation of what is called "Future Force 2020", the Government's intended shape of the Armed Forces from 2020, particularly as the provision of the necessary resources is only a Government aspiration, not Government policy. The MoD must reform, and ensure substantially improved transparency and control over, its finance and budgetary practices. When committing to undertake new operations the Government should state from the outset where that operation fits in the Defence Planning Assumptions and which of the military tasks it is meeting. The Committee is concerned that the Government seems to have postponed the sensible aspiration of bringing commitments and resources into line, in that it has taken on the new commitment of Libya while reducing the resources available to MoD.