Defence committee criticises strategic review timescale

14 Sep 10
MPs have criticised the ‘startling’ speed of the strategic defence and security review, which they said risked major errors in pruning the Ministry of Defence’s budget
By Mark Smulian

15 September 2010

MPs have criticised the ‘startling’ speed of the strategic defence and security review, which they said risked major errors in pruning the Ministry of Defence’s budget.

The Commons defence committee’s report on the review, released today, says: ‘The rapidity with which [it] is being undertaken is quite startling.’ It warns: ‘We conclude that mistakes will be made and some of them may be serious.’

The MPs complained that the MoD had been asked to produce costings for the review before fully exploring potential benefits from better procurement management.

This could lead to the MoD being given ‘only short-term priorities, misaligned resources, a barely reformed acquisition process and a structure short of manpower to deliver good performance and improperly configured for its tasks’, the report adds.

The review was launched in June by Defence Secretary Liam Fox. He called it ‘an opportunity for radical thinking’, adding: ‘All defence programmes will need to demonstrate their relevance and value for money’.

James Arbuthnot, the committee’s Conservative chair, said: ‘We welcome the secretary of state’s determination that this should be a real review rather than just a cost-cutting exercise.

‘We are not yet convinced that the combination of a budgetary straitjacket, the short timescale, and the apparent unwillingness by the ministry to think outside existing structures will deliver that end.’

Malcolm Chalmers, professorial fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said the committee’s criticisms of the speed of the review were ‘a little unfair given [the MoD] has to tell the Treasury where it will make cuts’.

He added: ‘The problem comes if the budget is overcommitted. I hope the government is not going to fudge hard choices on the assumption that efficiency savings will be there. That would be a lost opportunity.’

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top