Public Accounts Committee
Article for Whitehall and Westminster World
The Public Accounts Committee’s remit to scrutinise the use of tax payers’ money, its non partisan nature, and the support of the National Audit Office with its statutory right of access to information makes the Public Accounts Committee the most effective committee in Parliament. Our work across all departments this year has saved the taxpayer an estimated £1.5 billion.
In relation to defence expenditure, our role is to reconcile the tax payer’s need for value for money with the constantly evolving needs of our armed forces. Our topics for investigation have ranged from initial training exercises in Oman (Saif Sareea), to the war in Iraq with our scrutiny of Operation TELIC. In addition we have, just this week, heard evidence from the MOD on the major procurement projects currently in operation.
A high proportion of our recommendations to the government across all departments are implemented. In the context of defence spending this can be a life and death issue.
Last August we took evidence from the Ministry of Defence into their military exercises in Oman. It had been discovered, during the course of the exercise, that the new Challenger 2 tanks carried air filters which were ill-suited to the desert conditions and would have put troops at risk in combat conditions. By the time of the war in Iraq, this matter had been rectified, but Members were alarmed in their analysis of the war to find that the tanks lacked elements of defence against chemical and biological weapons.
Members of the Committee gain a detailed insight into procurement practices, not just in the realm of defence but throughout Whitehall. With the continuing evolution of some of the most complex projects in Government, the Ministry of Defence is charged with getting the best value for money whilst being as technically advanced as possible. It has to be acknowledged that this is a complex task.
However, too often the department has engendered slippages and substandard delivery of procurement contracts. Bad project management, lack of substantial risk transfer and the reduction, too early in the tendering process, of the number of competing contractors have often made the MOD vulnerable to criticism. Take the example of nuclear submarine facilities at Devonport, in 1999 the Committee highlighted the substantial waste of funds, yet after assurances from the MOD that the contract was in control there were further cost overruns of £314 million. Only this week we have taken evidence from the MOD on four major projects so-called ‘Legacy’ projects that have overrun to the tune of billions of pounds.
With the introduction in 1998 of the new principle of ‘Smart Acquisition’ the MOD has tried to reassure the Committee that our concerns are being met. It is true that new procedures in the assessment stage have gone some way to addressing problems arising from constant renegotiation of contracts. However, serious issues remain; we have yet to see these projects through their final stages and judging by the overruns experienced with the ‘Legacy’ projects it is in these crucial final stages that projected costs have had the tendency to soar.
Over the coming year we will, undoubtedly, face the challenge of further assessing defence spending in light of the hostilities in Iraq. I acknowledge that for many in the MOD our tough and persistent questioning can seem uncomfortable. However, I continue to believe that the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee remains an effective means of ensuring that our taxpayers receive both value for money and the tightest possible national security.
