Proceeding contribution from Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on Defence Policy.
Defence Policy
I really must get on; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Thirdly, I want to say something about the structure of the Ministry of Defence. As a Minister, I worked with some of the finest officials, soldiers, sailors and airmen it is possible to imagine, and that has been one of the greatest—if not the greatest—privilege of my life. However, it is now 25 years since the Heseltine review of the head office of the Ministry of Defence. At the time, our armed forces were twice the size. Since then, however, we have—magically, somehow—increased the number of military officers and, especially, civil servants, at the three and four-star levels. How can anyone seriously justify the creation last year of the post of director general of strategy to serve in addition to the director general of policy, who did the job perfectly well when I was a Minister? How can anyone justify creating a commercial director general, a chief of defence materiel, a deputy chief of defence staff personnel and a director general of human resources? It is all a crazy, absurd, overblown bureaucracy. The top structure is increasingly bloated with senior officials, who themselves create bureaucracy and slow down decision making in a wholly unacceptable and dangerous manner, given that we require decisions to be made nimbly, sharply and promptly. Can one really imagine Lord Beaverbrook and Churchill allowing a procurement structure of the type that we have now? On the running of operations, as a result of the enlightened reforms of the last Conservative Government, we now, thank goodness, run operations jointly under the chief of joint operations. It is a good structure. How can we therefore continue to justify each of the three services having both a chief of staff and a commander-in-chief? Do we really need a First Sea Lord and a separate commander-in-chief for the Navy, with all their supporting staff, who come in big numbers? We also need to address the duplication of staff between the head office of the Ministry of Defence in London and the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood, which is the key nerve centre for the running of all operations. A great deal must be done to flatten that structure. The time is now right for a thorough root-and-branch review of the head office of the Ministry of Defence, following the thoroughly botched so-called "streamlining" mounted by the Government 18 months ago. We need to reduce the number of chiefs and not just cut the Indians. It is first-order business, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will address it in his review. On procurement, if the number of civil servants has grown out of control anywhere in the past 10 years, it is at Defence Equipment and Support. Some 28,000 staff work in that buying organisation, and that must be a world championship record, especially as it spends only £13 billion per annum. The upstream division of Shell procures £20 billion of equipment per annum with 1,000 staff. Furthermore, they deliver it on time and on cost, which is absolutely unknown—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 497 c503-4
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Armed forces Defence Deployment Casualties Defence equipment Iraq Helicopters Pakistan Military aircraft Military alliances Rehabilitation Terrorism Training Reserve forces Reform Afghanistan NATO al Qaeda Taliban ISAF
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:31:24 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584987
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584987
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584987