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.

This report looks at the management by the Defence Estates Agency, of the land and property owned by the Ministry of Defence. The estate is worth some £15.3 billion, and costs £1.3 billion to run, with the MoD as one of the largest landowners in the UK with land covering some 240,000 hectares. The Estate itself consists of such facilities as barracks, depots, aircraft hangers and naval bases, as well as training grounds and ranges. Also the MoD has direct managerial responsibility for 200 sites of special scientific interest, along with responsibility for over 1600 listed buildings and monuments. The NAO recognizes the operational challenges of managing such a large utility, but commends the MoD for developing a strategy that saw contractual arrangements deliver higher quality and estate rationalization, along with improved customer satisfaction. There had been a deterioration in the estate due to shortfalls in spending, and the use of traditional methods in the procuring and managing of estate services. The selling off of surplus land has earned the MoD £1.2 billion, and five new regional contracts have been signed to improve the estate. Insufficient funding due to conflicting defence priorities may hamper long-term efficiencies, and that there is more to be done to consolidate recent cultural changes in the organization of contracts for running the estate, especially the move towards large centrally-managed contracts.

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.

A history of the military use of the landscape and the rise of military environmentalism through the twentieth century.

The Ministry of Defence, one of the largest landowners in the UK, has strengthened its estate planning and achieved significant receipts from disposal of property but the changes are not yet sufficient to drive value for money for the taxpayer rigorously. While the defence estate primarily exists to support defence capabilities, the Department has not matched its focus on operational needs with enough attention to efficient use of its estate assets and to reducing costs. This report acknowledges that, between 1998 and 2008, the MOD identified and took opportunities to rationalise that part of its UK estate not needed for training, generating £3.4 billion from the sale of surplus property. Nevertheless, over the same period the Department reduced the number of civilian and military personnel three times faster than it reduced its built estate. This raises a clear question about whether there are opportunities to reduce the estate further and secure cost savings and further disposal receipts. The NAO also concludes that the Department's process for categorising sites is rightly driven by operational requirements but it does not give sufficient weight to other factors such as how heavily a site is used, running costs, or potential income from sale. The MOD also lacks sufficient data centrally to conduct the necessary analysis to help it reduce costs in a structured way. This report identified five categories of information needed to identify the scope for further estate rationalisation: operational importance; utilisation; condition; potential value; and running costs.

This report sets out the work of the Committee during 2007. The report highlights aspects of the Committee's working practices which depart from previous practice or which may otherwise be of interest. In particular it draws attention to the webforum held during its inquiry into Medical Care for the Armed Forces; its taking of evidence outside Westminster, in Birmingham and Edinburgh; and the growing amount of informal activities of the Committee. It also underlines the importance of visits to the Armed Forces on operational deployments. Whilst the MoD was commended for overall timeliness in responding to the Committee's inquiries, in one inquiry: 'UK Defence: commitments and resources'; there was a delay which hindered the progress of the Committee

This report is the result of an extensive study that was undertaken to review the existing policy context of Ministry of Defence (MOD) disposals in England, and to advise Government on how it should seek to obtain value for money whilst having regard to the wider interest of Government. The research process involved five main areas of work - a literature search, a review of all relevant policy guidance, interviews and written consultations, seminars for property professionals and nine detailed case studies.

Recruiting & retaining the right number of well-trained personnel is vital for the continuing success of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces. Yet recruitment and retention targets are not being met. There is particular concern about shortages in 'pinchpoint' trades - trades or areas of expertise where there is not enough trained strength to perform operational tasks without encroaching on the time provided between deployments for recuperation, training and leave. This report sets out to examine the factors which hamper recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and reservists & identify what the MoD is doing to improve these. There is also concern and exmination of the issue of why ethnic minority personnel form such a low proportion of the Armed Forces.

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.

This title works its way through the spectrum of dispute resolution techniques, negotiation, mediation and conciliation, expert determination, adjudication, arbitration, litigation and more.