9.2 The pros and cons of a more 'joint' approach has been a feature of the debate about the organisation of Defence for many years. It continues to divide opinion. The UK sits at the forefront of the delivery of joint and integrated operational outputs. Some have argued strongly that the UK should go further; others that there are few further opportunities. There is a limit to which an external steering group can make detailed recommendations on such a broad area of debate. We do believe that jointery should not be pursued for its own sake; it should be developed where it makes sense to do so. But we have heard strong arguments that there are a number of tensions in the joint arena that should be addressed. Our analysis indicates that:
• cross-cutting or enabling military capabilities (such as Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition and Reconnaissance, and Command and Information Systems), which act as the operational 'glue' between the Services, are not organised and managed as coherently or effectively as they could be;
• these key enablers are often split between the Services and are generally not seen as core to single Service outputs. Evidence suggests they continue to be under prioritised or that allocated funds are incoherently spent. The sum of the parts of the individual Services offers less operational capability than might otherwise be the case;
• a number of joint organisations, such as Defence Intelligence assets, sit uncomfortably within the Central TLB structure in the absence of a natural home; and,
• the current structure for joint capabilities does not allow potential operational synergies between them to be exploited easily.
9.3 There are around 80 organisations currently in existence that could variously be described as 'joint'. They differ significantly in nature and purpose. Some manage input functions (such as training schools) on a collective basis to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Others deliver an operational output (such as deployable units) on a collective basis. Many sit perfectly effectively in their current management and budgetary structure. Others are, in effect, orphaned, lack clear ownership (for example those currently lodged in the Central TLB) and, as a result, do not receive the priority that their importance to overall outputs would suggest.
9.4 We believe that there are currently too many individual joint organisations, and the Department should look to rationalise the number, brigading some organisations together to deliver improved efficiency and effectiveness. There are also some capabilities or functions currently undertaken in the single Services, which might better be conducted on a joint basis. We recommend therefore that the Department should systematically review joint or potentially joint capabilities and functions across the Services against the criteria set out in paragraph 9.10. This recommendation is set out in more detail in paragraph 9.8.