Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government who is held accountable if money
is wasted in the Ministry of Defence procurement programme; and
what subsequent action is taken.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving Army reservist. The
department does not waste money in delivering its procurement
programme. All programmes have a senior responsible owner,
accountable to Parliament. As accounting officer, the Permanent
Secretary has responsibility for ensuring that the department’s
activities represent value for money through a system of internal
governance, approvals and delegations. Delivery agents also have
processes for assurance of their programmes. The department
drives a culture in which SROs and programme teams are confident
in raising concerns at any stage.
(Con)
My Lords, it is not my intention to make officials, serving
officers or Ministers totally risk-averse or overcautious, or to
destroy their reputations. However, as we know, somebody needs to
be accountable, and I am glad to hear what my noble friend said.
But let us home in on Ajax, which was ordered in 2010, under the
last Labour Government. The first vehicles were expected in 2017,
but they will now not be fully in service until 2029, and the NAO
found that the MoD approach was “flawed from the start”. This is
a long-standing problem across procurement. When will the Sheldon
review into this be published, so that we can see how the
mistakes were made? How many soldiers have been compensated for
either hearing loss or vibration injuries from sitting in Ajax,
and at what cost? How is the Ajax programme being rectified? Let
us see who is accountable and who falls on their sword for
this.
(Con)
My Lords, the problems the Ajax programme has faced have long
been acknowledged, but it is turning a corner and progressing
towards the delivery of this new generation of armoured fighting
vehicles for the British Army. The Statement to the House on 20
March set out the progress and outlined a new realistic schedule
to bring this next generation of armoured fighting vehicle into
service. Ajax remains at the heart of the Army’s plans for a
modernised fleet of armoured vehicles. It is part of around £41
billion of investment that His Majesty’s Government are making
into Army equipment and support over the next 10 years, to ensure
that this nation can address threats of the future, not the
past.
My noble friend asked a number of questions, so I will comment on
Clive Sheldon KC’s review. Defence Ministers commissioned this
independent review to identify lessons and make recommendations
to help the MoD deliver major programmes more effectively in the
future. The draft report is currently under the process of
Maxwellisation and will be published as soon as possible.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in its Ministry of Defence: Departmental Overview
2021-22, the National Audit Office noted that, of major
programmes, nine were rated red, 33 were amber and just three
were green. Being rated red suggests that successful delivery is
“unachievable”. Does the Minister think this is acceptable? Can
he explain what is being done to rectify the situation?
(Con)
My Lords, my interpretation of what red means differs somewhat.
Defence proudly delivers some of the largest programmes across
government. These processes are complex, and the delivery
confidence assessments are an important tool to provide challenge
and support for successful delivery. A project being rated red or
amber does not necessarily mean that it will not be delivered on
time or budget; it means that we have identified risks that need
managing. We see this as effective programme management. The MoD
will continue to introduce changes to improve our management of
major projects.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I was the Defence Procurement
Minister from 1986 to 1989. My worst moment was having to explain
to my then right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we
were about to cancel the AEW Nimrod—she was not amused. On the
other side of the scale, we ordered the Challenger 2 tanks, which
are now playing an important part in Ukraine.
(Con)
I am pleased to say that Challenger 3, the main battle tank to
replace Challenger 2, is proceeding according to plan.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that his initial response was
somewhat flimsy, to say the least? Has he never read the Alan
Clark Diaries? Mr Clark, who was an expert in procurement of one
kind or another—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Lab)
He wrote in his diaries that the procurement system in the
Ministry of Defence was a complete shambles. Have we learned no
lessons after 40 years? Have things improved since then? From the
initial Question from the noble Lord opposite, it appears they
have not.
(Con)
The MoD reviews all its major projects and programmes regularly,
providing both challenge and support to enable successful
delivery. We aim to foster an environment of psychological
safety, where SROs and programme teams are confident in raising
issues at an early stage, so that they can be addressed in good
time in the interests of successful delivery.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree with me that the AUKUS programme will
place a considerable strain on the delivery times of the existing
submarine programme? Does he also agree that the most rigorous
accountability and management will be required to deliver this
very welcome but onerous programme?
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend on both points. On his second
question, rigorous accountability and management will of course
be critical to such a large-scale project. However, I see the
AUKUS announcement as very good news, both in strengthening our
ties with allies and partners and for the domestic defence
industry in the United Kingdom.
(CB)
My Lords, the MoD is always an easy target for this sort of
Question, so I will offer some balance. Some waste is undoubtedly
both culpable and measurable; some waste is also defensible in
the context of bringing into service small numbers of highly
complex weapons systems. But how much waste derives from the
inability of successive Governments to provide a long-term,
stable settlement for defence, against which an affordable
programme can be planned?
(Con)
The noble and gallant Lord speaks from great experience in this
subject. As the House will be aware, in response to the
integrated review refresh there will be a £5 billion uplift over
the next two years, of which £1.95 billion will be directed to
help replenish stockpiles and to invest in wider resilience, and
£3 billion is committed to modernise the UK’s nuclear enterprise
for the next phase of the AUKUS programme.
(Lab)
My Lords, the chair of the Defence Sub-Committee set up to look
into defence procurement, , a Conservative MP, said:
“The Defence Committee has repeatedly questioned the Ministry of
Defence’s woeful track record when it comes to procurement”.
What does the Minister say to his Conservative colleague?
(Con)
I will have to take that offline with my honourable friend.
(Con)
I offer some good news to your Lordships’ House. As noble Lords
will be aware, we recently donated some AS-90 artillery pieces to
Ukraine, and an announcement today from the Ministry of Defence
states that, less than three months later, we have signed a
memorandum of understanding with the Swedish Government for their
replacement, the Archer artillery pieces, which will be in
operational service by March 2024. That is less than 15 months
after we donated the pieces. This is a clear demonstration of how
we can learn lessons.
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The purchase of the Archers
from Sweden enables the UK to replace the AS-90s quickly, until
the long-term Mobile Fires Platform delivers later this decade as
part of the Future Soldier modernisation programme. Archer will
contribute to the close support capability as part of our
commitment to NATO. Recognising the need to sustain Ukraine’s
fighting and support capabilities, the UK and Sweden have also
agreed to collaborate on bringing together efforts for the repair
and maintenance of vehicles granted in kind to Ukraine.
