My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal
Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.
One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.
The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.
6.30 pm
As we have heard, over the past 35 years—in other words, the whole of my adult life—these defence procurement problems have been going on. That is not adequate. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to improve defence procurement in a way that is accountable? One area in which we are lacking is accountability. One of the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee’s report of October last year was:
“We are deeply concerned about departmental witnesses’ inability or unwillingness to answer basic questions and give a frank assessment of the state of its major programmes.”
Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that it will not put her in an invidious position if I ask her whether she is able to give some frank responses to the questions
that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, because they are crucial. We need defence procurement that is fit for purpose. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, we are united in our commitment to the Armed Forces and the importance of defence procurement, but it is absolutely wrong for the country, for the taxpayer and for the security of our nation if those defence procurement contracts are not running on time and delivering what we need.
Amendment 485 appears to raise many of the questions that your Lordships’ House and the other place have raised time and again. It seeks to ensure that the travesties which we have seen in defence procurement over decades can be rectified. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I hope too that she will be able to respond to some of the concerns.
Finally, on the outsourcing of ancillary services, I think this is one area which is hugely important for the morale of our service personnel. If we outsource delivery of catering, if we outsource accommodation and particularly its maintenance, they are exactly the sorts of things that affect the lives of service personnel on a day-to-day basis. Beyond that, it is not the service man or woman; it is their families. Very often, somebody —a spouse, very often a wife—is waiting in for the maintenance that has been outsourced. It is not adequate. It needs to be dealt with. Can the Minister give us some hope that this Bill will deal with the problems? If not, we will require other mechanisms to do so.