Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22 — House of Commons, 2022-03-09
Topic: Defense
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I was not convinced that I should take part in this debate, because I am possibly the least expert on defence matters in this Chamber, but I do have some comments to make Let me begin by saying that I do not think that asking very, very hard questions about defence spending on behalf of any of our armed forces is in any way disloyal to those who put their lives on the line. In fact, I would suggest the opposite, because, sometimes, it is our responsibility to ask the questions and to shout about the concerns that serving members of the armed forces, for obvious reasons, are not allowed to express publicly I wanted to speak in this debate because we can argue—no doubt we will continue to argue—about how much the defence budget should be each year. We have already seen the beginnings of an argument on the Government Benches about how much of that should be spent on small equipment, how much should be spent on major equipment and how much should be spent on people. The reality is that there will seldom be enough to spend as much as we would like to on all three areas. What concerns me is that, for far too long, the huge amounts of public money that have been spent by the Ministry of Defence have not been well spent or well managed. That means that, for the amount of money that is put into the defence budget, we do not get the number of soldiers, sailors and air personnel that we could get. We do not get the equipment that we should get, and if we do get it, we do not get it on time I have been looking at recent reports from the National Audit Office and from the Public Accounts Committee, which I have had the privilege of sitting on for the past two years. In June 2021, the National Audit Office published a report entitled, "Improving the Performance of Major Equipment Contracts", because it was picking up on a catalogue of failures, of late delivery, of equipment being delivered that was not fit for purpose, and of contracts going hundreds of millions—sometimes billions —of pounds over budget. It found that in eight of the 19 major programmes under way at the time, the senior responsible owner, the military person with direct responsibility for delivering on that project rated their delivery confidence as "amber/red" or "red". In other words, the people charged with the responsibility for delivering those projects were not convinced they could deliver what was needed where it was needed and when it wasneeded The Public Accounts Committee picked up on that report and took further evidence from the MOD, and our report was published in November 2021. We identified, for example, that the contract for four Astute-class attack submarines was more than £1 billion above budget and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers were £2.75 billion over budget. It is easy to look at those numbers in the context of the total MOD budget and say that none individually is a huge percentage, but when we think what £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion could do to improve the accommodation that service personnel are living in, for example, and what that would do for morale, that waste of public money is simply inexcusable The Committee made a comment that really should have rung alarm bells throughout Whitehall—bearing in mind that this is a Committee where, by its nature, the Government have a majority: "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." In other words, there was a cultural problem at the highest levels of the MOD and they were not convinced that the Public Accounts Committee, on behalf of this House, had the right to ask such questions The hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) said that he regarded parts of the integrated review as dishonest; I must say that some of the financial planning documents that the MOD continue to publish could well be given the same descriptor, because they simply do not give an honest and frank view of the challenges it faces in being able to afford some of its plans over the next 10 years. I mentioned improving accommodation for service personnel, and that was not a random example.