Defence: Procurement
Debate between Peter Luff and Steve Barclay(11 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Barclay
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many urgent operational requirements have been identified in each of the last three years; how many such requirements have not been fulfilled; and how many such requirements were delivered (a) later than originally planned and (b) over budget.
[Official Report, 21 May 2012, Vol. 545, c. 438-39W.]
Letter of correction from Philip Dunne:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on 21 May 2012.
The full answer given was as follows:
Peter Luff
[holding answer 15 May 2012]: Urgent operational requirements (UORs) address urgent and unforeseen capability gaps in support of a current or imminent military operation by providing for the rapid purchase or modification of equipment. Where a requirement is specific to a particular operational theatre and can be delivered quickly, it will be funded from the Government Reserve rather than the Defence budget.
According to departmental records, the numbers of Urgent Statements of User Requirement which have been endorsed by the Permanent Joint Headquarters and subsequently entered the urgent operational requirement process are as follows for the past three years:
FY 2009-10 | FY 2010-11 | FY 2011-12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Requirements entering UOR process | 154 | 115 | 58 |
Subsequently cancelled | 53 | 22 | 4 |
Business cases under development | 3 | 19 | 40 |
Of the remaining endorsed requirements:
FY 2009-10 | FY 2010-11 | FY 2011-12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Delivered on time or early | 60 | 26 | 4 |
On track to deliver on time | 8 | 25 | 8 |
Delivered, or now planned for delivery, later than originally approved equipment delivery date | 30 | 23 | 2 |
Within approved cost | 93 | 70 | 14 |
Exceeding approved cost | 5 | 4 | 0 |
Note: The requirement for some UORs can change over time and the original approval dates and costs may subsequently be adjusted to allow these changes to be addressed. Therefore not all the instances of later delivery or cost growth represent shortcomings in project management or initial estimating. |
Not all requirements which enter the UOR process, progress to a business case and subsequent delivery stages. The reasons for the cancellations shown in the table may include the fact that, while a requirement may be extant, there is currently no equipment solution that can meet it. In such cases, attempts will be made to mitigate the risk through a non-equipment solution such as changing tactics, techniques or procedures. In other cases, the requirement may be cancelled by commanders in theatre because the evolving nature of operations means it is no longer needed. The ‘Business cases under development’ entry in the table represents those requirements where a solution is still being identified or the details finalised prior to approval.
The correct answer should have been:
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Peter Luff and Steve Barclay(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to increase the effectiveness of project management for its major projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The National Audit Office’s recent major projects report shows that the well-documented problems with some of the largest procurement projects have generally been caused by poor and deliberate policy decisions, and that project management itself is improving. But we are doing more to improve project management, including: running a programme to increase skills; forming a major projects performance board to review our most significant projects regularly; and appointing Bernard Gray as Chief of Defence Matériel, where he will build on the improvements made by his predecessor.
Stephen Barclay
Following numerous Select Committee recommendations, the Department’s own guidelines run to eight pages in setting out what should be included in project histories, yet the £4 billion Nimrod project history runs to just two pages; makes no mention of senior responsible owners or senior staff changes; and took the Department seven weeks to produce, even though it already has this document, which is marked unclassified and had no redactions. Will the Minister write to me within the next month listing all the major defence projects that do not comply with the Department’s own guidelines on documentation and what the gaps in documentation are?
Peter Luff
I am reluctant to turn this into a diary session for my diary secretary, but I think it would be very helpful to discuss this important issue with my hon. Friend. Departmental good practice guidance on maintaining project histories allows scope for project team leaders to interpret it and decide what best meets the needs of their project depending on its size, complexity and nature. The format and content are not mandated and, frankly, the problems with the Nimrod MRA4 project are about the most well-documented of any major procurement programme we have.