Defence procurement: Under fire

The Ministry of Defence has become embroiled in a war of words with senior MPs over the performance of the Defence Procurement Agency.

Following a highly critical select committee report, published last July, procurement minister Lord Bach issued a robust defence of the government's performance.

He said a press notice issued along side the defence committee's report had made "damaging and wholly unjustifiable criticisms of the Defence Procurement Agency and the thousands of service and civilian personnel who work there".

But speaking to ePolitix.com, committee chairman Bruce George defended the report, adding that he was "not at all fazed by this criticism".

Lord Bach, who admitted his rejection of much of the report was "unusual", said the MPs had also made claims "that were not or could not be substantiated" and had misquoted an answer he gave when appearing before the committee.

He rejected suggestions the procurement agency's performance had been "woeful" and that "the armed forces have been let down by the organisation tasked with equipping them".

The MoD also denied suggestions that it had been slow in taking action to improve the procurement process.

And in language rarely seen in ministerial responses to parliament, Lord Bach concluded the report had been "misguided, disappointing and flawed".

"It missed an important opportunity to make a constructive contribution to the department's efforts to deliver the full benefits of smart acquisition," he continued.

"I had expected better of a committee with whom the department normally has a productive relationship."

But speaking to this website, George rejected claims the committee had made unfounded criticisms about the department's procurement record.

The senior MP said he "could not recall an angrier response" to a defence committee report.

"I am perfectly satisfied with the report we produced, it is based on evidence," he said. "It is not our task to produce reports that make the MoD happy."

George said many of the conclusions had been supported by evidence from MoD officials themselves and internal reports commissioned by the procurement agency.

"So I am a little surprised by the vehemence of the response, because it is documented," he added.

"They are obviously very angry because we have hit them in a very sensitive spot.

"But we didn't invent the criticisms, just look at what their own people have been saying and the evidence that has been given."

George said ministers had been "excessively sensitive" about criticisms where the evidence had been "particularly strong" in supporting the committee's conclusions.

There was an admission that the minister may have been misquoted in one part of the report "but apart from that I am perfectly happy with what we have written".

But he also held out an olive branch to ministers, offering to hold informal talks with Lord Bach and his advisers to go through the criticisms they have made.

"I am not at all fazed by this criticism, it is just part of the relationship that one has - it is not adversarial but it can get fraught at times," George told ePolitix.com.

"Both sides have their say and then we get back to normalcy, which is a normal working relationship."