Supplies (Hansard, 4 April 1979)

§ Mr. Roper
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department takes to ensure the quality of defence supplies which main contractors obtain from sub-contractors.

§ Dr. Gilbert
The main contractor holding the direct contract with the Department is responsible for the quality of supplies from his sub-contractors, as he is for those of his own manufacture. Unless, exceptionally, the employment of a particular subcontractor is mandatory, the main contractor is free to procure supplies from other contractors who are on the list of assessed contractors or from
778W
955, c. 305–6.] A comprehensive list of the MOD's total Glasgow dispersal package, including the Anderston commitment previously announced, is set out below. The pledge that no non-mobile staff will be made redundant as a consequence of this dispersal will be honoured.
those who are not. In either case the responsibility is his. Normally sub-contractors are not assessed by MOD, but some sub-contractors—such as specialised material manufacturers and processors, stockists and test houses—whose supplies and services are vital to the safety or safe operation of the main supply, have, since April 1976, been brought within the scope of the examination and registration procedure. Non-registration is not a bar to consideration for sub-contract work, provided that the sub-contractor can provide adequate assurance of quality.

§ Mr. Roper
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement 779W about the disclosure of equipment cost information.

§ Dr. Gilbert
The Government's policy is to disclose information when this can be done without jeopardising essential defence interests, and a review has now been completed in MOD of the rules governing the disclosure of equipment costs.
There remain good reasons why full details of our research and development and procurement contracts cannot be released. However, in most cases it should be possible without real prejudice either to national security or to the taxpayers interests or to our dealings with defence contractors to release more information on these matters than has been the practice up to now.
The aim in future will be to respond as openly as possible, in agreement with our partners where collaborative projects are concerned, to inquiries that are received from hon. Members or the press. Indeed on occasion, particularly where a large project is involved, it is intended that an official announcement shall be made about the award of the contract together with a broad indication of total costs, the quantities involved, and the likely date of entry into service of the equipment concerned.

§ Mr. Roper
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Depart-

1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1978–79

Defence Expenditure at constant 1974 Survey Prices (£ million) 3,453 3,642 3,588 3,504 3,461^*

1974^† 1975 1976 1977 1978

Defence Expenditure as a percentage of GDP at Market Prices 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.7

^* Provisional figure.

^† Calendar years.

In all the years shown, the percentage of GDP devoted to defence was above the average for NATO.

	1974–75	1975–76	1976–77	1977–78	1978–79
Defence Expenditure at constant 1974 Survey Prices (£ million)	3,453	3,642	3,588	3,504	3,461^*
	1974^†	1975	1976	1977	1978
Defence Expenditure as a percentage of GDP at Market Prices	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.7
^* Provisional figure.
^† Calendar years.