HC Deb 15 January 1981 vol 996 cc588-9W
Mr. Cartwright

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to introduce any changes in the procedures for assessment, registration and surveillance of defence contractors as a result of the recommendations in the consultative document from the study group on quality assurance manpower.

Mr. Pattie

The recommendations in the consultative document envisaged further development of the policies adopted as a result of the Raby and Rayner reports of the early 'seventies, which have already enabled the Ministry to reduce its quality assurance manpower by 50 per cent. A fundamental principle of these two reports, which the consultative document explicitly accepts, is that the responsibility for achieving and assuring the quality of defence equipment must rest with the contractors who supply it. The changes proposed reinforce that principle by encouraging those firms who successfully accept the responsibility involved, and by eliminating from the list of assessed contractors those who do not. Specifically, the interval between the MOD assessments of a contractor's quality control system will be lengthened and will be governed by the contractor's performance and achievement.

In future competent firms will be less frequently subjected to this audit, the demonstrably less competent, more often. The average interval will be lengthened from two to about three years. Those whose quality control arrangements fall below acceptable levels will, unless they correct this, be removed from the list. Additionally, to economise in MOD effort, assessment will be suspended for those firms who, although satisfactory in performance, are not currently engaged in or actively bidding for defence business. Such firms will be re-assessed only if they are likely to supply MOD, or an allied or overseas customer, with equipment specified to defence standards. The winnowing of the list should release effort to make possible recruitment of other firms, necessary for defence purposes, to replace those found ineffective. Since it is only in exceptional circumstances that contracts to defence standards are placed outside the list, this is an important consideration. There will be no change in the rules for admission to the list: only firms with whom the Ministry sees a reasonable prospect of entering into direct contract will be assessed—apart from a small class of special subcontractors whose supplies are critical and widely used by main contractors. Direct contractors to the Ministry are responsible for the quality of products obtained from subcontractors. Their competence in this field will in future be a more important element in assessing them for the list.

Surveillance of contracts as such by MOD staffs will be reduced, but in important cases we shall, as occasion demands, institute a more intensive and penetrating survey, which will examine in depth every facet of the contractor's quality control system as it operates on a major contract or set of contracts. Such a survey will do much to maintain our confidence in our suppliers consistent with the basic policy of relying on the efficiency of a contractor's quality control system to ensure that the Services receive equipment to the standard required.