Mr. O'NeillTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) further to the Government's reply to the third report from the Defence Committee, House of Commons Paper 674, how long a delay in a development programme must be before it is considered significant enough to report to the Defence Committee;
(2) what other criteria, apart from the length of time, are considered when deciding whether or not to inform the Defence Committee of delays in development programmes.
§ Mr. SainsburyA major project statement (MPS) is sent each year to the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee, giving details of in-service dates and development and production costs of major defence equipments. In addition, the first in an annual series of defence equipment project reports (DEPR), containing information of a similar character, was sent to the Defence Committee last May. The primary criterion for inclusion of an individual equipment item in either document is whether it exceeds a cost threshold: length of delay in a development programme has no bearing on inclusion or exclusion. For fuller descriptions of these documents I would refer the hon. Member to HC371 pages 18–22 as regards the MPS and HC340 page xxxiii as regards the DEPR.