Now just imagine that we had a system where, instead of the MoD blithely announcing multi-million pound contracts, it could only make proposals which then had to be debated in parliament and approved. Imagine also that the MPs were allowed free votes, so that each could make their points and then cast their votes according to how the case was argued. Imagine how that would transform parliament.
Is that really going to work? Why would a party offer free votes to push through its manifesto policy? I mean, what is cannon fodder for if not to prodded through the appropriate lobby when the Dear Leader so ordains?
On a more serious note is it really practical to have every MoD contract voted on by a House of largely ignorant MPs (in the most generous term, of defence matters)? There is a case for greater scrutiny and perhaps control by a Select committee, but unless you have MPs with an interest in or a requirement to be well-informed on their subject what hope is there for any sensible debate on, say, an aircraft maintenace contract?
What is the cut-off between when a project is authorised by its Secretary of State and when it requires HoC approval? Cost? Strategic impact?
I think your sentiments are correct but in practice a simpler, more focused review of defence procurement is likely to be the best way forward.