On Monday, we had a procurement debate in the House of Commons – an annual ritual which effectively discharges MPs' responsibility to scrutinise the MoD's multi-billion equipment budget.

View full article here

... which is why it won't happen, of course. Of course it should.

Maybe a tad O/T....
Doubtless some commenters here also visit Dale...for those who haven't read the Merkel/Brown/Eurofighter article there, among the comments is the following:

" an ex-apprentice said...
The two Tornado F3 Air Defence squadrons in Leuchars, Scotland, will now disband in September 2009, a year early, as a cost-cutting measure. That will leave responsibility for UK Air Defence solely with the two existing Typhoon squadrons at Coningsby.

This will reportedly cut the number of fighter aircraft on standby to protect British airspace from 25 to 12, which equates to between 6 and 8 operational jets at the current readiness rate.

From September the Americans, with 72 F15's at Lakenheath, will have a greater capability to defend our airspace than the RAF."

'The Few' indeed.
Doubtless 'procurement' comes into this somewhere.

Y'know, if I really wanted to read Mrs Dale, I would visit the site.

Y'know, you're absolutely right, Richard.

Perhaps voting should only be done by those participating in the debates. Propping up a subsidised bar and then shuffling through the lobby your Whip tells you to is not democracy.

Memory Lane

Yes, BBC diction really was like thet — then. Shame it's changed.

For those too young to remember this is what Mummy used to listen to.

Nowadays of course we have ..........

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.

-- Iain

Sir Tim Berners-Lee built the Web without any authority whatsoever. He used the extremely sneaky technique of 'Request For Comments' or RFCs. If there was general agreement W3C issued it as a standard, if anyone squawked he'd tell them to sort it out between themselves and come back with a proposal.
Thus the procurement boys could post their recommendations and reasonings as a RFC and let concerned and informed debate begin.