| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Iraq
4. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): What assessment he has made of equipment provision in relation to Operation Telic. [150156]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence's report on Operation Telic, "Lessons for the Future", closely reflects the conclusions of the independent report by the National Audit Office that
- "the logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success"
-
and that
"key equipments . . . performed well".
Mr. Chapman : It has been suggested that Sergeant Roberts might not have been killed in action in Iraq had he been wearing enhanced combat body armour. I know that that matter concerns my right hon. Friend and is under inquiry. When was such equipment first procured for the armed forces? How many sets have been issued?
Mr. Hoon: The version of enhanced combat body armour currently being used by the armed forces was first put into service as long ago as 1992, when approximately 32 pairs of ceramic plates were issued. Two sets of plates are required for each soldier. Those issuing enhanced combat body armour issued plates consistently in the order of 4,000 for each year of operation until 1999, when some 22,000—almost 23,000—were issued. Most recently, in 2003, more than 80,000 pairs of ceramic plates were issued.
Annabelle Ewing (Perth) (SNP): The Secretary of State will be aware that the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch are in my constituency. What does he have to say in response to the very serious statements issued by senior officers of the Black Watch last week, to the effect that there were serious problems with the supply of adequate protective equipment?
Mr. Hoon: I read that particular article carefully, as I am sure the hon. Lady did. It indicated a considerable success in the logistic effort, set out by the commanding officer conducting the interview. It also indicated that all the soldiers in question had at least one set of nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. Moreover, given her close knowledge of the Black Watch, perhaps she is aware that it declared itself ready for combat—that is, ready for action—a full seven days before the regiment crossed the line.
Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk, West) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend remember the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), when he was a Minister in 1995, saying:
- "There will always be"
- "deficiencies; there are always things that the services need to do their job better."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has considerable relevant recent experience. It is certainly the case that when he was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that there would always be deficiencies in the provision of equipment. That is not something that the Government accept. It is not the case that we will always recognise that there will be deficiencies. We will continue to try to improve the equipment available to the armed forces.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): While the whole House will wish to congratulate the armed forces on their brilliant performance in Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree, given that the principal reason for going to war in the first place was to rid that country of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, that it is extraordinary to find at figure 6 of part 3 of the National Audit Office report that the NAO inspectors discovered that the
- "7 Armoured Brigade armoured vehicles did not have viable Nuclear Biological and Chemical defence filters fitted throughout the warfighting phase of the Operation."?
Mr. Hoon: I have the report open at the page cited by the hon. Gentleman. The paragraph begins:
- "Although overall protection against chemical agents was good"
He knows, or he should know from his experience as a Minister and, indeed, in the armed forces, that provided that individuals are issued with appropriate kit, which was the position, that is satisfactory protection against an NBC threat.
Mr. Soames: It is clearly not the case that adequate protection was provided for those in the 7th Armoured Brigade, and in Challenger tanks and other armoured vehicles. It is a mercy that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Sir Kevin Tebbit, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, admitted to the Public Accounts Committee last week that the military decision to order extra equipment was taken in late October, but that political permission was not given until 25 November. What was the cause of that unacceptable delay? Was it the Secretary of State who caused it, was it the Chancellor, or was it the Prime Minister?
Mr. Hoon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, as the permanent secretary said when giving evidence to the Committee, the Government were concerned to ensure that overt preparations did not in any way compromise the diplomatic effort to pursue resolution 1441 through the United Nations. That is not to say that earlier preparations had not been made once the Prime Minister had told the House at the end of September that it was necessary to prepare our armed forces for the prospect of a conflict.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the fact that I voted against the Falklands war, the Iraq war twice and all the rest of them, I find it preposterous that people such as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should talk about the Secretary of State for Defence being responsible for every single death while there is a war
on? If that had been the case in the past, Churchill would have been hung, drawn and quartered in 1915, Thatcher would have been a figment of everybody's imagination—
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): I accept that there were problems and that the Ministry of Defence is learning the lessons and putting some things right, but I find it difficult to accept that much of the time Ministers said at the Dispatch Box that everything was fine. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he was or was not told of the supply problems? If not, why not? Who takes responsibility for such tragic failures?
Mr. Hoon: I will not trouble the House with a long list of the statements that I have made about those issues. Suffice it to say that on 14 May last year, some two weeks after the end of combat operations in Iraq, I made it clear that there were bound to be shortcomings in the issuing of equipment but that, overall, operations had been a remarkable success. I repeated that in Defence questions in September, and I said the same sort of thing again in December. That is borne out by both the MOD's lessons learned document and the independent NAO report. That is an absolutely consistent picture. We are not saying that there were not difficulties; we are saying that, overall, it was an outstanding logistic and military success.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): This Government have appointed a Chief of Defence Logistics and implemented a total assets visibility project. If that project and a senior member of the armed forces had not put together an effective structure and process for the deployment and use of equipment, what else should we have been doing?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the successes that have been achieved. Equally, I recognise that one lesson, for example, that we must learn is how we improve the in-theatre asset-tracking system. That was part of the reason for not being able to identify the precise location of a small amount of the equipment that was in theatre but could not reach front-line forces in time.
Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
5. Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): If he will make a statement on the future strategic tanker aircraft project. [150157]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I was pleased to announce to the House this morning that we have decided that the bid from Air Tanker for Airbus A330 aircraft offers the best prospect of providing a value for money PFI service. That decision represents a key milestone in the future strategic tanker aircraft programme. We now need to undertake complex negotiations with Air Tanker before final decisions are taken.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response, but the news that he announced this morning will have come as a great disappointment to Smiths Aerospace in my constituency, which would have liked to add the UK tanker programme to the technology already selected for the United States, Italy and Japan. Where does the news leave British industry's confidence in the much-vaunted MOD defence industrial policy, and what reciprocal arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman have with the French as a result of his strengthening the position of EADS and Thales in the UK?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that both bids contain significant benefits for UK industry. There are winners and losers in any competition, but our decision has been based on the bid that we judge offers the best potential solution for the armed forces, for the taxpayer and for UK industry.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning. One of the potential partners for Airbus is IBM, which will produce some of the software for the project based in Greenock in my constituency. Does that not demonstrate that throughout Britain we have the technological capacity to fulfil very high-spec orders? If he could see his way clear to giving us a little of the aircraft carrier orders as well, we would be very happy indeed.
Mr. Hoon: Some people are never satisfied, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations on the high-tech aspect of the bid. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the project offers significant opportunities for British and British-based industries and for the development of technology in this country.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): We welcome the decision to replace the ageing VC10s and Tristars, which have done stalwart service for the Royal Air Force, but the Minister's statement today leaves several questions open. What are the outstanding issues referred to in his statement? What assessment has he made of the export potential of the A330 tankers, given that other air forces have bought 767 tankers? Why has he not yet decided to go down the private finance initiative route? Given the last-minute switch last summer of the Hawk 128 order from a PFI to a straight purchase, and last week's disastrous National Audit Office report that the procurement budget was £3,000 million overspent last year, the Government's smart acquisition programme is looking more foolish than smart.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, spoiled quite a good first point with a rambling observation in the second part—an observation that he knows is inaccurate. Eighty-seven per cent. of the criticisms of major projects concerned four projects that were begun under a Conservative Government—four projects that were begun without the benefit of smart procurement. If the hon. Gentleman had read the report instead of making slogans, he would have seen that the smart procurement aspect was welcomed by the NAO. It is the difficulty with the four projects started under a
Conservative Government that has caused the major backlog. I am in no way complacent about those projects—we have to get them right. However, perhaps he did not read too carefully the statement I made this morning about the future strategic tanker aircraft, in which I indicated that it was a PFI project. The negotiations that we are now taking forward with Air Tanker are to establish the precise details of the PFI aspect.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that although some will be disappointed by the Air Tanker decision, the west midlands manufacturing supply chain will not be? In the past three years, many of the companies in question have diversified out of the automotive sector and into aerospace. The announcement is good news not only for north Wales and Scotland, but for the west midlands. Will he get his Department to highlight some of the initiatives for British manufacturing that are giving the west midlands a chance?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Often, shipbuilding is associated with Scotland and the north-east, and aircraft manufacturing with north Wales and the north-west, but in reality the benefits of such major contracts spread throughout the UK's manufacturing base. I am especially pleased that the west midlands will reap some of those benefits.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |