Select Committee on Public Accounts Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

25 OCTOBER 2004

  Q60 Mrs Browning: If you do not have the figures today—

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: I can certainly say—I said to you I did not think any were being used for spares at present and I can confirm that is the case.

  Q61 Mrs Browning: Would you just check and, if there is any difference in that—

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: No, I can confirm now that that is the case.

  Q62 Mrs Browning: Thank you very much. Can I ask you how things are looking now in terms of training? How do you currently see the situation with the availability of people to train as pilots and also the training schedule itself?[4]

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: You are referring to training in general?

  Q63 Mrs Browning: Yes, the Apache particularly.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: I have not come prepared to discuss Apache training, I am afraid, because this is not a hearing on Apache, but I can certainly give you a note about the Apache training plan.

  Q64 Mrs Browning: There is a shortage of pilots, I understand, or not as many as you would like?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: That may well be. I am not sure whether the shortage—

  Q65 Chairman: Direct your question to the Air Vice-Marshal. He can give a general answer.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: But I am afraid this is not covered by this Report.

  Q66 Chairman: I know, but it must be in his mind anyway. Can he make an attempt at an answer?

  Air Vice-Marshal Paul Luker: In terms of training, I think we have got approximately the right number of people now coming into the training system. In specific terms of AH training, the Apache training, we have converted one squadron and the first course has just finished, the second course is in its final six month phase, and those courses have been fully manned as they have gone into training, and the wastage rates were very close to what we anticipated; so I think we are actually on track.

  Q67 Mrs Browning: Thank you. The reason I am asking this, Chairman, why is this relevant to this Report, is that it is alright to procure the machines, but obviously that is not the only part of the picture; it is whether there are sufficient properly trained people able to carry out sufficient flying hours to be adequately trained. We know from the quote I gave on page 21 that when it came to Iraq there were serious problems with desert training and deployment training at the time. So, it might be helpful to know, that is why I am focusing on this aspect, and I think that is quite a legitimate question to put to you in the context of this Report?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: It may help to say we will have two squadrons of the aircraft operating by next February; so the operations are ramping up. I am not aware of a particular training deficit in this area, but, you were right, in general we would prefer to be able to give our pilots more training than we do. That does not mean to say we are below absolute standards of competence, but we are experiencing some shortfalls in training.

  Q68 Mrs Browning: Thank you. Mr Luker, I understand that the Army draw a very, very valuable resource to them through the training of NCOs in terms of pilot training, but the Navy and the Air Force have some difficulty with this pool of people from which to train because they believe they should have officer status in order to contribute to the flying effort. I wonder if you could just explain to me as a layman why it is different for the Army and the Air Force, because again it seems to me this is an area where there is a pool of people for training?

  Air Vice-Marshal Paul Luker: I think there are two answers, if you will forgive me because both the Navy and the Air Force have different approaches to what they do as well. The pool of pilots and observers in the Navy is quite small. They are managed in a broad career as officers and, given the small numbers, it would be very difficult to reintroduce as pilots and observers an additional cadre as it were, of senior NCOs. In the Air Force, where it was judged some time ago that the Air Force was looking for officers as pilots across the board irrespective of what they flew, pilots again are employed potentially to fly any aircraft and they are trained as such at the start. As a result of that, having a small pile of senior NCO pilots within the helicopter community would make it quite difficult to manage, and certainly in terms of cost it comes out as a very neutral equation. By contrast, the Army is able to recruit widely from a body of people who have spent all of their lives within that one helicopter community, and, in simple terms, that is why we have arrived at where we are. We will be starting from scratch. I suspect we might have a different answer, but this is something which has developed over something like the last 30 years, as long as I have been flying.

  Q69 Mrs Browning: I think this question is for Sir Peter. In the procurement of the training of pilots for the Apache helicopter it was changed at the last minute in terms of the contract, the original contract perceived to be placed with Westland and then went to a PFI bid, and it was suggested at that time that we would save £23 million by switching to the PFI contract. How much have we actually saved?

  Sir Peter Spencer: I do not know. I will have to send you a note.[5]

  Q70 Mrs Browning: I would like that note, Chairman, because, given the delay there has been in getting the PFI contract in an operational state, I am very concerned that we have not made the savings that were estimated?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: We did have a hearing on Apache helicopters when we discussed this issue, and this is why I mentioned to you that we changed the procurement brief for training because the original proposal was too expensive, and I think the Committee would not have welcomed it had we taken the more expensive route.

  Q71 Mrs Browning: I am not suggesting in this question that you made the wrong decision. I am simply asking you, having made the judgment to change the contract to PFI, whether in fact you have made the savings that were anticipated at the time?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: Not in full.

  Mrs Browning: Perhaps you would send the Chairman a note?[6]

  Chairman: Thank you very much. Gerry Steinberg.

  Q72 Mr Steinberg: Thank you, Chair. I have to say, I do not know how we ever win. I always think it must be good luck than good management, because when we get some of the Reports that we get from the NAO and the Ministry of Defence they are the most appalling Reports of performance and management, and it cannot be a coincidence because it is month, after month, after month, the same sort of incompetence that we get, and then we get you, Sir Kevin, saying you have not come here prepared to answer questions on the helicopter because it is not in the Report. I would have thought that Apache helicopters were part of our helicopter capabilities, because I do think that Apaches are helicopters, are they not? They are, are they not? Yes, they are. It took a lot to think about there!

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: I am wondering whether you really want to ask me any questions or whether you want to make assertions and allow me to answer them.

  Q73 Mr Steinberg: I want to ask some questions and I want some answers, not some of the flannelling that we get every time you appear in front of us. It is quite amazing that every time you appear in front of us this Committee loses its temper. It is not to do with anybody else. It just seems to be your attitude, Mr Tebbit. The first page of the Report, Mr Tebbit, it says, the very first page of the Executive Summary says, note, "67 Apaches delivered to the United Kingdom but not yet available for operations. Anticipated Initial Operating Capability—August 2004." I would have thought it was quite obvious that people were going to ask questions on the Apache helicopters because we are talking about helicopter capability. Are there Apaches included in our helicopter capability?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: Yes, and I have explained, September 2004, so I am sorry it is a month later than we had said.

  Q74 Mr Steinberg: You are sorry that it is a month later, Mr Tebbit?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: The initial operating capability—

  Q75 Mr Steinberg: A month later?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: From August to September.

  Q76 Mr Steinberg: A year and a half. We had meeting here a year and a half ago. I think it was 12th March 2003 that we had a meeting here when we talked about Apache helicopters, and I do not know how late they were then. How late were they then when we had the meeting in March 2003, and they were not being used, they were in storage?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: Let us be pleased they are there now.

  Q77 Mr Steinberg: They were not a month late, were they? It is all right you saying, "Let's be pleased that they are there now." That is a disgusting answer, to be quite honest. You are saying it did not make any difference in terms of Iraq, but of course it did, because if they had had Apache helicopters in Iraq the troops would have been much more protected than they were. As I said before, it is a case of being good luck and not good management.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: They would not have been available for operations in Iraq even if they had been there to the original timescale, Mr Steinberg, because, as Mrs Browning has pointed out, there are other lines of development necessary to use these things effectively: it is to do with delivery, it is also to do with training, it is to do with concepts of operations, it is to do with logistics support; and even if the initial planned date had been reached, they would not have been available for that operation.

  Q78 Mr Steinberg: How late were they? From the date they were purchased and supposed to go into operation, how late were they up to a month ago when they were actually brought into service?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: We had our hearing, as you say, 18 months ago, and that was discussed then and they have now been brought into service. What I am saying is that—

  Mr Steinberg: How late were they?

  Chairman: Let him answer the question.

  Q79 Mr Steinberg: He will not answer the question?

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: I am. I am saying since our last hearing we have achieved the target we explained then, albeit in September not August.


4   Ev 28 Back

5   Ev 28 Back

6   Ev 28 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 18 March 2005