Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 20 JUNE 2006
Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP, Lieutenant General Nick Houghton
CBE and Dr Roger Hutton
Q40 Chairman: I think the Minister
said it was a means of—
Mr Ingram: I said it was a
means; I did not say it was the means.
Q41 Linda Gilroy: That is why I am
trying to get a handle on where should we be looking. We did make
strong representations, when we met the senior politicians in
Baghdad, that they needed to pay more attention to the economic
powerhouse of their country. I am just trying to get a picture.
You say these are publicly available sources that we should be
able to look at. Perhaps you could let us have a note on precisely
what those are.[1]
Mr Ingram: From DfID it is publicly
available what we are doing. Whether we have access to information,
public or otherwise, in terms of the overall commitment of the
Iraqi Government, we will see if you can give you more information
of that. If you raised the question with politicians, what did
they say to you? It is their country, not ours.
Linda Gilroy: I was reassured but then
people have to "walk the walk", and there is a difference
between people saying: "Yes, we recognise that Basra is very
important to our economic future" and then actually having
a strategy which recognises it. I am trying to get a grasp on
where that strategy lies, because we all ought to be able to understand
whether there is enough focus on Basra. Goodness knows, they have
got enough challenges in other parts of Iraq as well.
Q42 Chairman: Minister, you will
let us have a note?
Mr Ingram: We will let you have
what we have, certainly from DfID.[2]
Whether we have anything beyond that, I am not conscious of it,
again, off the top of my head.
Q43 Chairman: You said the money
for the PRT was coming partly from the US and mostly from DfID.
Is the Ministry of Defence putting any money into the PRTs?
Mr Ingram: Again, it is all about
how we bring together the overall funding. We will give you details
on how that is put together.[3]
Chairman: Moving on to John Smith, we
have a question about the Hercules replacement.
Q44 John Smith: This might appear
to jump a little bit, and the reason for that is that we are going
to take other questions in private session a little later. What
is the MoD's current estimate of the Hercules replacement coming
into service, the A400M, and will it be fitted at the beginning
of its service life with Explosive Suppressant Foam?
Mr Ingram: I do not have an answer
off the top of my head on the A400M. I have not got stuff on all
the different procurement streams. I can see a year coming in
my head but I do not want to give it, but, again, we will give
you details of how that is developing, when it will come into
play and what the fit on that will be, because some of that may
not yet have been determined, as to what is required on the aircraft,
because it depends on what it is going to be used for. So the
whole fleet may not be kitted out; only some may be kitted out,
and I do not know whether that has been finally determined yet.
Again, we will give that to you in writing.[4]
Chairman: We will write you a letter
expressing exactly the question.
Q45 John Smith: And with that letter,
if a reply cannot be given now, whether the extended life of the
C-130K is capable of filling any capability gap that might result
in a delay of the in-service date for the A400M.[5]
Mr Ingram: I know it is part of
that because the in-service date for the A400M clearly sets one
deadline down and, therefore, what is to fill that gap in between
and how we are dealing with all of that, and of course with the
C17, we are in the process, as you know, where we have leased
four C17s and we are now going to purchase them and we are looking
at the funding for an additional C17. As you will understand,
it is not my area of procurement, so I do not want to start talking
as if I have a detailed knowledge.
Q46 John Smith: But it is related.
Mr Ingram: The C17 has a very
significant capacity and that is part of the decision thinking
to fill that gap while we await the A-400M.
Chairman: We are now moving on to another
area which may be more within your area, airbridge reliability.
Q47 Linda Gilroy: The mid-tour leave
is always important and particularly so when you are working in
50 degrees, as our troops are out there at the moment. We experienced
the unreliability of the airbridge ourselves and it took us nearly
30 hours to get home, and that causes great irritation to troops
because it erodes their leave. Are you satisfied with the reliability
of the service provided by Excel Airways? We heard that it may
be replaced soon by RAF flights direct from Basra to the UK, but
is that right and, if so, when will it happen?
Mr Ingram: I am sorry that you
had, I think, a burst tyre and engine failure, but that happens
with aircraft, but it was not deliberate, let us put it that way.
It was not to give you a lesson in the frustrations or even to
frustrate you because you had been asking tough questions in the
past. This happens in terms of aircraft and aircraft can become
unreliable. We have in terms of the airbridge an ageing fleet
and that is why we are trying to replace that ageing fleet. We
are putting in place a lot of mitigating measures to make sure
that we have that capacity to satisfy the needs of troops transferring
in and out of theatre because I recognise that, certainly for
those coming home, they should not be unduly held up and clearly,
if they are going into theatre to replace people, they should
not be unduly held up either. What I am saying is that we recognise
there is fragility in that process. We went through quite a bad
period when it was not functioning very well because of unreliability
of the aircraft. We have put those mitigating processes in place
in terms of putting aircraft to our need and commercial to our
need and then military thereafter. We are looking at ways in which
we can deliver a more effective process than this. This all comes
down to the number of aircraft we have and the number of aircraft
with the appropriate DAS fit on them, so all of those issues have
been looked at. We have put in place a major procurement process
to upgrade the Hercules maintenance process—
Q48 Chairman: We will come on to
that in the private session.
Mr Ingram:—which will give
us greater availability of those aircraft. Have we had problems?
Yes. Have the problems been mitigated? I think so significantly.
You had a bad experience. Can I give a guarantee that it will
not happen again? No, I cannot. Are we putting our best into finding
solutions to it? Yes, we are.
Chairman: Moving on to another equipment
issue, Bowman.
Q49 Mr Havard: I took the time to
go and have a look at the Bowman radio system which has been operated
out of Shaiba and so on. It is obviously made in Wales and it
is good stuff, but I would like your assessment of what is actually
happening with it. We had reports about it. It is the `Light'
system, as they call it, the Bowman Light, not of data, but speech
transmission. Can I ask how you are evaluating all of that and
whether or not there will be plans, as the deployments continue
and new ones go in, to extend the use of it to its full facilities?
Mr Ingram: Bowman, I think, is
proving very successful, but with any major procurement there
are issues associated with it and certainly communication kit
is something which, because of the very nature of it, has to be
effectively tested and then, once you hit fatal relationships
or environments, you find out more about the capability of the
equipment. The current deployment of 20th Armoured Brigade of
course do not have the full fit and that is maybe who you meant
there over there—
Q50 Mr Havard: That is right.
Mr Ingram:—but that was
because of their readiness cycle and they had not been through
the training process. If they had been through the full training
process on Bowman, then they would have had full Bowman capability
in theatre, but they had not been trained and then when it came
to the point when they were due to be deployed, from memory, 7th
Brigade were fully `Bowmanised'. I met 7th Brigade recently when
they came back to their base in Germany and I did not pick up
any criticism of Bowman at all and I can give you an assurance
that, if people want to make a complaint, they complain to me,
so, from the practical experience of our personnel, it is not
coming back as a major issue. That is not to say that there are
not still some technical issues which have to be resolved somewhere
within the overall full capability of that procurement programme,
but I do not have the details of that.
Q51 Mr Havard: What they say is that,
because they were not fully trained, they were using two and three
pieces of communication kit at the same time which did cause some
sort of problem.
Mr Ingram: If I meet 20th Brigade,
and I will either meet them out there or when they come back,
I will get that in stereo, I know that, but this is about getting
our troops trained up in the use of that equipment and the next
time they are deployed, wherever that is, they will be fully Bowmanised.
I do not know where they are in their training cycle, but they
were partially Bowmanised, I think, when they went there.
Q52 Mr Havard: Do you know anything
about the next people going and whether they will have this equipment?
Lt General Houghton: My information
is that 20th Brigade[6]
were the last Brigade which were not to be deployed fully Bowmanised.
You will appreciate the difficulties, that, if you are force generating
formations in order to go on operations and at the same time you
are fielding new equipment and going through a complicated retraining
programme, you will not always be able to achieve, because of
the dynamic nature of these things, an absolute perfect match.
No genuine operational risk was taken on the deployment of 20th
Brigade given its level of training on both the new Bowman and
the legacy Clansman system. Ideally of course we would like to
just have them on the single system and from here on in that should
be the case.
Q53 Chairman: The Osprey body armour
we saw when we were there. Is it planned to provide all British
Forces in Iraq with that new armour and, if so, when do you expect
that to happen?
Mr Ingram: The answer is yes and
the figures, if I can find them on this, there are some very precise
figures on the numbers that we have or the number that we have
available and the numbers which will become available by the turn
of the year, and I think it is 5,000 more. No, I do not have the
figures. The figures and the way in which that is progressively
being delivered through theatre I do not have in front of me,
but the answer to your original question as to whether they would
have them, yes, but of course what we need is a greater sufficiency
of supply and we are now looking at the ways in which it will
become a personal piece of kit. At the moment it is not that,
but, when troops are being deployed who require it, they will
have that piece of body armour, that piece of equipment.
Q54 Chairman: Medical facilities—we
visited Shaibah Hospital which we thought was quite outstanding,
but clearly there is a lot of pressure on the medical personnel
in Iraq and perhaps generally. What are you doing to address the
shortfall of medical personnel and are you concerned about the
reliance on medical reservists?
Mr Ingram: No, I am not because
that is part of our availability of resource. People are in the
reserves for utilisation. They are not just in the reserves to
sit around and not be deployed. In fact we find a very high level
of keenness amongst the reserves to be deployed. Now, in terms
of what can be seen as the pressure on our medical personnel overall,
reserves and regulars, we recognise that as a pinch area. It is
one of those areas where there are shortfalls and there is pressure
on the personnel. What we are seeking to do of course is to increase
the numbers of medical personnel and regulars. We have also, through
TA rebalancing, dedicated an increased amount of resource to medical
support in terms of the reserves, so we are aware of the problem,
but there is no easy and quick solution overnight in this. Part
of the rebalancing in terms of the future Army structure, again
it is not just in medicals, it is in other key enablers, engineers
and other specialisms, 3,000 posts are being reinvested back in
to the Army specifically to meet those shortfalls. That does take
time. We have got to train people up. We have got to find the
people, we have got to recruit them and we have got to train them
up and make them deployable.
Q55 Chairman: One doctor told me
that, if he were to work in the UK in the NHS instead of working
in Iraq, he could immediately double the amount of money that
he was earning. Do you recognise that?
Mr Ingram: It would not surprise
me.
Q56 Chairman: Well, it would not
surprise you then that there are pressures on medical personnel?
Mr Ingram: It would not surprise
me, but again you will know, Chairman, and your Committee will
know that I do not negotiate in that sense for the individual
terms and conditions. We have the Armed Forces Pay Review Body
which is an independent body to which we give evidence to say,
"Here are areas that are of concern", and it is then
up to them to determine what would be the best solution to that.
Again you will be aware that we have in the past given golden
handshakes and golden handcuffs as part of the inducements to
retain personnel or to encourage personnel in. This is done through
a wholly independent process and, although I say I am not surprised
that that comment has been made, I pay tribute to our people who
are continuing to deliver a very high-grade, high-quality and
a highly professional service because they have a dedication to
duty and they do not just chase money, and that is the point I
think they would make. I think we could find that across a whole
range of the Armed Forces where people could say, "I could
earn a lot more money outside in the private sector", and
they could become a Member of Parliament and earn more money,
I suppose, as some of them do, but our people have got purposes
in life other than the pursuit of income.
Chairman: Moving on to the issue of detainees
and the detention facilities in Shaibah.
Q57 Mr Havard: The divisional temporary
detention facility—we had some discussions with the Prime
Minister and his five-man team he had sent to Basra. One of the
things that they were particularly excited about was the question
of a number of people in that facility who, they were pleading,
should be let out and this was becoming politically contentious
as to whether or not it would help with the situation in Basra.
I do not want to comment on the detail of any of that, I am not
qualified to do it, but what we do know, however, is that, in
order for people to be released from the facility, there is a
review process and what I would like to do is to ask you a question
about that really. We understand that, the way the review works
at the moment, it does not involve any Iraqis in that process
and I wonder whether you could make a comment about whether the
processes involved with the continuation of the facility are in
future going to involve them in some fashion. Also what is its
future going to be in the discussions about the renewal of the
UN mandate under which it operates as we move towards the end
of the calendar year?
Mr Ingram: Just as a point on
detention, clearly everything we do is fully consistent, and in
full compliance, with the relevant UNSCR1637. All the detention
facilities are inspected by the ICRC and we receive no, although
these are matters between the State and the ICRC and the ICRC
never publish the reports, as we know, because that is the way
they operate, but we do not receive adverse comments. If there
are things which need to be attended to, then we immediately attend
to them. Any person who is detained, usually within 24 hours both
their family and the ICRC will be duly notified of all of that,
so in terms of the governance of the facility, it is to a very
high and professional level. In terms of the review of those who
are held and the engagement of Iraqis in that, I am conscious
of the fact that the Secretary of State is currently in Iraq and
I know that is likely to be part of his discussions, and our intention
is to achieve that end result, and it may already have happened
in terms of a set of relationships where I have not yet had feedback
from any of those discussions, but that is our objective so that
the Iraqis are part of that review process.
Q58 Mr Havard: One specific thing,
however, about its governance or, rather more importantly, its
operation, I have visited it twice in the past, not because I
was caught and put in there, but I was actually allowed in and
out. The point I would like to make though is that at that time
when I visited it, it was being run by the provost marshals and
there were professional prison officers conducting the exercise.
We learned from the Grenadier Guards that they were now providing
prison officers and they were being trained in order to undertake
the task on a rotation basis, but it now seems as though there
has been a change in terms of who is actually operating or working
with the people who operate the facility. Is that also going to
be part of the review process?
Mr Ingram: Again I do not have
the detail of the change you are talking about. Remember, the
nature of those prisoners that are being held is that they are
pretty dangerous people and we are holding them on the basis of
good intelligence and perhaps even actions they have taken and
the threats they pose to us and, therefore, to the overall security
within our area of operation. We do not do this lightly, we do
this on best judgment and we also have to be conscious of the
need to ensure a secure environment in which they are held as
well as being an appropriate and proper environment which has
to be secure so that, if anything happens in that facility, we
have the capabilities to be able to attend to it immediately.
This is not an open prison in the UK and you have got to remember
who is being held there. In terms of the overall management of
it, usually there are changes taking place, but I have no immediate
knowledge of that, so again we will write to you and let you know
the precise arrangements which are currently applied and, if there
is going to be a change, whether there is going to be a change
to that as well.[7]
Q59 Chairman: Minister, I find that
a rather odd answer, I am afraid.
Mr Ingram: There may be some more
information on that.
1 See Ev 22-29 Back
2
See Ev 22-29 Back
3
See Ev 22-29 Back
4
See Ev 20 Back
5
See Ev 20 Back
6
Note by Witness: 20th Brigade are not the last Brigade
to deploy fully Bowmanised. 20th Brigade will handover to 19th
Light Brigade, who will be the last Brigade to deploy as a non
fully Bowmanised Brigade on Op Telic. Back
7
See Ev 20 Back
|
