Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
SIR PETER
SPENCER KCB, DR
IAIN WATSON
AND LIEUTENANT
GENERAL ANDREW
FIGGURES CBE
12 DECEMBER 2006
Q80 Chairman: Do you think that it
would be better to have had in place now vehicles that have been
developed over the last six/eight/ten years so that we would not
be looking at a far off in-service date for this programme?
Lieutenant General Figgures: In
part we have and I have spoken about Warrior. We have upgraded
the 430 Series to produce the Mark III which we have up-armoured
and called Bulldog. I have had recent experience of that in Iraq
and the Green Jackets speak extremely highly of it, but it will
only take us so far. We are introducing into service and have
introduced into theatre the protected patrol vehicles and we are
bringing into service Mastiff which provides protection, but these
are not armoured fighting vehicles, which is what we aspire to,
so we are dealing with the most pressing part of the requirement,
the need to save lives, but we are not providing the means to
deliver offensive action. You cannot just save lives; you have
got to be able to strike at the enemy to ensure that you can conduct
and fulfil your operational purpose.
Q81 Mr Jones: My final question on
this issue to you is you are telling us that we cannot buy a vehicle
today which would deliver, in a reasonable time, an off-the-shelf
requirement; a vehicle that could be in theatre within six months
of purchase that would give our troops what they require today,
not what they might require in 10 years' time? I want you to give
me a firm assurance that your evaluation of this is that there
is no vehicle that we can buy today which will give them something
that they require today within a year from now?
Lieutenant General Figgures: I
may not have been clear and my apologies for that. We have measures
in hand through up-armouring Warrior, up-armouring the 430 Series,
bringing into service the protected patrol vehicle, and bringing
into service the Mastiff to deal with the most pressing requirement
today, which is protection.
Q82 Mr Hancock: And what is the latest
that any one of those four would be in service?
Lieutenant General Figgures: They
are already deployed now and they will be in service in 2007.
Q83 Mr Hancock: All four of them?
Lieutenant General Figgures: All
of those, yes. However, none of them will enable us to fight as
we wish to fight in the next 20 years.
Mr Hancock: Fine.
Chairman: Getting on to the in-service
date, Kevin Jones.
Q84 Mr Jones: Originally in 2003
ministers told us that the in-service date was going to be 2009.
In 2005 when we had General Jackson before us I managed to get
him to admit it was going to be 2010. It is now between 2010 and
2012. Is that still realistically the in-service date?
Sir Peter Spencer: We will announce
the in-service date when we make the main gate investment decision,
as with any other project.
Q85 Mr Hancock: How far away is that
decision?
Sir Peter Spencer: I am not prepared
to say.
Mr Hancock: The main gate decision; how
far away is that?
Q86 Mr Jones: Wait a minute, we have
had ministers sat where you are—the previous Defence Minister,
General Jackson—giving in-service dates for FRES. Are you
saying now you cannot give us that date?
Sir Peter Spencer: Yes I am.
Q87 Mr Jones: So is the assessment
Atkins come up with 2017-18 more realistic?
Sir Peter Spencer: We will announce
the in-service date when we make our main gate investment decision,
as we do on any other project.
Q88 Mr Jones: Can you comment on
Atkins' submission that it is going to be 2017-18?
Sir Peter Spencer: I think it
rather depends on what set of assumptions you are making about
the acquisition strategy.
Q89 Mr Jones: No, I am not asking
you that question. That is what they have put in a submission
to us. They are the people you have employed to do this work.
They are suggesting a date of 2017-18. Are you disagreeing with
that?
Sir Peter Spencer: I am noting
it.
Mr Hancock: It is not very helpful, is
it?
Q90 Mr Jones: It is not very helpful.
Sir Peter Spencer: It is why we
do assessment phase work and when we get to the main gate and
we then understand the programme in detail and we understand the
costings, then we will set the performance, time and cost parameters.
Q91 Chairman: At what date, Sir Peter,
did you decide to abandon the 2012 in-service date?
Sir Peter Spencer: I did not say
we had.
Q92 Chairman: You are not committing
to it, are you?
Sir Peter Spencer: We are not
committing to anything until the main gate.
Q93 Chairman: At what date did you
decide not to be committed to the 2012 in-service date?
Sir Peter Spencer: I have not
decided not to be committed to 2012. I simply have not yet committed
to a date.
Q94 Mr Jones: It is very serious
what is being said here because we have had Secretaries of State
before us giving in-service dates, we have had General Jackson
giving in-service dates, and now we have got a policy where the
head of the Procurement Agency is saying he cannot give an in-service
date on this. I think this is a very serious thing that we need
to take up with Ministers, to be honest.
Sir Peter Spencer: I agree with
you because the Minister would wish you to take it up with him
rather than me.
Mr Jones: You are just being evasive,
which is an accepted part of it.
Q95 Chairman: When you saw the Atkins
submission that it was likely to be 2017-18, what was your view
about that submission, as opposed to just noting it? What is your
view about it?
Sir Peter Spencer: My personal
view is that it was pessimistic and that we ought to be able to
do better, but how much better we can do will depend upon the
further work we do in the next 12 months.
Q96 Mr Jones: So are you saying,
Sir Peter, when we had Ministers before us who give us in-service
dates for FRES, including General Jackson, that they could have
picked any figure out of the air and what they told us was untrue?
Sir Peter Spencer: No, I did not
say that.
Q97 Mr Jones: Well you are.
Sir Peter Spencer: No, I did not.
Let us just put this into context. When I arrived in this job
ministers had made a habit of announcing in-service dates before
they finished the assessment phases and then found themselves
in political difficulty when they announced changes. So ministers
were very clear in defining a policy that in-service dates would
not be announced until a main gate decision was taken. I am afraid
you will have to take that up with the Minister directly because
I am not empowered to give you a definite date.
Q98 Mr Jones: Well, let us go back
to January 2005 when I asked General Jackson and he said 2010.
He did not give us any of this nonsense that you are giving us
about the fact that it was a policy change or anything like that.
The Chairman's question was quite a good one. When did this idea
change that somehow you are not going to be able to give an in-service
date for FRES? We have had ministers sitting there giving us clear
dates, we have had General Jackson giving us clear dates, and
now you are saying you are not prepared to do that and that is
obviously a major change in policy.
Sir Peter Spencer: It is.
Mr Jones: It has major implications in
terms of whether this is absolutely feasible because to date,
if you have gone through eight years and you say you cannot give
an in-service date, frankly we would be very sceptical about even
hitting the 2017 date.
Mr Hancock: Why is it a change in policy,
Sir Peter? I am interested in the concept that there is a change
in policy. A change in policy to tell this Committee the truth
or to—
Chairman: No, that is not an appropriate
question.
Q99 Mr Hancock: It is an appropriate
question, Chairman, because it was said to us, and hopefully the
Minister and former Chief of the Army were well briefed, and when
they gave us that answer presumably they believed it to be correct.
Sir Peter says it is a change of policy and I think it is a legitimate
question to ask when was that policy changed and what does this
do for industry trying to plan for what you are trying to deal
with? Where does industry stand in this?
Sir Peter Spencer: Industry gets
very clear indications of the sort of date for planning purposes
that we have in mind. What ministers have found is that if they
utter those dates before they have enough information to set them
with sufficient confidence it simply becomes a question of debate
in this place.
| 
