Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
SIR PETER
SPENCER KCB, DR
IAIN WATSON
AND LIEUTENANT
GENERAL ANDREW
FIGGURES CBE
12 DECEMBER 2006
Q100 Mr Hancock: That is unfair,
Sir Peter. I was in the room when General Jackson made that comment,
he was gung-ho about making that, it was in the context of saying
what was going to be delivered for the British Army because he
required it for his troops. It was a specific, clear point that
he put over and this Committee welcomed it even though we thought
at that time it was still some way off. He was very convincing
in putting that date to us. I am rather surprised that could slip
considerably.
Sir Peter Spencer: It slipped
for the reasons I have been explaining, which is that our understanding
of the requirement has developed and, therefore, our understanding
of the technical challenge has developed.
Q101 Chairman: Sir Peter, would you
suggest that in-service dates have been used in the past by the
Army to try to hold some sort of a lever over the Ministry of
Defence in buying them equipment?
Sir Peter Spencer: No, I do not
think so at all. What we have learned over the last four years
is we have to be more sensible in the way in which we regard in-service
dates for planning purposes because until we have matured our
understanding of what the procurement is about we simply do not
know enough about the time and cost parameters, so we declare
those formally when we make the main gate decision. The specific
answers are identical to those surrounding the Aircraft Carrier
and we have had that debate previously.
Q102 Chairman: We have. Would you
say that the Aircraft Carrier debate that we had was the first
occasion on which abandonment of in-service dates became public?
Sir Peter Spencer: I do not think
so. If you look at the Major Project Review no main pre-gate projects
now have an in-service date recorded.
Q103 Mr Hancock: Typhoon did.
Sir Peter Spencer: That goes back
a long way. I am talking about the most recent Major Project Review.
This is really a question for ministers, I am afraid.
Q104 Mr Jones: No, it is not, Chairman.
Less than a year ago in January 2005, General Jackson sat there
and gave us the in-service date. You have just told Mr Hancock
that industry will be told when the in-service date is.
Sir Peter Spencer: No. They get
an indication where for planning purposes we would like them to
be aiming.
Q105 Mr Jones: Why can you not tell
us?
Dr Watson: Sorry, can I intervene?
Q106 Mr Jones: Why can you not tell
us?
Dr Watson: Can I intervene?
Mr Jones: No, wait a minute. Why can
you not tell us? If you are prepared to tell industry what your
estimate of the in-service date is, why are you not prepared to
tell the House of Commons Defence Committee what your estimate
is?
Q107 Chairman: Are you prepared to
tell industry what your assessment of the in-service date is or
what the planning assumptions are?
Sir Peter Spencer: We provide
in confidence dates to aim for to industry to get their feel for
how realistic that is and to see to what extent proposals can
come forward.
Mr Jones: Why can we not have that?
Q108 Chairman: Are you prepared to
provide those planning assumptions to us in confidence?
Sir Peter Spencer: I would be
prepared to take the question back to ministers and ask if they
are prepared to release that information to the Committee. [4]
Q109 Mr Jones: I am sorry, Chairman,
I think that is bang out of order. We have got a civil servant
here telling us basically that he is not prepared to give elected
Members of Parliament who scrutinise the Ministry of Defence information
which he is quite happy to give to outside industry. I think it
is disgraceful.
Sir Peter Spencer: It is a question
of how you describe—
Q110 Mr Jones: Absolutely disgraceful.
Sir Peter Spencer: No, it is not
disgraceful.
Q111 Mr Jones: It is.
Sir Peter Spencer: It is a question
of how you describe the date. There is a difference in the date
for planning purposes and in terms of what could you do in this
sort of region and a date which then gets announced publicly by
the Department which is then used as a benchmark against which
to get a whole lot of questions when, frankly, we are still at
the stage where we are deciding.
Mr Jones: How are we supposed to scrutinise
this?
Q112 Chairman: Sir Peter, can you
say whether there is a discrepancy between the planning assumptions
that you are using for the in-service of these vehicles and the
planning assumptions that industry is putting forward to you?
Sir Peter Spencer: I can say that
is what we are going to put to the test in the course of the next
12 months.
Q113 Chairman: Is there a discrepancy?
Do you know whether there is one or not?
Sir Peter Spencer: I do not know
that there can be a discrepancy until we have got the additional
information we need over the next 12 months because we have not
yet firmed up finally what the requirements are going to be and
until we have made that decision setting a date becomes a rather
academic exercise.
Q114 Chairman: So when you say you
have not firmed up what the requirements are going to be, what
you are really saying, it seems to me, is that you do not know
what FRES is.
Sir Peter Spencer: No, I am not
saying that at all. This is a question of degree of detail and
in terms of the rate at which we can deliver against the long-term
capabilities which the Army wants. It is a question of forming
a judgment as to how much you can deliver the initial operational
capability and then how you frame the incremental steps thereafter
to deliver in the longer term.
Q115 Mr Hancock: We are obviously
not thinking straight, are we, because 40 minutes ago you told
us what the requirement was and told us that you will achieve
80%? I am at a loss to understand how you cannot now tell us when
you will expect to get the first phase.
Sir Peter Spencer: It rather depends
which vehicle you choose in the trials of truth to see which bit
of the requirement is going to be delivered first, and it may
be different from another one.
Q116 Mr Hancock: The General told
us what he requires first.
Sir Peter Spencer: He does it
in the broad sense but when we do this in detail this breaks down
into a very large number of different bits of specification, all
of which need to be examined quite carefully and put together
in an integrated solution.
Q117 Mr Hancock: But you would assume,
would you not, and maybe I am completely missing the point here,
that the first priority that the General outlined was the safety
of the people in the vehicle and its ability to do that. I am
at a loss now that you seem to be confusing that answer by saying
that other things will be taken into consideration.
Sir Peter Spencer: Protection
is not the only requirement parameter here and in the short-term,
as is explained, there are other programmes which are dealing
with that. This is the longer term capability and investment in
something which will be in the inventory for 30-plus years.
Q118 Mr Hancock: I understood that
when you answered, Sir Peter. What I am interested in is the first
tranche of a vehicle that is 80% fit for requirement. Why can
you not tell us when you expect that to be in-service? I accept
entirely your point, and I think you are justified in suggesting
that you take further time to develop the capability, but why
is it not possible if you know that you are going to get 80% of
this capability that you cannot give us that date? It is unbelievable
that we cannot have that.
Sir Peter Spencer: I am sorry
if you cannot believe it but we need to make sure that we test
and understand the proposals from industry, that they hang together
in a programme with a manageable amount of time and cost. That
is the work of the next 12 months.
Q119 Mr Jones: I have two questions
I want to ask you on the record because I want your answers. How
long after the in-service date would the FRES utility vehicle
become fully operational?
Sir Peter Spencer: The in-service
date will be defined in such a way that there is a number of vehicles
that are operational. There will be an initial operational capability
date—
4 See Ev 27 Back
| 
