Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
MR QUENTIN
DAVIES MP, GENERAL
SIR KEVIN
O'DONOGHUE KCB CBE, LIEUTENANT
GENERAL ANDREW
FIGGURES CBE AND
MR AMYAS
MORSE
16 DECEMBER 2008
Q440 Chairman: The short examination
has made that difficult and we are told now that the short examination
is over, so that difficulty has evaporated, has it not?
Mr Davies: Mr Arbuthnot, the position
is this: as I have just said, it would not be sensible to have
a new Defence Industrial Strategy every year, it would be crazy.
Q441 Chairman: This is part of the
old Defence Industrial Strategy. It was envisaged in the Defence
Industrial Strategy that we would have a Defence Industrial Strategy
2.
Mr Davies: I personally do not
think that we should have these documents too frequently, you
devalue them if you have them too frequently, I really mean that.
I do not think we should have one every year, I do not think we
should have one every two years, we should not necessarily have
one every three years. I think we need to make sure that when
we do have one it is at the right strategic moment when we can
say something which is novel, which is original, which is arresting,
which is detailed, which is full of sectoral and financial information
of the kind that industry wants. As and when we get to that position
the advantages of having such a document would be greater than
the disadvantages. If we cannot agree those degrees of clarity
then I do not think that the advantages necessarily would override
the disadvantages and one of the disadvantages might be to devalue
the existing document.
Q442 Mr Jenkin: Can I put it to you,
Minister, it is very difficult to say anything novel or innovative
when in fact the only things you can announce are delays, freezing
contracts, putting things back. We all know—let us have
a grown-up conversation about this—you have a procurement
bow wave and the only way you can take the strain out of your
programme is by delaying decisions and delaying acquisition programmes.
That is not a very exciting thing to put into a strategy, is it?
Mr Davies: Mr Jenkin, that is
a very one-sided view because it is just not a reasonable view.
Of course we have put back some things but we have brought forward
other things. You have chosen not to mention things we have brought
forward like Future Lynx, like Warrior upgrades—
Q443 Mr Jenkin: That was already
in the programme.
Mr Davies: But we have brought
them forward. It is very important to get the full picture.
Mr Jenkin: It has not been brought forward.
Q444 Chairman: Do you describe what
has happened to Future Lynx as bringing it forward?
Mr Davies: I do, Mr Arbuthnot,
for the simple reason that there was very considerable uncertainty
about this whole programme, there were all kinds of rumours—
Q445 Chairman: Why was there this
uncertainty? It was caused by the Government.
Mr Davies: I can assure you that
when I arrived in my present office there were a large number
of rumours that we were going to cancel this particular programme.
Q446 Mr Jenkin: Why would that have
been the case?
Mr Davies: I can never account
for rumours, Mr Jenkin, you would be as good as I would be in
guessing that.
Mr Jenkin: It is not difficult.
Q447 Mr Havard: Can I ask you then
what you say to Lord Mandelson and the Department for Business
or whatever it is called nowadays.
Mr Davies: Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform.
Q448 Mr Havard: Thank you; that is
this week anyway. The question, however, about looking at strategic
industries in the current circumstances we are going through in
essentially the next two but probably five years, they are looking
at what they need in terms of sovereignty, for capability in industry,
in different areas in different ways. They must be asking the
Ministry of Defence to make a contribution to that discussion;
what do you say to them other than the fact we had a strategy,
we published it in 2005, mate, you can read that and that is all
we are doing?
Mr Davies: I am saying that that
particular strategy foresaw a number of areas of sovereign capability
and foresaw key partnerships which we would undertake with the
major players in those sectors in accordance with that particular
strategy.
Q449 Mr Havard: If we are going to
have a Government Industrial Strategy (if I can put it that way)
you have a Defence Industrial Strategy which has not been revised
during that period of time. You are being asked for a revision,
are you not, through that process?
Mr Davies: Mr Havard, of course
I am only responsible for the defence aspects of our Industrial
Strategy but I repeat we are totally committed to that Defence
Industrial Strategy and our partners know that. As almost each
month goes by we add to the implementation of that particular
strategy but we are far from having achieved everything that was
foreseen in that Defence Industrial Strategy. That remains a very
useful working document and, as I have already said, one of my
hesitations about the Defence Industrial Strategy 2—although
I do not exclude it at all—is that we do not want in any
way to create any uncertainty about our commitment to the Defence
Industrial Strategy as it exists.
Q450 Chairman: Your partners know
that, do they, because when Mike Turner, who knows a thing or
two about defence came in front of us, he said the Defence Industrial
Strategy is on hold. He said: "Now I think it is in doubt.
We are very pessimistic about the future because we have the DIS,
we have the principles, we have the strategy; we do not have the
money." Was he right?
Mr Davies: I quite agree with
everything you say about Mike Turner, he is an exceptionally talented
businessman and he certainly knows a vast amount about defence
and the defence industry. So far as the last comment is concerned
that we do not have the money, I have already explained that it
would be immensely surprising—
Q451 Chairman: No, but he thinks
the Defence Industrial Strategy is on hold.
Mr Davies: If he said that there
was all the money there that he would like for his defence industries
then it would be an extremely surprising comment, I agree. He
did not say that and I do not think any of us should be particularly
surprised at the line that he has been taking. As for "on
hold", that term is slightly ambiguous. It may mean valid,
still in existence, unchanged, and if that is the characterisation
he was giving it that is the correct characterisation.
Chairman: No, it was not the characterisation
he was giving it. Adam Holloway.
Q452 Mr Holloway: How does the unexpected,
unplanned-for level of violence in Helmand Province fit in with
this?
Mr Davies: That is a matter which
does give rise to defence equipment and support needs which are
very urgent and which we treat as being of the utmost priority.
I think I have explained to you in the course of the proceedings
so far some of the things we have done about that, that is the
reason why we came up with the new package of armoured and protected
vehicles in November, another 700 vehicles. Remember we have about
8000 men and women in theatre so we are talking about one new
vehicle for every 12 people or so who are actually deployed there.
That is a pretty high number of vehicles, I think you will agree,
Mr Holloway. Needless to say not everybody employed there in the
course of his or her job goes on patrol so there is quite a large
number. Other things, like re-engining the Lynx helicopter, that
is something that I set the highest personal priority for and
I had asked Rolls Royce for a quote on that within almost a few
days of arriving.
Q453 Chairman: I would like to come
back to the Defence Industrial Strategy, please. Still on what
Mike Turner said to us, he said, "It is extremely difficult
for industry to plan as we hoped we would be able to when we had
a DIS, but that is reality."
Mr Davies: He said it is difficult
to plan when we have a DIS?
Q454 Chairman: "It is extremely
difficult for industry to plan as we hoped we would be able to
when we had a DIS ... " That explains what he believes about
the existence of the Defence Industrial Strategy, does it not?
Mr Davies: Mr Arbuthnot, you and
I are discussing what somebody else feels about this.
Q455 Chairman: He is a rather important
person.
Mr Davies: He is a very important
person and I do actually speak to him about this. I do not know
when these quotes derive from by the way.
Q456 Chairman: It was evidence in
front of this Committee which is in the public domain.
Mr Davies: When was that?
Q457 Chairman: Two months ago.
Mr Davies: Ah, well two months
ago, that may explain it.
Q458 Chairman: Ah, the Defence Industrial
Strategy is right back on course now, is it?
Mr Davies: The Defence Industrial
Strategy, in my view, Mr Arbuthnot, has never been off course
over the last three years.
Q459 Chairman: I am sorry, 18 November,
it is one month. You have revived something.
Mr Davies: I have to say that
maybe Mr Turner had not had the opportunity of the conversations
we have subsequently had when he gave the answers he did. It is
always invidious to quote the results of personal conversations,
even if one does not go into the detailed content of them, but
I have to say, and I say it advisedly, I am sure that Mr Turner
would not disagree when I say that he and I have had a number
of very constructive conversations on this matter and that he
does believe that his views are very much reflected in my thinking
on this and that we are not very far apart, certainly not in our
principles and our objectives.
| 
