| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, be an unconditional "yes" in the event that he would consider deleting the words "part of" in line five of his Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issues that have emerged in this short debate make it clear that it is not the amount of the contribution that is the problem but the issue of equity between one citizen and another.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider it correct that one of his Ministers should continually reject the advice of the Procedure Committee on appellations, which we discussed a week ago? He continues to call people just "Lord So-and-so"—he referred to "Lord Peyton"—as opposed to "the noble Lord, Lord Peyton".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that it is for me to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if any Member of the House is offended by the appellation that I use, I undertake to address him as I have addressed the noble Earl.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister accept in general terms that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has a point? As Treasury money is certainly going to run out on present forecasts in the next few years unless income tax is raised, any suggestions for new public/private partnerships should surely be welcomed by the Treasury rather than spurned. Whether the money is for bypasses or private contributions to healthcare plans, a broader vision is needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the premise—the forecast—that Lord Renton of Mount Harry advanced.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, however, if there is anything in the idea, I repeat that our minds are not closed to new ideas.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, surely the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that rich villages should be able to fund a bypass and that they should also be able to put a toll on it so that we can get back to the days of turnpikes!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might well consider in his paper, which he has not yet undertaken to write. However, I am sure that he will.
SA80-A2 Rifle
2.59 p.m.
Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the performance of the new SA80-A2 rifle used by British Forces in Afghanistan is satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the SA80-A2 is operating in a very difficult environment in Afghanistan with both dusty conditions and extremes of temperatures. We have had reports from Afghanistan of equipment failure. In any operational environment, such reports must be investigated as a matter of urgency, but we need to establish all the facts before commenting further.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a degree of confidence must be built into the SA80-A2 because the SA80 needed modifications? Those included a new breech block, breech bolt, cartridge extractor, cartridge ejector, recoil springs, extractor spring, firing pin, cocking handle, magazine, gas plug and cylinder, and the light support weapon has been given a new barrel and hammer. I do not believe that many parts of the rifle have stayed the same. Considering those minor modifications in changing from the SA80 to the new A2, can the Minister say whether the soldiers are confident in their weapons? If they are, can he say why the LSW was not used in Afghanistan?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that servicemen are confident in this weapon. The earlier weapons to which the noble Lord referred by implication came on stream well before our watch.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe it is right to point that out. However, investigations are ongoing and it would be foolish to tell the House anything that is not the result of those investigations. We do not believe that the weapon is faulty. When on patrol, it is necessary for the weapon to have dust removed from the main parts and it should also be appropriately
oiled. It does not need to be fully stripped. Such cleaning can be carried out in a very short time—seconds rather than minutes.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that four weeks ago today members of the Defence Study Group visited the admirable School of Infantry at Warminster? There, we met the experienced officers and senior NCOs who are very familiar with the weapon. Some had been involved in the extensive trials which were undertaken in a wide variety of environments. We were shown the new weapon and the changes were explained to us. We were able to fire the weapon on the range and it worked. Therefore, does my noble friend consider that this is another example of some sections of the press trying to make mountains out of molehills?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I would never accuse any sections of the press of doing that. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. He told me that he and others had visited Warminster on that occasion. I believe that what he found when trying out the SA80-A2 was what most other people have found when using it. It has gone through the most severe tests and has been successful in all of them.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the failure rate in rounds fired from the SA80-A2, the M16 and the AK47 rifles? Have any faults been reported by the SAS in their use of the Demarco rifle?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the last part of the noble Lord's question, he knows that we do not comment on equipment that special forces may or may not have. As to the first part of his question relating to failure rates, extensive trials were undertaken before the SA80 was issued. As I replied a moment or two ago, those trials demonstrated that the SA80-A2 was a very reliable weapon system. The testing included trials in Kuwait in very high temperatures with strong winds and blowing sand.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when I held the position that he now holds with so much greater distinction that I did, I took delivery of the first SA80 for the British Army? In the subsequent target-shooting competition with the then Chief of the General Staff, I was the clear victor. Clearly there cannot be too much wrong with the weapon.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord had had such a great victory. But it was some time ago and I am glad that he remembers it so well.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as I understand it, the refurbishment of the weapon cost £93 million. What would be the cost of starting again from scratch and
producing another weapon in which all the forces have confidence or of using any of the other rifles which are available on the market at present?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as a very small correction, I believe that the figure is £92 million. The cost of replacing the SA80 would be in the region of £500 million. That would be the cost of buying a new system, including spares, additional infrastructure, rifle racks, blank firing adapters, and so on. We have no intention of doing that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this matter is part of a bigger problem? Does he recall that as recently as November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee of the other place produced a very critical report on procurement in the Ministry of Defence? It pointed out, among other things, that 60 per cent of weapons examined by the National Audit Office after acceptance into the Armed Forces had not fulfilled the users' requirements. Can he confirm that, since then, we have had problems with armoured vehicles in Oman, with the hunter-killer submarine and with the upgrading of the Tornado aircraft? Do not our Armed Forces deserve something rather better than that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which the noble Lord mentioned. I am sure that he is aware of one published just a week or so ago which expressed in clear terms the progress being made on the defence equipment. I know that the noble Lord would want to be fair and recognise that there are many great successes in defence equipment going back many years under both governments. I believe that sometimes we should talk more about those than about others. So far as concerns the SA80, I ask the noble Lord, along with other noble Lords, to await the outcome of the investigations.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Government's drugs policy.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page