| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that between 1993 and 1997, the Conservative party was in government?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman had better read the document or listen to what I am saying. He will see that there were fluctuations in the delay, sometimes up and sometimes down, until 1997. The fluctuations were never more than 10 per cent. from the mean. After 1997, there was a qualitative jump. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that.
Moreover, the National Audit Office comments:
I shall deal with some of the matters that the Minister covered--for example, the SA80 rifle. It is true that the SA80 rifle has been around for a long time and was originally procured by a Conservative Government. A Conservative Government recognised that there were problems and, between 1995 and 1997, set out an investigation programme, the results of which were available to the present Government.
What have the Government done about it for the past two and three quarter years? Nothing at all, because apparently they consider the rifle a thoroughly satisfactory weapon. Only last week, when the Secretary of State for Defence graced the House with his presence, he described it as
Mr. Davies:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The project was originally conceived under the previous Labour Government. The great question is what this Government have done and whether they acknowledge that there is a problem since they took office in 1997. They appear to believe that there is no problem and that the rifle is a capable and highly accurate weapon. Last week, the Secretary of State said that it may have some problems in extreme conditions, but Kosovo does not constitute extreme conditions. It is not an arctic, super-hot or tropical area.
The Minister should listen to our troops, who have to use the SA80. I hope that the Minister read an article in The Times on Saturday, which quoted a 26-year-old lance corporal, who said of the SA80:
Does the Minister believe that The Times invented those quotations? If he believes that, he should say so. If The Times did not invent them, we are considering an extremely serious matter. The Minister should consider
what he will do about it. He should come to the House to explain the action that he will take instead of trying complacently to slither over the matter.
Mr. Spellar:
Before the hon. Gentleman suffers a paroxysm of over-excitement and hysteria, I must point out that if the weapons system is so deficient, he should take up his criticisms with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who was formerly an Armed Forces Minister for a considerable period of time. The deficiencies, which are apparent in extreme heat and dust, were revealed during the Gulf war. There were questions about whether the deficiencies constituted systemic weaknesses or isolated problems. Perhaps it took too long to decide.
More recently, major work was undertaken between our experts and the manufacturers, Heckler and Koch. They are also working on a remediation programme, about which they will report. We are taking action, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that the weapons system is deficient, and not a capable and highly accurate system--as the Secretary of State rightly describes it--that has some problems, he is criticising the previous Administration.
Mr. Davies:
It is a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the Minister to claim that, although he is Minister for the Armed Forces, the problems lead to the door of previous Governments. As for my becoming excessively excited, does the Minister know what happens in battle to a soldier whose rifle jams? Is not that an appallingly serious consideration? We should take it extremely seriously and the Minister should tackle it. He should be in a position to come to the House to explain the measures that he will take to prevent such a tragic outcome.
Mr. Spellar:
The hon. Gentleman's position is extraordinary. If his accusations are justified, he is claiming that, between 1991 and 1997, his colleagues sent British troops into engagements with defective equipment. If that is what he is saying, he criticises the previous Administration. The system has considerable merits, but also deficiencies. We and the manufacturers are doing something about it.
Mr. Davies:
So far, the Minister has completely failed to say what he is doing about that, but the House and the Army are entitled to know. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will tell us a little more when he sums up the debate.
Mr. Hancock:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies:
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I must continue, because the SA80 is one of the issues that have attracted an exceptional amount of media interest. There are many more. What about the Tornado GR4 upgrade programme? I wrote to the Secretary of State when the BBC broke the story last Wednesday, but of course I have had no response to my letter or to parliamentary questions on other procurement matters that I tabled some weeks ago. I shall set out the perfectly reasonable questions on this matter, to which Parliament is entitled to an answer.
Is there any truth in the BBC's report that £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent and that the effect has been not to upgrade but to downgrade the GR4s, because they cannot operate the laser smart bomb mechanism? When did those problems come to light? In the media last week, the Government appeared to say November 1998. Was that the moment when Ministers became aware of them? If so, what action have the Government taken since? After all, that was 18 months ago. Is a business plan in place to address the problem? If so, may we know what it is? Can we also be told the additional cost of remedying whatever deficiencies have emerged? Who will pay that--the taxpayer or the contractor? Those are straightforward questions.
Mr. Davies:
I shall give way, but we do not want some new Labour gimmick, slogan or brush-off. We want serious, businesslike answers to serious questions.
Mr. Spellar:
I hoped that I had done that in my opening remarks, but I shall amplify them. There is a constant battle between those on the ground who are trying to detect aircraft with radar systems and aircraft that are trying to avoid detection. Development is constant as technology advances. Therefore, to improve the aircraft's stealth capabilities, major complicated work is being undertaken to upgrade from GR1 status to GR4.
Mr. Spellar:
The hon. Gentleman says he knows that, in which case his remarks are even more extraordinary. That work is at the edge of electronic and information technology. It is absolutely right that, towards the end of 1998, there were some difficulties in integrating the new radar systems and the thermal imaging and laser designation technology. As a result, the Ministry of Defence and the manufacturers have been working together on proposals to rectify them, and they believe that they are on the way to achieving that. The programme is still within the time frame and the budget of the original proposals.
In other manufacturing industries, "time to market" has generally shortened as new technology has facilitated design and development processes. Figure 17 shows no such trend is evident in defence procurement.
It is clear that there is a serious problem in defence procurement, and the Minister's complacency in his speech this afternoon was thoroughly unwarranted and inappropriate.
a capable and highly accurate weapon--[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1393.]
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford):
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He might have referred to the Defence Committee report of June 1993--again, while the Conservatives were in government. That report stated:
This delay could have had disastrous consequences and we look to the Ministry to ensure that it does not happen again.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what happened between 1993 and 1997?
To be honest, it is useless, it falls apart on you.
Another lance corporal, aged 23, agreed:
There are terrible malfunctions. Everyone knows it is a weapon that you couldn't rely on in a real war.
The article continues:
The British squaddies were frustrated because yesterday morning they were given an order not to discuss the SA80 with the press after revelations in The Times yesterday.
That is sinister. The article goes on:
At first they refused to talk about the weapon, which was strange because the British soldiers in Kosovo usually have an opinion on everything. But by last night, they were ready to speak out. "It's weird, because in the past they always told us to say to the press what you think is true," a squaddie said. "This is the first time in Kosovo that they have told us not to talk to the press."
Clearly, the Government are extremely worried about the matter and are trying to prevent the views of our troops in Kosovo from being heard.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |