Proceeding contribution from Adam Ingram (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 17 November 2005. It occurred during Debate and Adjournment debate on Defence in the United Kingdom.
Defence in the United Kingdom
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not over-interpret what I am saying. There are good reasons why the information has not been disclosed. I cannot give him the explanation. He should pursue the issue with the responsible Minister and the responsible Department. I do not answer for the civilian police, but I understand why he asks those questions, as well as the hurt about the issues. With a slip of the tongue, I inadvertently called Private Beharry, VC, Fusilier Beharry. He is, of course, a private, and I just want to get the record straight. Battle-winning troops need battle-winning equipment. Even the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence spending for more than 20 years does not make equipment provision an easy task. Our aspirations will always outstrip our resources. With shipbuilding alone, we are embarked on a programme that is likely to be worth £14 billion over the next 10 to 15 years—the largest programme of work for decades. The ships and submarines that will be built are much more than steel hulls. They will be complex weapons systems full of cutting-edge technology. Some of our ships may be in service for a very long time and will need to be adapted and upgraded over their lives. The future carriers, for example, will deliver expeditionary offensive air power over a projected life of more than 50 years. All that requires a change in the nature of our relationship with industry. We need to work more closely with those in the defence industry to ensure that they understand our needs and can tailor their expectations accordingly. That is why my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, who has responsibility for defence procurement, is developing a defence industrial strategy, which will provide industry with a better understanding of what our future equipment requirements are likely to be. It will set out the key capabilities that must be fostered and sustained in the UK to meet our future requirements. If there are industrial capabilities and technologies that we need to retain in the UK but that are at risk, we must act now to preserve them. However, we cannot sustain all the defence capabilities that currently exist within UK industry. By adopting a buy-British policy where an equivalent, cheaper alternative product is available abroad, or a better one for the same price, our armed forces could either get less, or worse, equipment than they deserve. Of course, equipment does not stay on the parade ground being polished. It is used in action. It must be fit for purpose. Our people expect that and they should get nothing less.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 439 c1145
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Defence Army Deployment Air force Defence equipment Recruitment Navy Military bases Radar Military aircraft Scotland Technology Reorganisation King's Own Scottish Borderers Royal Scots
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 18:24:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277067
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277067
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277067