---

Defence in the UK

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. My point is that we should use the history to learn lessons so that in future we deliver. Out in the field, as he said, the feedback is very positive. In Iraq, Brigadier Andrew Gregory said:"““Bowman is giving us a real edge on operations?." Brigadier Patrick Marriott said:"““The potential of Bowman is immense, the reality is very good.?" We can look forward in 2007 to new kit that will enable Bowman to interface with other UK armed forces communications systems. In the field that means that a brigade commander can easily share information. We are also looking at new battery technologies that mean that we will be able to offer a much more powerful, lighter version. It is very easy for us always to criticise when things go wrong—maybe because things so often have gone wrong in major defence procurement projects—but let us celebrate the successes too. In the same article in Jane’s Defence Weekly, Tim Banfield said that there are ““lots and lots? of successful UK defence projects, but the MOD was ““not very good at celebrating? those successes. If we can achieve an honest and open relationship between the MOD and the defence industry—a true partnership—hopefully we will have more of the successes and fewer of the problems. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee when it held an evidence session on Bowman, and I asked Bill Jeffrey, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, about the new partnership with General Dynamics:"““Do you think that, if you had had that sort of relationship with the contractor right back at the beginning, it would have prevented some of the problems you have had??" He replied:"““I think if we were starting from scratch with our present perception of what works best, which is, generally speaking, that it makes sense to think in terms of acquiring capability through-life rather than kit, we would have been looking at the acquisition of not just a radio system, but a radio system with the through-life support built into it.?" That concept of acquiring capability rather than a product must be the benchmark for future acquisition, and capability must be driven by the operational requirements of our armed forces. A few months ago, there was a report in Warship World about potential reductions in the numbers of ships and about putting ships into reduced readiness, and I was quoted in my local paper as saying that I was ““not hung up on numbers?. That was misinterpreted to mean that I was happy to see big reductions in the numbers of ships, which is absolutely not the case. I am glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight today. We cannot consider the number of ships in isolation; we have to consider capabilities as well. More importantly, it should not be the number or the capability of ships that drives our defence strategy. Rather, we should set out clearly the role that we expect our Royal Navy to undertake, and then provide the right number of ships with the right capabilities to achieve the role. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, has made it quite clear that we need the new carriers to meet the operational requirements of the Royal Navy. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for once again reiterating the Government’s commitment to the carriers. I want the acquisition of the carriers to be one of the Ministry of Defence’s success stories, and an example of genuine partnership between the MOD and industry. In Portsmouth, we eagerly await the announcement of the orders for those ships, not just because we hope to play our part in building them, and not just because we can demonstrate a track record in partnership working, but because we believe that Portsmouth naval base is the only feasible home port for the ships.