Proceeding contribution from Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 October 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Defence Procurement.
Defence Procurement
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his sharp sight. I confess that I have not seen that early-day motion, but I will give it my attention and conduct the discussions he suggests after I have done so. I thank him for drawing it to my attention. The Public Accounts Committee recently rightly raised concern about the MOD's biggest weapon project running over-budget and falling increasingly behind schedule. To turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), we must at all times be concerned about the waste of public money. It is essential to the troops that we get what they need to them as quickly as we can, but it is also essential to taxpayers that we drive a better bargain for their money than we have done on all too many occasions. The culture of delay that has developed over the years is not only to the detriment of the armed forces, but it also costs taxpayers dearly. The fact of the matter is that we end up spending more than we should, getting less for our money than we wanted, and getting it later than we should have done—and its capability is often not appropriate for modern circumstances and is a pale imitation of what was originally planned. We know that the equipment situation in Afghanistan is dire. Reports have mentioned only half of the Apache helicopters working, only 70 per cent. of the Chinooks being available, only 16 of 96 promised armoured vehicles being delivered, engineers moving high explosives in soft-skinned trucks and soldiers having to buy their own kit as the Army provisions were below requirement and not fit for purpose. That is an unacceptable situation. [Interruption]. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) to say that that is not true, but serving members of the armed forces have talked to me and other Members about that—those serving members have said that that is their view. I appreciate that others have a different view, but I am simply relating to the House what members of the armed services have said directly to me.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 464 c219
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Armed forces Defence Army Defence equipment Armoured fighting vehicles Finance India Recruitment Procurement Staff Navy Military aircraft Ministry of Defence Scotland Small businesses Technology Research Shipbuilding Body armour Aerospace industry Russia British Aerospace Submarines Future rapid effect system Sheep meat Defence Export Services Organisation UK Trade and Investment Lynx helicopters Tide class tankers
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:14:26 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415650
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415650
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415650