Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Crispin Blunt (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 October 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Defence Procurement.


Defence Procurement

My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the problems of a vehicle's remaining in service for so long is that, given the number of updates that it undergoes, a basic imbalance emerges between the various parts of the fighting system. I am simply using the CVRT as an example. The CVRT will be replaced by FRES. The Minister for the Armed Forces and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) both referred to that, and it is only right that they should do so in a debate on defence procurement. FRES is a 3,000-vehicle programme that will cost approximately £14 billion. It is disgraceful that we are having this debate in 2007—I shall come on to the issue of the in-service date in a moment—because as an operations officer of an armoured reconnaissance regiment back in 1988, I was beginning to discuss the shape of the replacement for the CVRT. That was nearly 20 years ago. The Defence Committee has done an excellent job in its report on FRES, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading in the record of the evidence the exchange between the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and Sir Peter Spencer on the issue of the in-service date.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c234 
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