Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 June 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Counter-Insurgency (Iraq/Afghanistan).


Counter-Insurgency (Iraq/Afghanistan)

No. He knows, as well as I do, that the Defence Committee has never shirked from its responsibility of taking on the military in relation to equipment. We do not have in-service dates now because the MOD learned through Eurofighter, which had more in–service dates than Frank Sinatra had retirement and farewell concerts, that it cannot do so because they fail to materialise. One has only to look at the Committee's most recent report on defence equipment for evidence of that. The report talks about the failure of in-service dates on nearly every project. In some instances, the in-service date has been shifted five or six times. Therefore, we do not now give in-service dates. The hon. Member for Congleton spoke well about understanding what is needed when fighting an insurgency. I agree with her entirely. The suggestion that we will fight some sort of conventional war in the future is long past its sell-by date. I do not think we will be in that position. The lessons from Iraq one and two, and from our experiences in Afghanistan are vitally important to understanding where we go in the future. That is why the military have to be more realistic about what they expect a Government to deliver. I do not sympathise with Ministers, but I can understand the predicament they are in. They are challenged time and again with repeated requests for different things and have to prioritise matters that the military themselves fail to prioritise and be clear about. Again, I commend the Defence Committee's report to hon. Members and to the whole House. Time and again, the report mentions the failure to have a clear perception of what is required and the fact that the spec of the equipment is continuously changed. There is also the issue of Abbey Wood and wanting to check the reliability of the design or structure of the product to the nth degree instead of looking at what is required and first of all seeing if it is available anywhere else in the world. There is a distinct reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to look for something already tried and tested and take it off the shelf.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
477 c35-6WH 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Armed forces Defence Deployment Defence equipment Iraq Peacekeeping operations Procurement Terrorism Violence Afghanistan Civil disorder
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk