Proceeding contribution from James Gray (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 20 April 2009. It occurred during Debate on Defence Procurement.
Defence Procurement
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has now had the opportunity to make it twice, and the Chorley Gazette will no doubt be the beneficiary of the press release. He makes a very good point—[Interruption.]—and I am just about to agree with him, if he will give me a second to do so. The important point, as he correctly says, is not whether the uniforms are made in Chorley or in Shanghai, but whether they are the right uniforms for our troops—whether those in the field have the best possible equipment. Uniforms are perhaps a low-grade example, so I shall cite other examples in a moment. I am guilty of the behaviour to which I have referred, in the sense that every time I stand up in the Chamber I raise the issue of RAF Lyneham, and the question of the Hercules and the A400M. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and I am guilty of a sort of pork barrel politics, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to do so as a Member. None the less, when we talk about defence, we ought to get away from narrow constituency interests and find a way to debate what is good for the defence of the realm, even if that is to the disadvantage of our constituencies and, if I may say so, to the disadvantage of the British defence industry. I am stepping on to very dangerous ground indeed, and I know that the defence industrial strategy has been widely welcomed and that there are many good parts to it. My instinct, however, is to think that Defence Ministers’ duty is to deliver a defence capability on the ground, and to carry out instructions from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the Prime Minister to do things around the world. Defence Ministers must provide our troops with the best possible equipment in order to do so, but it could be made in Chorley, Shanghai or Washington D.C. It does not really matter where it is made so long as it is the best possible equipment, provided at the cheapest possible price. I know that that is heresy, and tomorrow morning I will doubtless be deluged with e-mails from assorted defence manufacturers throughout England for having advanced such a heretical argument, but none the less I believe it to be true.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c108
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Defence Arms trade Defence equipment Armoured fighting vehicles Finance Iraq Helicopters Nuclear weapons Peacekeeping operations Procurement Proliferation Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Military aircraft Training Vehicles Warships Uniforms Afghanistan Body armour Aircraft carriers Devonport Dockyard Typhoon aircraft F-35 aircraft Future rapid effect system Trident Voyager aircraft Type 45 destroyers
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:58:50 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547970
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547970
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547970