14.1 | Military equipment (post-conflict)

we have to sustain our long‑term defence capability against Defence Planning

Assumptions, you have that conflict against today’s problem in an operational

theatre, and how do you balance the money? It took the Minister to say, ‘We are

going to do this’.”341

650. Asked whether he had been pushing for an alternative vehicle to Snatch for

deployment in Iraq, Gen Jackson told the Inquiry:

“This is one of those areas where it can be very frustrating as a single service chief,

because you don’t have the chequebook and you don’t place the orders. At that

time we were somewhat – what is the word I seek – quaintly known as Customer

Two in the procurement construct, which says something about how the user was

regarded …”342

651. Gen Jackson added:

“… it leaves the single Services somewhat at arm’s length from the process of

acquiring equipment … we need something better to use than Snatch – you may

need something bigger … That’s the requirement from the user but it gets rather

tortuous: it’s a very arm’s length relationship and therefore a very frustrating one.”

652. Gen Jackson stated that the Defence Procurement Agency wrote the

specifications; they were not handled by the service board and only in broad parameters

by the Equipment Capability staff.

653. Responding to a comment from the Inquiry that General Kevin O’Donoghue, Chief

of Defence Logistics 2005 to 2007 and Chief of Defence Materiel 2007 to 2009, had said

Gen O’Donoghue only bought what the customer had requested, Gen Jackson replied:

“Yes, but who says ‘it must withstand an explosion of this size’? Who says ‘its

ground pressure must not be more than that’? Who says ‘it must not be more

than this weight’? That’s not the function of the Army Board. The Army Board

says ‘we want a vehicle that will do this’ without going into that sort of detailed

specification.”343

654. Asked specifically whether he had tried to push back against the processes he was

describing in relation to Snatch, Gen Jackson told the Inquiry:

“Yes, very much so. I have a recollection of what to me was a very important

meeting with the then Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson, because I just felt we

were not getting anywhere within the normal processes of the MOD, you know, and

actually reflecting upon moral duty here.”344

341 Public hearing, 18 January 2011, page 74.

342 Public hearing, 28 July 2010, pages 76‑77.

343 Public hearing, 28 July 2010, page 81.

344 Public hearing, 28 July 2010, pages 84‑85.

111