Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Everyone in this debate will rightly speak about defence spending, procurement and ammunition, and those things all absolutely matter, but I want to ask a broader question: what does warfighting readiness actually mean in 2026? For too long, we have measured military strength by the number of ships afloat, aircraft we fly or tanks we field, and those capabilities will remain essential, but recent conflicts have reminded us that wars are rarely won by militaries alone; wars are won by nations. They are won by industries that can out-produce an adversary, economies that can absorb shocks, and societies resilient enough to sustain conflict over time.

I have seen this at first hand in Ukraine. Time and again, I have met individuals whose courage is beyond question, but courage alone is not enough. Success depends on whether ammunition arrives when it is needed, whether new technology can be adapted in weeks rather than years, and whether industry can keep pace with the demands of the battlefield. The side that learns, adapts and regenerates fastest gains the advantage, and that should challenge how we think about readiness.

Warfighting readiness is no longer simply the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. It is an industrial strategy, an energy strategy and a technological strategy. Ultimately, it is a national resilience strategy. If our energy networks are vulnerable, if our communications can be disrupted, if our supply chains depend on hostile states, if our British industry cannot rapidly increase production when conflict begins, our armed forces will inherit those weaknesses from day one of any crisis. That is why resilience must sit at the heart of our national security.

We often talk about stockpiles, and rightly so, but I think the more important question is not how many missiles are sitting in a warehouse today; it is how many missiles British industry can produce every month after six months of sustained conflict. Modern warfare consumes munitions at a pace that few of us can comprehend or imagine, but Ukraine is teaching us lessons: 7,000 to 10,000 drones flying a day; 12,000 artillery rounds fired a day; and 1 million drones, in some cases, produced over two months.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I recently met a number of small and medium-sized enterprises and start-up companies that want to produce drones and autonomous systems and to integrate AI more, but they are concerned about the pace of change in the MOD. Does my hon. and gallant Friend believe that the MOD needs to start pacing up and getting on with the job of working with these companies to provide us with the sort of protection we need?

[Al Carns]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Data is the new gunpowder. AI is absolutely critical in defence, and we should use all of our technological advantage to move faster and further than ever before. We should be bold and jump to the next generation of systems, and not wait for anyone else to lead—we should lead ourselves.

The lesson from my perspective is clear: stockpiles matter, but the ability to regenerate them matters even more. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to rebuild munition stockpiles, expand domestic production capacity and invest in British defence industry. Those are investments not just in military capability, but in national resilience.

The same is true for technology. Ukraine has demonstrated that innovation cycles measured in months can outperform procurement cycles measured in decades. Drones, autonomous systems, software and artificial intelligence are changing warfare at an extraordinary speed, and it will only ever get faster. Readiness, therefore, means building a procurement system that can adapt just as quickly, giving innovative British companies a route into defence and ensuring that our armed forces can evolve as rapidly as the threats they face. We have at present over 10,000 people in Defence Equipment and Support—that is, 10,000 people doing procurement. I am not saying that it is inefficient, but I am saying that bureaucracy sometimes gets in the way of speed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is an honour to succeed the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) who opened the debate—a very timely debate it is, too. I particularly commend the point that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, made about this being a whole-of-nation approach, because we are preparing for war. We might actually be at war in some senses, because Russia is knowingly saying that it is conducting a war against NATO, and we are certainly subject to a hybrid war against our national infrastructure—hacking our hospitals, closing down Jaguar Land Rover and harassing our shipping. This is a very low level of war, but we have certainly been under attack from the way that Russia rations gas to western Europe as a weapon. Turning energy into a weapon, turning food into a weapon—Russia is doing the lot, and the writing is on the wall.

The Government still have not woken up to the fact that the head of NATO, and even the Prime Minister at Munich, has said that we have to be ready to fight a war—a shooting, kinetic war—against Russia by 2030. There is no sign in the implementation of policy that the Government understand the urgency of that. There are plenty of people in Government who get the urgency of this, and I met some of them with Lord Robertson earlier this week to be briefed on national resilience, but there is a deep reluctance in the Government to recognise that to mobilise for war is not about the armed forces and a few branches of Government. Armies may fight battles, but nations fight wars. If the whole nation is not galvanised to do what is necessary, to be ready for what is going to happen, and to make the sacrifices and suffer the pain of diverting resources to less popular things than the popular things that Governments tend to spend their money on, we are not ready for war.

[Derek Twigg]

The hon. Member is making a good and strong point. Does he agree that, frankly, it boils down to the fact that the Government must be much blunter with the British people about the nature of the threat we face?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes, and I think the Government have plans for that, but they keep pulling back because it is a difficult thing to talk about. The spin doctors and spads will tell their political masters, “Oh no, don’t talk about that—the polling says it is terrible.” I am afraid that we have to confront the polling. We have to confront the population with the ugly truth: this country is at far greater risk than it has ever been since the height of the cold war.

Defence Investment Plan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not for me to make guarantees on behalf of other Government Departments, including the Treasury. I am sure that he will understand that. I do not think that any Minister outside the Treasury would be in a position to make that guarantee.

I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about these matters, so the guarantee that I can give him is that in the time I have had available, I have looked very carefully at the mix of capabilities contained within the plan and made a number of changes in order to deliver capabilities that I thought were required sooner rather than later. Has that involved making some difficult choices? Yes, it has. Has it involved cutting some capabilities? Yes, it has. But what I have to do is do right by defence and be satisfied that we have the resource available and the right capabilities in place to allow us to operate alongside our allies in a very dangerous world.

That is not an easy process, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I hope he will also acknowledge that today’s investment plan represents an important step forward, but as I have said consistently, there is still a requirement to spend more on defence.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to read the DIP this morning in the reading room. There are some important questions that need to be answered. It is clear that the last Government left the armed forces in a poor state, and this Government have been doing all they can to try to repair that, but for me, the key question is this: given the threats we face today globally and in Europe and the state of the world economy, does this plan meet those threats and provide us with the security and defence capability that this country needs at this time?

My view is that it clearly does not, and I think we have to make a much greater contribution. We need to get to 3% by the end of this Parliament, and we need to set out a plan to achieve that. Otherwise, it also leaves a great deal of uncertainty in the defence industrial base about the ability to ramp up and upskill to meet those requirements.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee and for his previous service in the Department. I therefore take seriously the points he made. He is right to highlight the nature of the threats we face as a country. That is why, in addition to the work we are doing in Defence, it is incredibly important that activity is joined up across Government to ensure that wider resilience and wider societal response. That work is under way with the Cabinet Office.

My hon. Friend made a point about uncertainty for industry. The truth of the matter is that the publication of this plan today will ensure greater certainty for our industry partners, who we now want to work with closely. We rely on them to be able to manufacture the capabilities we require to keep our country safe. This is a big shot in the arm for UK industries, and I look forward to working closely with the defence industries in the months—and hopefully years—to come to ensure that we are buying British and taking their capabilities and deploying them to meet the nature of the threat that we face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I join the hon. Gentleman in commending FalconWorks and BAE Systems for their innovation. The Government have established UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million annual budget to support innovation. That is making a difference in bringing more innovation to the market as well as dual-use potential. We will continue to invest in that, just as we set out that 10% of our equipment budget will be spent on novel technologies, helping to drive the latest kit and equipment for our troops.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I note with interest that the Minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is gaining more and more ground, but are we anywhere near understanding in the Ministry of Defence the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter-drones that will need to be produced now and in the future, and on a mass scale, should any conflict break out? Can he assure the House that that is understood in the MOD?

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I can. One of the key pillars of the strategic defence review is learning the lessons from Ukraine. When it comes to autonomous systems and drones, that is not just about the continuing investment that we are making in high-end drone capabilities—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, one-way strike and others—but about how we can deliver mass effect. Due to the rapid iteration of drone technology, it does not necessarily always make sense to have a warehouse full of millions of drones. However, having the ability to produce millions of drones while recognising the shortages in the supply chain, especially around motors, magnets and cameras, is the way that we can enhance our capabilities and our deterrents. We are actively working on that.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for a really focused question. Part of this problem set is about looking at early warning when systems appear, either in our waters or close to our waters, or indeed close to any critical national infrastructure. That is a multi-domain operation, ranging from space all the way down to other intelligence assets, which gives us very early warning of what is happening, where, when and why, and allows us to pre-position capabilities to meet them, or to ensure that we can understand exactly what they are up to and therefore put in an operation to deter that if required.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I was in Latvia at the weekend, where they very much know what the threat is from Putin and the Russians. I thank the Minister for his statement and the helpful way in which this has been described in public. It is clear that we need to do a lot more to explain to the British public what the threat is from the Russians and how it is getting worse—not least if we are to increase defence expenditure, as I have been advocating in this place for some time, and tough decisions have to be made. We need to have a better programme of education and information to demonstrate how serious a threat Putin and the Russians are to the security of this country.

[Al Carns]

I completely agree. A more effective and better understood communication and education plan about what those threats really mean to the population is essential. If I were to turn around to the population and say that there was a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover, people in and around Jaguar Land Rover would be affected and would take notice. If I were to say that the cost of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover was half that of lifting the two-child benefit cap, that would resonate far more widely across the nation. If I were to say that cyber-attacks cost more than £10 billion last year alone, and that the MOD has seen a 50% increase in hostile state attacks, that would start to resonate. We need to ensure that we continue to communicate that narrative in the easiest way, but also that it resonates with every section of society. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Middle East

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The country’s best interests are served by our actions both before and since the start of this period of the war—actions taken to defend our personnel, our bases, our allies and our interests throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our interests are served best by an end to the conflict, which we want to see happen now. We therefore welcome President Trump’s move to step back from further attacks on Iranian power plants and oil infrastructure, which creates the opportunity for further de-escalation, which the hon. Gentleman calls for. I hope that he would recognise that the onus is now on Iran to respond in kind.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, there has been no change in the principles on which our approach, action and decisions are based. These are permissions for the US to use UK bases for defensive action, as it is striking at the very Iranian sites and capabilities that are attacking our interests and those of our partners in the region.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?

[John Healey]

Having been a Defence Minister and having served for some time on the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than perhaps anyone else in the House about defence matters. I appreciate his recognition of the way that, since the election, we have stepped up the scale of investment in autonomous systems, counter-drone systems and integrated missile and air defence systems, all of which were badly lacking under the previous Government. He will have followed an important speech that the Prime Minister gave three or four weeks ago at Munich, in which he recognised, as this House does, that demands on defence are rising; that this is an era of hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy; and that we need to spend more, faster, on defence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Our sovereign base in Cyprus is not in question. When the Secretary of State for Defence visited Cyprus, the Cypriot national guard reaffirmed that our relationship is closer now than ever before. We must always remember the complexity of dealing with air defence. When it involves high and fast ballistic missiles combined with slow and low drones, it is a very complex problem for anyone to deal with, but we are trying to ensure that we come as close to 100% as we can.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

Given the present focus on the war in the middle east, there is concern that we should not lose focus on what is going on in Ukraine. On developing and strengthening our relationships with our allies, what are the Minister and his fellow Ministers doing to ensure that Putin does not take advantage of the current situation in the middle east, and that we ensure that Ukraine continues to get the full support, weapons and assets that it needs?

[Al Carns]

We continue to lead, both in the coalition of the willing and in the Ukraine defence contact group, which the Secretary of State attended recently, raising billions of pounds-worth of equipment support in weapons, air defence systems and everything through to female body armour. Ukraine absolutely remains a focus. This is not just about UK security; it is about European security, and that will not change.

Ministry of Defence

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on his well-thought-out speech. I know the good work that his Committee is doing on defence expenditure. It is a real privilege and pleasure to see so many of my colleagues from the Defence Committee in the Chamber. They all do an excellent job—particularly the new members—in holding the Ministry of Defence to account.

The most important factor in this debate is our people. The defence and security of our country is paramount for any Government and Parliament, but to deliver that, we need to have the people, and our armed forces have some of the finest people in the world. The professionalism, courage and commitment that they show on a daily basis is absolutely unparalleled. I put on the record my appreciation for their work, not least as we enter yet another dangerous period in this world with what is happening in Iran, when, again, they are being asked to do things on behalf of our country.

Given the time available, I do not want to repeat the things said by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, but I will focus on a couple of things before I come to the matter of overall defence expenditure. The defence investment plan has been mentioned, which is important because, apart from it telling us what we are spending money on, the previous Government did not produce an equipment plan after about 2023, so we could not scrutinise the Ministry of Defence or hold it to account. We are in the same position now because of the continued delay in the defence investment plan. I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to bring that plan to fruition very quickly, because the Defence Committee has been denied the ability to scrutinise MOD expenditure for several years now.

We have heard a lot today about capabilities, the changing world, how war is fought, technology, the defence industrial base and how we have to change the way the MOD works and its culture. Clearly, the new ministerial team appointed after the election has made great strides in reforming the Ministry of Defence and has made a number of significant changes. I am sure that that is starting to bear fruit, but there is still a long way to go. I know, too, that other things will need to get done. If we are to spend our money better—that is what we are talking about today—we need to make sure that the system in the MOD addresses the needs of civilians and the military, has the ability to spend money wisely and achieves the greatest efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Treasury sources often cite those things as reasons not to give more money to the Ministry of Defence. The current ministerial team clearly has that in mind and its work will change that. I shall come back to the actual amount of money that we should be spending.

To put it bluntly, we are in a perilous situation. This country would have difficulty defending itself for any period of time, or sending out and sustaining any sort of sizeable armed force on the European continent given the Department’s current supply of resource. That is what we need to address. We need the ability to produce mass both in terms of service personnel and of equipment. We need to be able to generate drones, armoured vehicles, ships, aircraft and so on. We have lacked that ability to generate mass for some time. We are now in a situation where we may well have to do that, but we do not have the systems in place to be able to deliver it. That is something that I am particularly concerned about.

We live in a perilous and fragile world, and it has just been made even more fragile by the events of the last few days in Iran. When it comes to Britain, we already have great commitments. We are committed to helping Ukraine, and we have our NATO commitments, which we are already failing on. We have been failing for many years when it comes to our ability to deliver the capabilities that we should be providing to NATO, and that is a real worry given that we are putting our NATO policy first. We have just seen the resources that we needed to be able to send naval ships to Cyprus. It is a real worry that we struggle to do that.

Technology is advancing rapidly. That applies not just to drones but to cyber and the grey zone. Again, we need to move forward more quickly, more intelligently and in a more agile way. I believe we are still struggling in that area. A week or so ago I met two Ukrainian officers who told me that they were concerned about the ability of the British armed forces when it comes to how we use and produce drones and how they are managed on the battlefield. That is really important to understand, because we have trained Ukrainian service personnel and we need to utilise their knowledge and depth to ensure that our personnel are also trained to that level. They must have the ability to use and manage drones in the battlefield. We need those skills as widely as possible within the armed forces. I am concerned about that as well.

There are some key messages that we need to give our armed forces. The first is that if we are going to send them in harm’s way, we will make sure that they are fully resourced and have the capabilities, protection and support that they need—not just from the Government and Parliament, but from the country as a whole. That leads me to another point that I would stress: we need a whole-of-society approach to the dangerous situation that we now face in this world, and we need to work out how we can get that message across to society. This is about not just the individual on the street, and the households in this country, but how our financial sector, Government Departments and education system are set up, and how quickly our industry—not just the defence industrial base but our wider industrial base—can be turned to producing the defensive equipment and assets that we need. I have concerns about all those things, and they need to be addressed.

Let me turn to defence spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), a fellow member of the Defence Committee, will go into more detail about private finance and defence, as it is not just about the Government putting in public money. The Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned 3% defence spending. I have been saying for some time that we need to start spending 3% now, but that does not mean just saying, “Let’s spend 3%”, as has been outlined by others; it is about spending the money well and intelligently, and doing so in a different way than we have previously.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) knows the Defence Committee’s report on procurement. I think that report was welcomed, and it was on the ball in raising the issues that need to be addressed and the ways in which we can move forward. As to whether lessons have yet been learned, we shall see, but we clearly have to get procurement right and move it forward, and the report sets out a template for us to start doing that; it is another big area that we have got to sort out. When it comes to spending the extra money, we have to get our procurement system right. We have to make sure that we produce the right assets—the ones that will give the most capability to our armed forces—and really take account of the modern battlefield today, as well as the pressures and threats we will face without those assets.

We cannot wait. We face a serious threat to our national security. We see it all the time across Europe in cyber and the grey zone, whether it is Russian drones in Polish airspace, Russian jets flying into Estonian airspace, attacks and sabotage on factories and railway lines, the use of criminal gangs by states to destabilise other countries, or disinformation and so forth. We really have to wake up to the fact that these threats are real, and that Russia considers itself—certainly, Putin considers himself—already at war with the west. I urge that we get a move on. We cannot waste any more time if we are to secure the protection and security of this country.

Whether in industry or finance, and obviously in the military, we have amazing people, who, working together, can take this country forward and deliver the defence needed for its protection. We need to utilise that ability, but time is running out. I recently co-authored a paper produced by Civitas called “Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness” with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the renowned defence expert Chris Donnelly. I hope that hon. Members get a chance to read it. It is not perfect or an absolute blueprint for moving to war-readiness, but it is a start. That is the debate that we have got to have today; and we have to move on today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

If the hon. Member wants to trade records, his Government had 14 years to raise defence spending; it falls to this Government to raise it back to 2.5%—the level it was at in 2010, when Labour was last in government—and we will hit 3% in the next Parliament.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I record my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the work they are doing to improve our defence capabilities and leadership in NATO and Europe, as well as on the defence industrial base. We have heard from Conservative Members, who of course are responsible for the massive underspending on defence. However, we have to move on from that. Given the threats that we face, today and in the coming months, from Russia and other adversaries, it is clear that we need to accelerate our spending on defence as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that we get more resources into defence, so that we can maintain our leadership position in Europe, and so that our armed forces are fit to deal with the threats that we face?

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his response, and his bipartisan support on this really serious issue. What is NATO article 4? For clarity, article 4 is a consultation mechanism. If an ally perceives that its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, it can invoke article 4. That is what Poland has done. Discussions will then take place in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political body, in which the UK will, of course, be involved.

I mentioned the status of the attacks. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine, but that does not in any way, shape or form excuse those attacks. They are an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale.

I agree that our industrial collaboration with our allies and partners is essential, as we and NATO move forward, and as our partners and allies’ relationships move forward, to making sure that we are prepared in every way for an escalation, or an existential crisis, should it come.

In our response to Ukraine, we are doing a huge amount to lead our allies and partners. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Defence is with the E5, talking about the coalition of the willing, and he has talked to Polish representatives already. We are leading the way in that coalition—on its formation, structure and how it will deploy, should it need to, if peace ever comes to Ukraine.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is this not another example that what Russia really believes in is the complete annihilation of Ukraine? It does not care what collateral damage it does elsewhere. I believe that sending drones across into Poland was a deliberate move by the Russians. I welcome the response from Poland and NATO, but do we not need to talk about ramping up industrial co-operation for Ukraine, so that it gets more and better munitions and equipment more quickly, and ramping up sanctions? With the Budget coming up, we need to consider how we ramp up defence expenditure, and further increase it beyond the recent targets set.

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his support for defence. I completely agree that the Ukrainians are undergoing a serious violation of international law by a barbaric and reckless leader in Russia. They are experiencing bombing, drone attacks, ballistic missile attacks, which cannot be heard, subterfuge, sabotage, hostage taking, and the huge, large-scale kidnapping of children. Air raids go off every night in Ukraine, in a way that is reminiscent of world war two. The wailing of those sirens alone will have a psychological impact that will last long after any war finishes.

Why is this happening today? It is because of Putin’s barbaric, unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign state. We must continue to do the maximum to support Ukraine and encourage its allies and partners. We have done a significant amount. The House may recall that at the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, we launched a 50-day drive to deliver more for Ukraine. Fifty days on, we have 5 million rounds of munitions; 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles; 2,500 uncrewed systems; 30 vehicles; and 200 electronic warfare and defence systems. On top of that, we had a £70 million plan to provide 350 air defence missiles, and, finally, £150 million to provide air defence and artillery. We are at the leading edge, and have been for a long time, in supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to be, long into the future.

Afghanistan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I note that the shadow Secretary of State made great play of the changes and the extra safeguards that Ministers of the previous Government put in place following the breach. I also note that the Secretary of State said he had had to make more changes and introduce new software. That suggests to me that the changes put in place by the previous Government were not good enough. Can I ask him this clearly? Who had knowledge of this incident in the 18 months after the data breach had taken place before it reached Ministers? How were there no checks on anyone in the Department who had access to that sort of data to ensure they were using it properly?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend poses questions to me in the House this afternoon that I simply cannot answer. The events date from a period well before I took office. As he above all will appreciate, new Ministers have no access to the policy advice, the legal assessments, any of the papers or even the threat assessments that previous Government Ministers may have commissioned. I think that that subject is, if I may say so, proper material for the Defence Committee, on which he serves in such a distinguished way, to perhaps take a deeper look at and to call witnesses on who may be in a better position to answer those questions than I am this afternoon.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about software. I am afraid I am one of the last people to be able to give an authoritative view on the question of cyber-security and up-to-date software, but the nature of this work means that there is a constant requirement for new software and for updating. The fact that we have taken the steps in the past 12 months that our experts and I have regarded as necessary does not necessarily mean that the steps taken by previous Ministers were inadequate. What I can say, however, is that when I was the shadow Defence Secretary, we were aware of and exposed in opposition the building backlogs in casework, the regular data breaches and the broken promises that sadly too often characterised the Afghan relocation schemes, particularly in the early years.