Defence

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

As both Front Benchers have made clear, we are all in this place indebted to the hard work of our armed forces personnel. Alas, we live in a dangerous world. The optimism that followed the fall of the Berlin wall and China joining the World Trade Organisation has proved illusory. The Defence Committee is currently investigating the grey zone: the gathering of intelligence, the manoeuvring for advantage, the pressurising of independent states, the disruption of democratic processes and the deployment of proxies. Into that category can be placed the hack of the defence payroll discussed earlier today, which follows the hack of our electoral data.

However, those are simply symptoms of a much wider pattern of step-by-step aggression. If, at a future date, our adversaries were to step over the threshold into kinetic warfare, no one could argue that we had not been warned. For any who believed that the modern world was too sophisticated, nuanced and interdependent ever to consider the brute force of state-on-state aggression, least of all in Europe, their delusions were shattered in February 2022. As we speak, in Ukraine hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in the gallant defence of their homes and families from an autocratic aggressor operating on the simple mantra that “might is right”.

In our last defence debate, I called on the Government to recognise the current threat by setting out a clear path to increasing the UK’s defence investment to 2.5% of GDP. The announcement of just that trajectory is most welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on that achievement and on the vital additional support to Ukraine. It is all the more welcome that that increase was not achieved by some hockey-stick projection of what will happen in five years’ time, but is being realised on a linear basis, with a step up each year. That provides credibility and certainty of delivery, and will send a message to our adversaries and a clear message to British industry that we need it to invest in capital equipment, skills and innovation.

The announcement also sends a powerful message to another critical group: our NATO allies. We are celebrating 75 years as the most effective and successful defence alliance the world has known. As the Secretary of State referenced, it remains the case that NATO enjoys, on paper, a substantial overmatch in matériel against Russia. That is well and good, but NATO must constantly up its game. Russia has shown itself oblivious in its tactics to the human cost of its devastating war in Ukraine. Against that backdrop, it is essential that we maintain a substantial conventional overmatch, especially in deep fires and ensuring air superiority, with the stockpiles to maintain it. We need to continue to do so, notwithstanding Russia spending eye-watering amounts to replace their losses in Ukraine with more modern equipment.

NATO also needs to ensure that military capabilities recognise the new geopolitical realities, namely the close relationship between China, Russia and other potential aggressors: North Korea, with its nuclear capability, and Iran, with its regional proxies looking to seize opportunities from the distracted west. A clash, were it to come, could come simultaneously from multiple quarters. Europe must recognise the implications of that and pull its weight.

When I spoke last, I said that I found it hard to believe we would not end up feeling the need to invest up to 3% of GDP, but that any such decision should be based on a bottom-up analysis of necessary capabilities. It will also be influenced by one other critical factor, which is that the increase in our commitment should be noted not just by our adversaries and our industry, but by our allies. NATO must set a new benchmark of 2.5% to reflect the new realities. That additional £140 billion of defence investment across the alliance would go a long way to reassuring us all that defence is receiving across this continent—a continent in which a live war rages—the greater priority it demands.

This debate is a general debate on defence. Members may wish to tackle a whole range of issues, each of which would be worthy of a parliamentary debate in its own right. To name but a few such themes, there is the balance, given the announced new investment, between the current equipment plan and innovative weapon systems emerging from the Ukraine war; the role of the Royal Navy, the balance of its current commitments, the shipbuilding programme and the continuous at-sea deterrence; the modernisation of the Army, particularly its armoured components; the increased prevalence of unmanned aerial systems, the importance to the Royal Air Force and the industrial base of the global combat air programme, and our future role in the space domain; and our home defence, to which the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) alluded earlier. When I asked the Prime Minister whether, post the failed Iranian attack on Israel, we would be reviewing the need for a multilayered UK air defence, that was because I believe we should. Increasingly, citizens will be vulnerable not just to land-based missile or drone attack, but from the same from vessels at sea, with limited warnings.

These are all valid areas of debate, but I want to restrict my remarks not to those internal defence debates, important though each is, but to the wider issue of how, in a much darker world, defence needs to be working with our allies across Government and with broader society as a whole. Arguments are being made that, in the circumstances, our full focus and commitment must be to Europe. Strengthening our ability to play what would be a vital role in that theatre is of course necessary, as the Committee’s report “Ready for War?” set out. However, we have strong continental allies with land-based and land-focused forces, and the contest of the future will be determined not by a stand-off in eastern Europe alone; as in earlier eras, the search for resources, for critical minerals and for dominance of sea routes will remain.

We have influence and we are trusted in many parts of the world. We have genuine friends, a concept unknown to our adversaries. Our role in supporting our allies—for example, in competing with an expansionary China—may lie not in the South China sea, but on the coasts of Africa, in the Gulf and in the high north. We should not lightly neglect the assets we have. In particular, our history has provided us with geographical reach and a position that our adversaries would love to usurp. As senior US military and naval officers are not slow to remind us, UK bases overseas remain absolutely vital, not least Diego Garcia. We must be deeply protective of assets with so much strategic value in protecting the free world, including supporting regional allies.

There is also how defence is viewed inside Government. For anyone who has had the privilege of the serving as a Defence Minister, and I am delighted to say that there are many of us on the Defence Committee, the picture is familiar: the darkened room, probably Cobra, with the ominous description of whatever dire visitation is expected, be it fire, flood, plague, strike or even the failure of security baggage checkers, and all faces turn in our direction. There will always be a requirement for MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests and the military will always rise to the task, but it should not be called upon as often as it is. Our armed forces must be training and preparing for their tasks, and their rest and recuperation time is critical if we are to retain and recruit. Departments must be more resilient in peacetime, and must have in place plans for worst-case scenarios, including war, as was once the case, and these should be checked and should be exercised.

Lastly, there is defence working alongside society. In the quarter of a century in which our own national defence appeared to be assured, our ability to think holistically about the strategic interplay between all aspects of our society and how that can help keep us safe has atrophied. Defence cannot be put into a discrete box; we need to think clearly about long-term national plans and how they support our resilience.

I will name just a few examples. The skills agenda on nuclear is commendable. With no disrespect to our Liberal Democrat friends, these are very long-term commitments—we cannot play the hokey-cokey with nuclear. It is a long-term endeavour, so that skills agenda is incredibly important, but are we doing enough to set out exactly what cash will be invested in upgrading our scientific capability? Are our plans for small modular reactors being driven at the pace we require, not just to minimise costs but to appreciate swiftly all the implications that that new technology may unleash? Given the undoubted brilliance of UK research, are we doing everything we can to ensure we are spotting the crossover opportunities? We can be certain that our adversaries are using every possible avenue into that UK research. When ideas move from research to production, are we calling out those who make—often cavalierly and without proper consideration—trite judgments on what may be ethical or unethical investment, and in doing so are undermining our ability to live in a society where such a debate can even take place?

There has been some commentary in the press about peacetime conscription. While I welcome the honesty of sharing worst-case scenarios and the focus on increased investment in defence that that has brought, I personally view the idea as misplaced, but I would make an observation. In the coming decades, we risk skill pinch points in critical areas of defence. They are the very areas that are at the forefront of technology, and therefore at the forefront of demand in the private sector. Are we doing enough to identify brilliant young men and women, and setting out a specific and unique path for them to enter His Majesty’s armed forces for a limited period post university? Some may wish to stay longer term; others may join the reserves. That would require a different approach. The Government would have to consider a whole raft of inducements, including financial ones, but we should not overlook the willingness of young people to accept fascinating challenges and to serve if called on to do so. Done well, that cadre would be recognised by industry as having been hand-picked as the leading lights of their generation, and with among the most sought-after of skillsets, they may even provide the impetus to the zig-zag careers proposed by the Haythornthwaite review.

We need to invest: in innovation, in capital equipment, and in the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased that the Government are doing just that. It is vital, it is timely, and every penny must be well spent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend is vociferous on the issue of the River Wye. He never misses an opportunity and has proved his dexterousness yet again, in doing so in this debate.

We, on the Government Benches, are proud to be the party of small business. I am delighted that, as part of this Bill, authorities will now have to have regard to small and medium-sized enterprises and the barriers that they face.

Finally, the Bill will put in place a new exclusions framework that will help to make it easier to reject bids from suppliers whose performance on previous contracts has been unacceptable, or who have been involved in serious wrongdoing, such as fraud, collusion or modern slavery. Crucially, on Report, we introduced a package of vital amendments that will protect our national security and ensure that public contracts do not go to suppliers who pose a risk to our country.

We will also create the national security unit for procurement, which will proactively investigate suppliers for national security threats, and we will publish, within six months of the passing of the Bill, a timeline for the removal of all the surveillance equipment provided by suppliers subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive Government sites, protecting places that are most vulnerable to sinister interference and espionage. Together, these changes constitute robust protections against the ever increasing national security threats.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members across the House for the quality of the debates and the scrutiny provided throughout the passage of the Bill. I am indebted to my hon. Friends and to those across the House for the helpful engagement and the comments they have made, which have undoubtedly refined this crucial piece of legislation.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for his excellent work on Committee and on Report in this House, and to Baroness Neville-Rolfe for her tireless work in the other place. The Bill has had a long progression, so I would also like to thank our predecessors, Lord Agnew and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), for their work on the Bill in its earlier stages.

I thank the officials who have worked on this Bill, particularly the Bill manager, Katrina Gayevska, Sam Rowbury, Ed Green, Janet Lewis and other officials who worked on this legislation, as well as the staff in the private offices of all the Ministers in the Cabinet Office, for their support and help throughout.

When he entered office, the Prime Minister said that he would deliver on the manifesto on which we were elected. I am proud today to be doing just that, and I wholeheartedly commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Infected Blood Inquiry Update

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the infected blood inquiry.

The Government welcome the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, and I would like to thank Sir Brian Langstaff and all those who have contributed. The infected blood inquiry has done a huge amount of work on an intensely complex issue, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard. I have been deeply moved by the testimonies outlined in the latest report, and the victims’ bravery in coming forward should not be overlooked.

The issuing of a second interim report specifically on compensation was not anticipated by the Government until we were informed of it by the inquiry in February this year. However, we very much appreciate and welcome Sir Brian taking this approach. The Government are considering intensely the recommendations outlined in this report, and work is under way at pace across all relevant Departments to respond fully.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) announced the infected blood inquiry in 2017 to examine the circumstances that led to individuals being given contaminated blood and blood products in the UK. The inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, commenced on 2 July 2018, and I would like to reiterate our total endorsement of my right hon. Friend’s point that the

“contaminated blood scandal of the 1970s and 80s…should simply never have happened.”

In tandem with the ongoing inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), then Paymaster General, commissioned Sir Robert Francis KC to produce a compensation framework study in anticipation of a recommendation from the inquiry to set up a compensation scheme. The findings of this study were published in June 2022.

Shortly after that, in July 2022, Sir Brian published his first interim report of the infected blood inquiry. In his report, Sir Brian recommended that the Government make interim payments to infected individuals and their bereaved partners. The Government accepted this recommendation in full on 17 August 2022, and interim compensation payments of £100,000 have been paid to those infected individuals and their bereaved partners registered with existing support schemes.

As I said to the House in December:

“We have much to do, but I wish to assure the House…that this is a priority for the Government and we will continue to progress it.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 1251.]

I would like to assure the House that this commitment absolutely remains.

Sir Brian’s most recent report sets out what the inquiry recommends as an appropriate means of compensating both those infected and affected, and the mechanism for delivering that compensation. In doing so, it sets out the complexity of what is a multi-layered issue. The recommendations in his report outline that those infected and affected should be granted legal support, and infected and affected people and the estates of infected people should be able to claim for categories of loss against five awards: injury impact award, social impact award, autonomy award, care award and financial loss award. This is rather than claiming on an individual assessment of each application. In addition, those dissatisfied with their compensation payments should have redress through an appeal to a structure outside the compensation scheme.

The report has also proposed mechanisms that Sir Brian thinks will ensure the fairness of the compensation scheme. He has recommended that the scheme be administered by an arm’s length body, chaired by a High Court judge or equivalent, and advised by legal and medical professionals, as well as the beneficiaries of the scheme. In addition, Sir Brian has proposed that the route through the courts should still remain open to beneficiaries.

Sir Brian has agreed with much of Sir Robert’s study, but there are also differences in approach. For example, Sir Robert outlined in his study that the scheme should be delivered locally in each of the four nations as this was the preference of the victims. Sir Brian has recommended that the scheme be delivered by a central body, while continuing the support provided by the existing infected blood support schemes, which should be continued and guaranteed for life

“by legislation or secure government undertaking”.

There is also divergence in the consideration of scope of those eligible for compensation payments, including the extension of payments to those with hepatitis B, and not providing payments to the estates of those affected.

Sir Brian’s interim report is detailed, and it is only right that the Government will need to consider the complexities it sets out thoroughly when preparing our response. The House will recognise that health is a devolved matter, and I will be discussing the report with my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

As I said at the start of my statement, the Government welcome the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report to assist its ongoing work. However, we do not underestimate the complexity of these recommendations, which do need careful consideration. For example, Sir Brian recommends an arm’s length body in which His Majesty’s Government would have no ongoing role beyond providing taxpayer funds as required by the body. On anything like this scale, this would be a new departure, and it does have implications for Government accountability that will need careful consideration alongside how its financial implications will be managed.

However, I would like to reassure the House that while the Government are progressing work to ensure that we are in the best possible position to respond fully at the end of the inquiry, every recommendation by Sir Brian, including in relation to timing and a further interim payment, is receiving intense focus.

My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are aware of issues that Sir Brian has raised in relation to psychological support. Under the current psychological support scheme for England, there is provision for a grant of up to £900 a year, for established beneficiaries and family members, for counselling and talking therapy. The Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking research to look at the psychological support needs so that decisions on commissioning a bespoke service are based on robust evidence and meet the requirement.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the need for pace. People die every week as a result of the impact of the scandal. This Government want to deliver resolution, and we are working at pace across all relevant Departments to consider the recommendations as outlined in this latest report and to ensure that we are best placed to respond to the inquiry’s final report. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She was right to pay tribute to many MPs in the House, including the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue over a long time. I am grateful for the work of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and some members of the media have also been at the forefront of pushing this issue for a long time.

Above all, the hon. Lady is right to refer to the victims, and I am very conscious that there will be tens of thousands of people watching this statement who are desperate to see a resolution. Every time there is another iteration, or a cause for me to be in this place, it is a source of anxiety, concern and worry. I am sure that there is disappointment every time there is another statement and we do not have the final resolution, but we have travelled a long way. This inquiry was announced six years ago, and Sir Brian started work five years ago. I am very grateful to him for producing this interim report. A lot of it is similar to the report by Sir Robert Francis, but there are differences.

We do need to do the work, and on the points the hon. Lady raised, we have been focused on ensuring that at the conclusion of Sir Brian’s inquiry, we are able to come forward in the best place possible, but that does not preclude doing something earlier if we are able and have the means to do so. Registration is not as yet taking place, but I am mindful that whereas for the previous interim payment there was a defined set of people and bereaved partners, if this recommendation is to be taken forward it will require registration, and that inevitably takes time, as we are all aware.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that this statement is no more than an update. I was keen to come to the House to hear the views of hon. Members, and I commit to doing so again as appropriate and as we continue through this process. Work will continue, and of course it would be a pleasure to meet the hon. Lady and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if they would like to discuss this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

In his second interim report, Sir Brian Langstaff makes it clear that the Government have everything they need to implement the compensation framework now. I repeat the pertinent quote that the shadow Minister pulled out from the report:

“Time without redress is harmful.”

I suggest that that is rather underplaying it. During “time without redress”, people are passing away. Currently, the infected blood support schemes make regular ex gratia payments to those who are affected and bereaved partners. Will the Government make that provision statutory?

[Jeremy Quin]

I do not dispute for a second Sir Brian’s comment that time without redress is harmful, to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referred. We want progress, which is why we are working at pace to deliver it. Sir Brian makes a specific recommendation that the ongoing ex gratia payments should be put on a statutory basis, or receive a similarly strong Government commitment. I am not in a position to respond to recommendations today. It has been eight working days since the report landed, but all the recommendations will be taken seriously.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

May I put on record my gratitude for advance sight of the statement, and for the work of the infected blood inquiry? I suspect there will be a considerable amount of consensus in the House on this issue. Over the years, I have been appalled at the personal testimony that I have heard from my constituents about 40 years of struggle, and the realisation that this scandal could have affected any one of us. It is a tragedy that simply should never have happened, and it has been made worse by decades of delay, first in preventing further use of contaminated factor products and identifying victims, and then in delivering compensation.

As we know, the infected blood scandal took place before devolution, while healthcare in Scotland was the responsibility of the UK Government. Financial powers to deliver compensation still lie with Westminster. It is therefore entirely appropriate to have a scheme delivered by a central body, as recommended by the inquiry. Over the years, too many delays and denials have impacted victims and their families. Sir Brian Langstaff is spot on when he says in the interim report—we have heard this a couple of times already, but I make no apology for repeating it—that:

“Time without redress is harmful. No time must be wasted in delivering that redress.”

It is therefore imperative that the recommendations to widen the interim compensation payments are carried out, and that should be done before the final compensation scheme is set up. Will the UK Government accept the inquiry’s recommendation that interim compensation payments are widened and delivered without delay? Finally, when will the compensation system’s independent chair be appointed, and can we have a detailed timescale for that?

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his welcome for the concept of a central body. That was not an area of dispute, but there was a slightly difference emphasis in Sir Robert’s report and Sir Brian’s report regarding whether the payments should be delivered locally through each of the four schemes or through a UK scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this happened in the ’70s and ’80s, long before devolution, and there is a clear recommendation from Sir Brian, which I am glad he endorses.

The hon. Gentleman raises two points about the interim compensation payment being widened and there being no delay in its implementation, and about the appointment of individuals. This all depends on the Government’s response to each of the recommendations—he will accept that—but a number of things could be done to speed up the process. If we were to agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation to have an arm’s length body, there are mechanisms whereby individuals could be appointed on an interim basis, prior to the ALB being formally constituted. All that is in the mix as we work through our response to the report.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank my hon. Friend for a most ingenious comment. I had not considered the calendar of the two Bills. It is an interesting point. I will raise the matter with business managers.

We will continue to support UK businesses so that they can continue to be successful in competing for public contracts in other countries around the world by protecting reciprocal arrangements and guaranteeing market access, treating each other’s suppliers on an equal and fair footing.

Turning finally to territorial application, we have prepared the Bill in a spirit of co-operation between the nations of the United Kingdom. As part of the policy development process, we welcomed policy officials from Wales and Northern Ireland into our team so that they had a critical role in shaping this legislation from the very beginning. As a result, the general scope of the legislation applies to all contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that contracting authorities and suppliers can benefit from the efficiencies of having a broadly consistent regime operating across constituent parts of the UK.

I regret to say that the Scottish Government have opted not to join the UK Government Bill and will retain their own procurement regulations in respect of devolved Scottish authorities. Many in the House will regret that and would no doubt welcome our Scottish friends joining the new regime, which will benefit taxpayers and public services alike across Scotland and the whole of the UK.

There has never been a piece of UK procurement legislation as comprehensive as this. It is a large and technical Bill. I accept that there may be some areas that will merit further consideration, which we will debate in more detail in Committee, but I am confident that these significant reforms open up a new chapter for public procurement in this country and will boost business, spread opportunity and strengthen our Union. I urge all Members of this House to support the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, I wish to draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that, while we are not desperately pushed for time, there is quite a lot of interest in this debate, so my recommendation for Back-Bench speeches is about eight minutes. We also have a maiden speech. If Members follow my recommendation, I will not need to impose a time limit. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Home Secretary: Resignation and Reappointment

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the real issues that underpin this Administration and are affecting our country. I am not going to set out a timetable for him, as that is for others to do, but I absolutely recognise the pith of his comments. There are really important challenges that we need to get after and the one he mentions is right there among them, and I have absolute confidence that the Home Secretary and the immigration Minister are working on that night and day to get us the results we need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Ajax Noise and Vibration Review

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Jeremy Quin

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for welcoming the transparency that this report represents from the Ministry of Defence. He is absolutely right that its commissioning and publication have sent shock waves through Defence. That is valuable and important. Everyone needs to be aware of the important imperatives—people need to answer for them and ensure that they are on track—and, even by commissioning and publishing this report, we have sent an important and salutary message, as well as learning a lot of detailed facts. He was generous in that respect, but he was most ungenerous and wrong regarding the Secretary of State.

As set out in the report, we first knew of this issue in November 2020. Ministers acted promptly. I am concerned that at the time it was described to me as a late discovery item, and that was mentioned in the report, and a culture of optimism bias continued. That is why I insisted that no IOC would be declared without ministerial involvement. That is why we were, and have been, very focused on ensuring that we got to grips with this programme, which we have, and on ensuring that we had this report not only commissioned, but published.

The report has laid bare a host of very difficult issues inside Defence, across a whole series of organisations. That is what the Defence Secretary and I are absolutely focused on getting to grips with, and what we are doing. The purpose of the report was not to apportion blame, but to discover the facts. That is the normal process in industrial companies where there are issues of concern—to establish the facts and to set out recommendations. That has been done.

We want to have a second report—I have referred to that previously in the House—to dig deeper and to make certain that the lessons are learned and that the recommendations are appropriate. As I have said, if there are examples of gross misconduct, they will be acted on.

What the report revealed, however, is a deep cultural malaise: across Defence, horizontally, parts of it are not speaking to each other as they should be on a programme of this nature. Concerns are not being elevated as they should be, vertically up through the system. That is a problem, a failing, and it needs to be addressed. If we want to have proper procurement, we cannot have a culture in which people take the view that they want to hear only solutions and not problems. It is necessary to have a proper airing of concerns and for them to be taken up and dealt with.

The shadow Secretary of State raised a number of other points. A large number of hulls have been delivered to Merthyr and are being worked on. Of course, there has been a succession of capability drops in the project, so hulls will have to be enhanced and improved over time.

The right hon. Gentleman may believe that things have got worse. That is not my experience. On the contrary, we are in a far, far better position than we were last year and in a far better position than we were six months ago. Detailed work has been undertaken and conclusions from Millbrook will be with us before Christmas. GD has growing confidence in the design modifications that it believes can be effected. I will have no position on them until we have tested them, gone through them and made certain that they work, that they are efficacious and that they give us the kick that we require. There is a lot of work still to be done on headsets, but I have seen the benefit of having a full-time focused SRO and with ministerial focus on the project, driving it forward. We are in a far better place to take decisions on Ajax than we were. The project is in a healthier state than a year ago, as should be the case. It is an important capability that we need for our operational requirements, and we will continue the hard work to ensure that it is delivered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I commend the focus that the Minister brings to the situation, which is very refreshing indeed. However, he speaks of a troubled programme with cultural and systematic failures and of commissioning a senior legal figure to investigate. The project is a complete mess. Indeed, our whole land warfare programme is now operationally suboptimal as we cut our tank numbers, all our armoured fighting vehicles and our recce vehicles and introduce Boxer—a wheeled vehicle but with no substantial firepower—and Ajax. As we have discussed, it is a £5 billion project that was expected in 2017, but only a dozen vehicles have arrived, and people are being sent to hospital because of the vibration problems. The MOD is fortunate that the west—sadly, this includes the UK—is now so risk-averse as we would struggle today to send appropriate hardware into Ukraine in a move that, in my view, would deter Putin from invading.

The real scandal is the cover-up and dishonesty that led to the integrated review hiding those very problems with Ajax that the Minister spoke about so that it would not be axed. I spoke to a number of four-star generals, and nobody expected it to survive the integrated review. It makes it difficult for me to call for defence spending to be increased to 3% to improve our defence posture because of the threats coming over the horizon when money is spent so poorly. I call on him to set a date in February when, if the procurement issues are not resolved, the project will finally be closed down.

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his comments. Last year, his Committee produced a helpful report on armoured vehicles that made absolutely clear the requirement to invest more in that part of our defence. The Committee was right to do that and to highlight those concerns, and it should be reassured by the investment that we are putting into Boxer and Challenger. A £41 billion programme of investment in equipment and support is going into the Army in the next 10 years, and £8 billion of that is new. We differ, however, on the requirement for a recce vehicle of this nature. We need such a 24-hour vehicle that can operate in all weathers and all conditions to provide that critical ground reconnaissance, and that is what we are procuring via Ajax.

We must make certain that we have all the facts, because decisions are best made with all the facts. The root cause analysis on noise and vibration is in process, and we are doing that at pace. I am determined to drive answers on that. My right hon. Friend is right to ask searching questions, but, as I said, we are in a far better position than we were six months ago to understand what is going on. I hope that, early next year, we will know far more and be able to say, “Yes, this is a capacity that we can bring in and will work.” I am hopeful that we will get there, but it depends on the analysis that we do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This is a sorry tale, but more importantly, it is a strategically very important equipment failure that leaves a very serious capability gap. I, for one, am clear that the Minister’s statement does not satisfactorily address the issues.

The health, safety and environmental protection review gets to the heart of the failures. It provides helpful definition and sources for the catastrophic failures—numerous as they are—in the management control issues, which have come to define the literally incredible £5.5 billion defence procurement fiasco. I am sure that others will detail the chronic operational consequences of those failures for the ability of UK forces to fight and defend, so I will concentrate on technical details.

I said in this Chamber some months ago that the problem was

“not…MTU V8 diesels or the Renk transmissions”—[Official Report, 9 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 494],

which were tried and tested assets in other platforms. So it has come to pass.

The review highlights the failure of the

“Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface”,

which are unique to Ajax. The engine, good as it is, is a proven engine poorly mounted in a badly designed vehicle. We also learned today that, as the review sets out, there were

“Quality issues associated with…inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of…weld quality…insecure components”.

That does not sound to me like a £6 million vehicle. The shoddy design and appalling quality management represent engineering management from a truly different era.

There is no shortage of concerns about the programme, but one of them is about the tone of the report: “This was all very difficult, and we’ve taken a look back to see where things went wrong.” Two elements are missing from that rather lightweight mea culpa routine: who is carrying the can, and what is the future of the programme? Can the Minister identify who will take responsibility for this almost limitless failure?

Currently, GD UK management are clearly letting down the workers at Merthyr and Oakdale. What discussions has the Minister had with GD US about their future? When will he make a final decision on the future of the programme?

[Jeremy Quin]

I am impressed with the hon. Gentleman’s attention to detail, but technical issues are not really within the scope of the health and safety report. Mr King would not claim to be the person who can put the House’s mind at rest on technical issues, but there is a huge amount of ongoing work on the matter. The Millbrook trials have concluded, as I say, and we are waiting for the conclusions to arrive before Christmas, and they will be analysed. That will get to the heart of the issues with root cause analysis of noise and vibration, which I know the hon. Gentleman will look forward to with eager anticipation. I will update the House on what the answers turn out to be; I would rather not prejudge that technical analysis.

The hon. Gentleman refers to General Dynamics. One of the positives in the programme since the issues came to light is that we have had a complete transformation in the relationship with General Dynamics, which has been taken up at a very senior level: I speak to the global chief executive, and she has been in direct communication with the head of DE&S. That has helped to drive real performance through General Dynamics, all the way through the system. We are seeing a complete transformation in how it views the programme, in its determination to succeed and in its willingness to embrace the problems, which are clear. It has its own theories about them and is developing design mitigations and design resolutions. We have yet to see whether or not they can absolutely succeed; clearly we will wish to test that independently.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call John Spellar—[Interruption]—Sir John Redwood.