Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This week, like the Secretary of State, I will be meeting the Australian Defence Minister and discussing AUKUS with him. I want him to know that, while there may be a change of UK Government at the next election, there will be no change in Britain’s commitment to AUKUS. If done well, this pact could deepen our closest alliances, strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific and bring game-changing investment to Britain. What priority has the Defence Secretary given to building the first subs here, and when will the build plan be announced?
Mr Wallace
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for AUKUS and I note his point on a Government, though of course there will be no complacency from the Labour party; I hope they will not repeat what happened once in the 1990s. The reality is that AUKUS makes good security sense, and those on this Labour Front Bench recognise good global security, even if those on the last one did not. His questions are a matter for the Australians, who ultimately will make the decisions and are the customer in the sense of where they spend the Australian taxpayer’s money. We have of course contributed to the discussion and offer, but Australia will have to make a decision about time and how quickly it wants the capability, how much it wants to build in Australia and what is the right fit for its ambition: Britain or the United States’ existing fleet. I suspect that will come some time in March, if not in February, and I am happy to keep him up to date. We have put in a good proposition, and I am delighted he is meeting his counterpart, because our relationships matter.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This month, the Government made important but, again, ad hoc announcements of more military help for Ukraine. We are still waiting for the 2023 action plan of support for Ukraine first promised by the Defence Secretary last August. Will he publish that ahead of the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion next month?
Mr Wallace
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to set out a plan. But may I also tell him —I chased this in advance of today’s questions following the previous questions—that our donations are not ad hoc? There is a view abroad that they are somehow ad hoc, with the Ukrainians just picking up the telephone. Fundamentally, the donations are set by what happens on the ground, the reaction to Ukrainian defence and how Ukraine needs to adapt. It is not an ad hoc thing; it is a deliberate process, mainly co-ordinated by the United Kingdom and her allies. It is really important to separate that from an overall strategy about announcing to Parliament the different lines of effort that we take to counter Russia.
John Healey
Last week, the Defence Secretary said that the armed forces had faced a
“consistent hollowing out…under Labour and the early Conservative governments”.
However, when Labour left government in 2010, the British Army stood at more than 100,000 full-time troops and we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. The serious hollowing out has happened since. Who does he think has been in charge over the last 13 years?
Mr Wallace
Mr Speaker, you have only to listen to the veterans on the Government Benches to understand their experience under a Labour Government. Let us remember Snatch Land Rovers and all that awful mess as a result of the Labour Government’s investment. The deal here is quite simple: if the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the next Defence Secretary, he should come here and get off his chest the shortcomings of his former Government. I am happy to say that we have hollowed out and underfunded. Will he do the same, or will he hide behind petty party politics?
Ukraine: Update
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. Mr Speaker, 2023 will indeed be the decisive year in this war in Ukraine, and the most decisive moment is now, when Ukraine has the tactical and morale advantage over Russia; now, when Ukraine needs more combined military firepower to break the battlefield deadlock. As the Secretary-General of NATO said yesterday,
“it is important that we provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win”.
That is why this first package of military assistance for 2023—with tanks, artillery, infantry vehicles, ammunition and missiles—has Labour’s fullest support.
Challenger 2 is a world-class tank that can help Ukraine retake lost ground and limit the cost in Ukrainian lives. We are now sending 14. How many tanks does Ukraine need for a successful counter-offensive? Are the 14 Challengers currently in active service or in storage? When will they be delivered into the field in Ukraine? What combat engineering vehicles will be delivered to support those tanks? Will any UK forces personnel be deployed into Ukraine with those vehicles?
The integrated review cut Challenger tanks from 227 to 148. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s review of Challenger 3 numbers. When will he announce the results of the review? Is he reviewing other Army cuts? The Armed Forces Minister told me in a parliamentary answer last week that Challenger 2 training takes 33 days for gunners, 46 days for drivers and 85 days for crew commanders. The Defence Secretary made no mention of Challenger training. Will the UK provide training alongside the tanks? How long will the training be for Ukrainian troops?
President Zelensky has confirmed the wider importance of this UK military package. At the weekend he said:
“that will not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners.”
The Defence Secretary today said that hopes that this UK military aid will help to unlock more co-ordinated support from other nations. Like him, I welcome similar moves already announced by other NATO nations in recent days, particularly the US and France. How many of the 14 Leopard-using nations may provide those tanks to Ukraine? What more does he expect from allies at the Ramstein meeting on Friday? It has been five months since he announced the international fund. When will allocations be made?
The Prime Minster talked at the weekend about a surge in global military support for Ukraine. How will the Defence Secretary ensure a continuing surge in UK military support? What more can Ukraine expect from the UK? You know, Mr Speaker, as does the Defence Secretary, that I have argued for months that Ministers must move beyond ad hoc announcements and set out a full 2023 action plan for military, economic and diplomatic support—a case that the Defence Ministry has fully accepted. That will help to give Ukraine confidence for future supplies. It will help to gear up our own industry. It will encourage allies to do more and it will make clear that things will get worse, not better for Russia.
One of the clear lessons from the last year in Ukraine is that nations need large reserve stocks of certain weapons and ammunition, or the ability to produce them quickly. The UK has neither. We are still moving too slowly to replace the weapons donated to Ukraine or to find new wartime ways of making weapons more rapidly and cheaply. There was no mention in the Secretary of State’s statement about replenishing UK stockpiles or a new industry plan. Can he update the House on the action he is taking?
Finally and importantly, he said that today’s military package means that Ukraine can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Will he confirm that this is the UK’s strategic aim for Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
If you would indulge me, Mr Speaker, there were lots of questions and I will do my best to answer them all. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his party for their support, which, as he said, has been ongoing and enduring throughout this process. That is what allows the UK to be prominent in standing tall for international human rights and defending Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what scale of support Ukraine will need; I cannot be too specific, as I do not want to set out to the Russian Government the exact inadequacies or strengths of the Ukrainian armed forces. However, it is safe to say that the Ukrainians will require an ongoing commitment that grows to the size of divisions in its armed forces. Also, in the last year we have seen Ukraine grow its own army, to hundreds of thousands of men and women under arms, who are now equipped not only with western equipment but with captured or refurbished former Soviet or Russian equipment. The Polish Government have donated more than 200 T-72 tanks, for example.
The key for all of us in the next phase is to help Ukraine to train and to combine all those weapons systems in a way that can deliver a combined arms effect in a mobile manner to deliver the offensives required to achieve the goal of expelling, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about. It is the UK Government’s position that Putin’s invasion fails and Ukraine restores its sovereign territory, and we will do all we can to help achieve that. This package is part of that. The Challengers should be viewed alongside the 50 Bradleys from the United States. Those are effectively the ingredients for a battlegroup with divisional level fires of either AS-90s or other 155 howitzers. The 14 tanks represent a squadron, and the 50 Bradleys would roughly form an armoured infantry battlegroup.
We are trying to take the Ukrainian military, with its history of Soviet methods, and provide it not only with western equipment but with western know-how. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the training will be delivered almost immediately, starting with Ukrainians training in the UK and in the field, so to speak, either in neighbouring countries or in countries such as Germany, where we saw the artillery train with the Dutch, I think, at the beginning of this process. The training of these Ukrainian forces will be administered and supported in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, with the US being in the lead for much of that formation training. It is incredibly important and supportive of the United States to do that.
There will be no UK forces deployed in Ukraine in this process. As I have said, that is because our job is to help Ukraine to defend itself and we can do that from neighbouring or other countries. Yes, I know the training cycle. I was a trooper in the Scots Dragoon Guards in 1988 and I started my time in a Chieftain tank, which you would be lucky to see in a museum these days. The Ukrainians have shown us, in their basic and specialist training, that they are determined to go back and fight for their country, and their work ethos and the hours they put in are quite extraordinary. I am confident that, on one level, they will soon be showing us the way to fight with this equipment.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced the Army cuts. I have come to this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions and admitted how woeful our Army’s equipment programmes have been in the past and how behind and out of date they have been. That is why we have committed investment of more than £24 billion in Army equipment alone over the next 10 years. As I have said, I am bringing forward Deep Fire and Recce and getting Ajax back on track, as well as our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, the Challenger 3 tanks, the Boxer fleet, plus many other investments in the Army. This is incredibly important. I take it seriously and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does too. We have to deliver an Army that can stand shoulder to shoulder with its peers, never mind its enemy, and it is important to say so.
On the Leopard coalition, as it is calling itself, it is being reported that Poland is keen to donate some Leopard tanks, as is Finland. All of this currently relies on the German Government’s decisions, not only on whether they will supply their own Leopards but whether they will give permissions for others to do so. I would urge my German colleagues to do that. These tanks are not offensive when they are used for defensive methods. There is a debate in Germany about whether a tank is an offensive or defensive weapon. It depends what people are using it for. I would wager that if they are using it to defend their country, it is a defensive weapon.
Also, we are not on our own. This is a joint international coalition. I know that there have been concerns in the German political body that it does not want to go it alone. Well, it is not alone, and I think that the conference in Ramstein will show that. I pay tribute to the commitment by the French to put in the tanks at Christmas time, and we are obviously joining alongside them. They are the key to unlocking the Leopard, and we will do all we can to help that.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on the international fund is imminently: I will announce it in the next couple of weeks. We had $27 billion-worth of bids to a fund that has reached $500 million. I am very grateful for the recent Swedish donation to the fund, which we intend to keep growing, but I want to make sure that the fund is spent sustainably. It is not a petty cash or slush fund though which people can just go and buy something. I want it to be invested in things such as production and supply chains. Whether it is maintaining tanks or artillery supplies, an active production line is needed.
That goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point about being too slow to place orders. One of the reasons it has taken time to place orders, as he knows, is that there is sometimes no supply chain and we have to wait for a supply chain to be reinvested in, redeveloped or re-founded with new suppliers before we can get a price for the taxpayer or a contract delivered. That is what happened with NLAW. As much as we would have loved to have placed that order on the next day, some of the supply chain was 15 years old and we had to find new suppliers. Then we got a price and some partners. By placing an order with Sweden, we reinvigorated the supply chain and, hopefully, more jobs with it.
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I congratulate and welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his extended statement and for the Ukraine briefings that he has provided to the shadow Front-Bench team throughout the year.
Today marks the 300th day of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Winter has slowed the fighting, Russian forces are digging defensive lines and strikes on critical civilian infrastructure continue, but the Ukrainian determination to defeat Russia remains as strong as ever. Liberating more than half the territory that Russia seized after 24 February is a remarkable achievement; Ukraine is winning and western military assistance is working. As a Ukrainian MP said to me last month,
“weapons are the best humanitarian aid”.
Since the start of the invasion, there has been united UK support for Ukraine and united UK condemnation of Russia for its attacks and war crimes. On Britain’s military help to Ukraine, and on reinforcing NATO allies, the Government have had and will continue to have throughout 2023 Labour’s fullest support.
Today also marks two months since the Defence Secretary last gave a statement to the House on Ukraine. Since then, multiple ad hoc announcements have been made through news headlines on ministerial visits—for example, £50 million in defence aid when the Prime Minister was in Kyiv; three Sea King helicopters when the Defence Secretary was in Norway; six armoured vehicles when the Foreign Secretary was in Ukraine; and yesterday, £250 million for artillery ammunition when the Prime Minister was in Riga.
That is exactly the type of support that the UK should be providing, but the full 2023 action plan for Ukraine that the Secretary of State promised four months ago has still not been published. Can he explain why not? That would help to give Ukraine confidence in future supplies, gear up British industry, encourage allies to do more, and make it clear that things will get worse, not better, for Russia.
The Secretary of State’s statement was largely backward-looking, so I have some questions. As winter sets in, what extra support is the UK giving to ensure that the Ukrainians can continue fighting? As reports suggest that Russia is preparing a big early spring offensive, what extra military assistance is the UK providing? As Putin continues to bomb Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, what support is the UK giving to help to repair and protect it? As Russia constantly breaks the Geneva conventions, the Defence Secretary said that he was “open-minded” about sending longer range weapons systems. Has he made up his mind yet about whether to send that support? As Putin reinforces his relations with Belarus, does he expect its more direct involvement in the conflict?
Two weeks ago, on day 287 of the war, the Defence Secretary finally got the Ministry of Defence’s act together and announced that he had signed a contract to produce new next-generation light anti-tank weapons, which is welcome. Replenishing stockpiles is a matter of public and parliamentary concern, so we know that our armed forces can fight, fulfil our NATO obligations and continue to support Ukraine. That also sets a precedent. To meet the same standards of accountability, will he tell the House why he published a press release about the NLAW contract but stonewalled my questions about other contracts to restock weapons sent to Ukraine? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister has now ordered a data-driven review of military aid to Ukraine, and for what purpose?
In 2023, NATO will be stronger, larger and more unified with new military plans. How will Britain’s NATO contribution change? How will the Defence Secretary ensure that the UK’s obligations are fulfilled? Since Putin’s brutal illegal invasion began in February, 22 NATO nations have rebooted their defence plans, yet it took six months for Ministers to accept the Opposition’s argument that the Government needed to do the same to its integrated review. That was first promised by the end of the year and then in the new year, but the Chief of the Defence Staff’s interview with The Sunday Telegraph suggested that the updated IR will not come out until April.
The spring Budget is on 15 March. The Chancellor said in his autumn statement that before any decisions are taken on defence spending,
“it is necessary to revise and update the integrated review, written as it was before the Ukraine invasion.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 848.]
Where does that leave the Defence Secretary? How will he manage another year with real-terms cuts that he agreed to his revenue budget? Although the Kremlin maintains its declared hostility to the west and clearly prepares for the war in Ukraine to run long, 2023 could nevertheless become the turning point for this conflict as long as we and other allies maintain our ability, not just our will, to provide the military, economic and humanitarian assistance that the Ukrainians need to win.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the cross-party support across the political divide—from not just the official Opposition but the Scottish National party and Liberal Democrats, who have provided clear leadership. Britain has been at its best on this issue, which has helped to inspire other nations across Europe to lean in, whatever their politics. There have been many changes in the Governments across Europe—perhaps not as many as in ours, but a fair few—and whether they have gone from left to right or right to left, they have embraced the cross-party view that what is going on is wrong and that we should stand together.
The biggest surprise to President Putin and his cynical calculations is that, funnily enough, across age groups and political divides, we all care about human rights and the values that we share across Europe as much as our grandparents’ generation did, and we are prepared to stand tall. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support and I will continue to give as many briefings as possible or give access to intelligence briefings. I know that he will have a briefing on stockpiles soon; I was told this morning that we are starting to arrange the dates for January, and I will make a similar facility available to other Opposition parties.
That is part of the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. We obviously keep some of our stockpiles secret, because it would benefit an enemy or adversary to know what we are strong or weak in. I have said, however, that I will happily share some of those details with Opposition Members, albeit not in the public domain. That is why we are prepared to talk about the replenishment of some weapons systems, such as NLAWs. With the gifting of more than 5,500 or 6,000 NLAWs, they need to be replaced, which is why we signed that contract on 7 December.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about getting my act together. One of the challenges for stockpile replenishment has been that when many of those orders were fulfilled 10 or 15 years ago, the supply chain switched off. I sat in on the previous statement about getting contracts right; when negotiating for new prices, history says that we should not give a blank cheque but make sure that we have the real prices that will be reflected in the contract. For the NLAWs, we joined forces with the Swedes and the Finns to place a joint order, and in the meantime, the manufacturer found that new supply chains could give us an accurate price. That is the reason for the delay—simply to get an accurate price, and not because we were scrimping and saving or trying to do anything differently. As soon as we could, we placed that order.
The backfilling of the 155 mm artillery shells is already in an existing framework, and they are starting to be commissioned. In November, we signed a contract for the low-velocity anti-aircraft defence missiles that will replace the ones that we had gifted—we continue to supply some—to Ukraine. On top of that, in the autumn statement there was a £560 million increase for our own stockpiles.
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the action plan is valid. At the beginning of next month, I will seek to make sure, if possible, that we have a debate on the action plan for next year. I am disappointed that I do not have one for him. As he will understand, some of the issue is about different allies and different requests from Ukrainians—this is not always a static thing; it is a dynamic situation. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I totally support and agree with his observation that an action plan is a good signal to Russia, let alone our allies, about what we intend to do.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Prime Minister’s review. It is understandable that, being new in post, the Prime Minister would seek an update on Ukraine and want to take a stock check of where we are. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that process in no way weakens or undermines the Prime Minister’s resolve to support Ukraine this year, next year and onwards. It is perfectly reasonable for him to have wanted to take stock. The media report was half right, let us say, rather than fully right, but let us not let facts get in the way of a good news story.
On the integrated review, I have always tried to be honest about the problems that defence has. Defence has always had the problem of appetites being bigger than budgets and of strategy documents being written without the budget being known. The autumn statement has started to dictate what we could do in the short term, and that has had a clear and direct impact on the timeline of the IR. I hope that by March the IR refresh will be aligned to a Budget promise, as that would be sensible. Otherwise, we will be back to hollowing out or trying to produce a document that does not match that appetite or spend. It is regrettable that the refresh has not come earlier, but I would rather get it right. Then we can have a healthy debate about whether I am spending the money in the right or wrong place.
I am happy to share with the House, if it wishes—perhaps in a written statement—the full list of supplies that we can talk about that we have put in over the past year. The most recent, obviously, was nearly 1,000 surface-to-air missiles to help deal with the Iranian kamikaze drones. We announced and put those in only last month, as a response to the current situation.
Afghanistan: Independent Inquiry
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and the terms of reference for Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. We welcome the special inquiry, the Minister’s confirmation that its work will start early in 2023 and his commitment to provide full legal and pastoral support. We recognise the bravery of all those who served in Afghanistan and the dangers we asked them to face—none more than our special forces, who carry out the most extraordinary missions with extreme risks to defend us and our allies.
Our British armed forces have a proud tradition of upholding the highest standards of military ethics, professionalism and international law. That is fundamental to a disciplined military force and to Britain’s standing and moral authority as one of the world’s leading democracies, so allegations of unlawful killings and cover-ups could not be more serious. This inquiry is essential to protect the reputation of our British special forces, to guarantee the integrity of military investigations, and to secure justice for those affected. The question is: will it do the job? Is it set up to succeed? Is the MOD—military, civilian and political—fully committed to making it succeed? Too often, it responds with denial and delay.
Over the last five years, Defence Secretaries have had three reports with more than 148 recommendations on how to fix failings in military investigations, yet one essential recommendation—the Defence serious crime unit—was launched only last week. When confronted with the BBC “Panorama” reports about these allegations in July, the MOD immediately dismissed them as “irresponsible, incorrect” and jumping to “unjustified conclusions”. When pushed by all parties, as well as senior ex-military figures, journalists and the judiciary, the Defence Secretary signalled this independent inquiry two weeks later.
On the terms of reference, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will investigate to substantiate any allegations, not just investigate how the allegations were handled? Will the inquiry cover the full chain of command—military, civil service and ministerial? How can the inquiry’s independence be assured when it is housed within the MOD? On the declaration that the Secretary of State expects maximum co-operation from MOD personnel, will the head of the Army issue a similar statement or command to forces personnel?
The Minister knows but does not mention that similar allegations were made from the same period against Australian special forces in Afghanistan. They were investigated thoroughly via a special inquiry commissioned not by Ministers, but by the head of the Australian army, because getting to the truth should matter most to military leaders. Has the Minister or any other Defence Minister met Justice Brereton to understand his inquiry? If not, why not? If so, why are key features of his successful inquiry missing from this one?
In the Brereton inquiry, the judge had senior military not just judicial experience; he had legal immunities to get beyond the culture of silence; and he had legal powers to require documents and summon witnesses. If Judge Haddon-Cave considers that changes to his powers or terms of reference are required during the inquiry, will Ministers agree? This inquiry must succeed and we in the Opposition will do all we can to ensure that it does.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We welcome the Government’s commitment to job creation; the problem is that they are creating jobs abroad, including in Spain. The Defence Secretary has just picked a Spanish firm to build the Royal Navy’s three new fleet support ships. At least 40% of that work will go abroad and the best that the Defence Secretary could tell the Scottish Affairs Committee the other day was that the contractor will
“fully assemble the final ship in a UK yard.”
As a result of the Defence Secretary’s decision, how many jobs will be created in Spain and not in the UK?
Alex Chalk
Respectfully, I completely reject the tenor of that question. We should be celebrating the fact that, as a result of the commitment that we are making to UK shipbuilding, there will be 2,000 jobs in the UK and there will be shipbuilding industries in Appledore and in Northern Ireland. That comes on top of the 1,700 jobs secured as a result of the Type 26, the 3,000 jobs as a result of cyber investment and further jobs in respect of the future combat air system. This Government are investing in defence, in shipbuilding, in land, in sea and in air. We will continue to do exactly that.
John Healey
Well, the Minister told me in answer to a parliamentary question that the
“number of jobs sustained in Spain…is a matter for the contractor”.
We could have had 100% of the jobs in Britain. This is a dodgy decision, whichever way we view it. On 21 November, I received confirmation in a written answer that the prime contractor for this £1.6 billion contract will be a company that was registered only in May, with no trading history, with capital of just £10,000 and with two directors, both living in Spain. What guarantees can the Minister give the British taxpayer and the Royal Navy that this contract will not betray British jobs and UK industry?
Alex Chalk
What I genuinely do not understand is why the Opposition are not welcoming a deal that is bringing more than £70 million into Belfast, securing jobs in the shipbuilding industry in this country and ensuring, by the way, that the base of industrial support goes beyond the traditional Scottish yards to include yards in Belfast and, indeed, in Appledore. That is good news. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about other countries playing a role, let us not forget that one of the great successful procurements is the F-35. That is an American plane—of course it is—but who produces 15% of the components? The United Kingdom does. That is exactly what happens in these sorts of contracts, and it gets value for money for taxpayers.
Mr Speaker
Order. Work with me, Secretary of State; I want to work with you. You have given very long answers during questions, and we are now into topicals. We have to be short and sweet. Lots of Members on both sides wanted to get in earlier but failed to because of the long answer. Please, let us work together. I call John Healey—briefly, please.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
At today’s Cobra meeting, will the Defence Secretary tell Ministers in other Departments that too often they use our armed forces to bail out their Departments’ failings, especially when he is making further deep cuts to the Army? In addition to those deployed on overseas operations, whom he has mentioned, how many of our forces will be deployed or on standby over Christmas in response to requests for military assistance to which he has already agreed?
Mr Wallace
I will do the right hon. Gentleman a deal: I will raise that at Cobra if he tells his union paymasters not to go on strike over Christmas and not to ruin the lives of our soldiers and sailors.
Mali: UN Peacekeeping Mission
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement—he always treats this House with great courtesy—but I have to say that I was disappointed, Mr Speaker, as you will be, that nearly three hours before I received a copy of the statement I was reading about his decision on The Times online.
MINUSMA is the UN’s deadliest peacekeeping mission, with 281 fatalities to date, so I want to start by paying tribute to all those British troops who have been deployed with the UN in Mali since 2020 and all the RAF air and ground crew who have been deployed in Mali since 2013.
The UN Security Council only renewed the Mali mission’s mandate, which Britain strongly supported, in June. What now for the UN’s MINUSMA force without the UK’s long-range specialised reconnaissance? What now for the UK’s contribution to stabilising the Sahel, which experts say has become the new epicentre of terrorism? What now for the neighbouring states of Mali, which look to the UK for support in the face of increasing activity from Islamic extremist groups? And what now for the west’s capacity to balance the Russian Wagner Group mercenaries in the region?
Will the Chinook deployment continue to support the UN mission? The Times reported that this has already been withdrawn, although the Minister has not mentioned it this afternoon. And when exactly will the current Royal Scots Light Dragoons on the ground in Mali be withdrawn?
This statement is long overdue. France announced the withdrawal of troops from Mali back in February, and when I asked the Defence Secretary about this days later he said the UK was
“now reviewing our next steps.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 17.]
I got the same answer when I asked again nearly four months later. Now, fully nine months after France, and eight months after Sweden, why has it has taken Britain so long to make the same decision? We need strategic planning and foresight from Ministers for this region, not a tactical silence while they work out what on earth to do.
President Macron marked the end of the French Operation Barkhane last week by pledging a new strategy within half a year for working with African countries. Is the UK working with France on this new strategy? Will the Government produce a similar UK strategy?
In the Government’s 2020 integrated review there was just one passing reference to the Sahel and two short factual statements about Mali. Will the current IR update make good the Sahel-shaped gap in UK strategic security thinking?
Finally, ahead of the autumn statement, today’s decision on reducing our commitment to UK United Nations peacekeeping is a reminder of the importance of clarity over UK defence spending. The Defence Secretary agreed the current spending settlement, giving the Ministry of Defence back in 2020 a £1.4 billion real cut in day-to-day spending. He now says, as he told the Select Committee on Defence, that
“the inflationary pressure on my budget for the next two years is about £8 billion”.
How much does Defence actually need from the Chancellor on Thursday to plug the Defence Secretary’s budget black hole?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Minister comes in, I have seen what has been given to The Times, and I am disappointed. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but it is pretty appalling that somebody decided to hand to The Times, for it to put online, exactly what he has just given to the House. I hope that he will look into that and that whoever in the Department passed it to The Times will be reprimanded and reminded that Members of this House come first, not the media.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It was an honour to join you, Mr Speaker, the Canadian Speaker, the Defence Secretary and other Members of the House earlier today for the opening of the constituency garden of remembrance. At last week’s Defence Committee, the Secretary of State was asked when the MOD would sign a contract to make the new next-generation light anti-tank weapons that are needed both for Ukraine and to restock the British Army. He said:
“We have signed the first contract for next year.”
If the Defence Secretary was correct, Saab would have notified the market, but it has not. Would the Defence Secretary like to correct the record, and will he confirm when the MOD will get its act together and get that contract in place for new UK production, as this is day 257 of Putin’s war on Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say in my evidence that it was with Thales that I placed a contract for NLAW replacement, and many other people can give us access to NLAWs.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s news that the vanity project of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the flagship—will be scrapped, and the spending switched to purposes that will help defend the country. Ahead of the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Defence Secretary told the Select Committee last week
“I need money to protect me from inflation”,
yet in the current spending settlement, Defence is the only Department with a real-terms cut in its revenue budget. Why did he ever agree to that?
Mr Wallace
First, on that particular question, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when I got my defence review—a year earlier than everyone else in the spending review—the figure for GDP inflation used by the Treasury was different from that used now. He will be aware that inflation has gone up since the basis of that calculation was made, which is why I said at the Select Committee that I would like to be insulated from that inflation. I will have my discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister this week, and then we will see where we get to.
John Healey
When the Secretary of State agreed that budget, it was a £1.7 billion real-terms cut in the revenue budget. Now, he says that inflationary pressures on his budget for the next two years are about £8 billion. How much does Defence actually need from the Chancellor on the 17th to plug this budget black hole that has opened up on the Secretary of State’s watch?
Mr Wallace
First, I do not agree with the premise that I agreed to a £1.6 billion reduction of the resource departmental expenditure limit. At the time, it would have reduced in the fourth year of its profile—it was a four-year profile, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers—but after a £24 billion increase, which is nothing that the Labour party has ever committed to. It would have shown a reduction in the last year, yes, but a real-terms freeze. However, inflation is significantly higher than it was all those years ago, and that is why I am going to see the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to see what I can get to make sure we protect our armed forces and our current plans from inflation.
Ukraine Update
John Healey Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome this statement on day one after the recess and on day 194 of Russia’s brutal illegal invasion of Ukraine. I thank the Defence Secretary for the regular briefings he has given during this period to those in all parts of the House and on all sides. On behalf of Members on all sides, may I say that we trust that he will remain in his post in the new Truss Cabinet?
I say on behalf of my party that we now stand ready to work with the new Prime Minister to maintain the UK’s united support for Ukraine and united determination to stand up against Russian aggression. President Putin expected Ukraine to fall within six days. Six months on, the massively brave Ukrainian resistance, military and civilian alike, is stronger now than it was in February, and all the Government’s moves to provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian help to Ukraine will continue to have Labour’s fullest backing.
We strongly support the UK’s training programme for new Ukrainian army recruits, which the Labour leader and I saw for ourselves on Salisbury plain. I am humbled by the fact that those brave new recruits whom we met last month are now on the frontline, fighting in Donbas. I thank the Defence Secretary and Brigadier Justin Stenhouse for organising our visit. Will this training under Operation Interflex be extended beyond the initial commitment of 10,000 troops and beyond the basic soldiering skills currently covered?
We also welcome the extra long-range missiles and unmanned air systems announced over the summer. What is the strategy behind our military assistance? Is it designed to help Ukrainians hold current ground or take back more territory from Russian forces? What action has been taken to replenish our domestic stockpiles? How many new contracts have been signed? Has the production of replacement NLAWs—next generation anti-tank and anti-armour weapons—now finally started?
The war is entering a critical new stage, with Russia unable to deploy the overwhelming force needed for a decisive breakthrough and Ukraine well on the way to sapping the will of the Russian army to fight, hitting ammunition dumps, command posts and airfields deep into Russian-held territory. With the Russian military leadership under increasing military pressure, does the Defence Secretary agree that we are approaching another turning point, where Putin is likely to step up efforts to persuade the west to lean on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations? What are the Government doing to counter such activities?
What are the Government doing to explain to the public that the energy crisis and supply disruptions are not a result of Russia’s war, but an essential part of Russia’s war? Russia is fighting on the economic battlefield, not just the military battlefield. What action will the new Prime Minister take to help the country with escalating energy costs, rapidly rising food costs and the highest rate of inflation in this country for 40 years?
On the subject of the new Prime Minister, before the Tory leadership campaign, the Defence Secretary and Defence Ministers said that the invasion of Ukraine proved the integrated review right. They said:
“if more money were made available, there are other things that we would do more immediately than regrow the size of the Army.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 688.]
Then, towards the end of the leadership campaign, the Defence Secretary wrote of the new Prime Minister:
“I welcome her plans to update the integrated review, reconsider the shape of our forces, and increase defence spending.”
I welcome his conversion to the arguments that Labour has been making for well over a year, but what does he believe now needs updating in the integrated review? Will he halt his plans for Army cuts? Will the £1.7 billion cut in day-to-day MOD spending now be replaced?
Finally, very few people believed Ukraine would still be fighting Russia’s invasion six months on. We now know that Russia’s aggression will go on a lot longer. Will the Government set aside individual announcements and instead set out a grand strategy of long-term military, economic and diplomatic support, so that we can help ensure Putin’s invasion really does end in failure?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party on Ukraine. I apologise to him that he did not get my statement earlier. I changed it at the last minute—I was taking a bit of time as I wanted to give the House as many facts as we could and declassify some material.
It is my ambition that Operation Interflex—the training of Ukrainian forces in the UK with the international community—goes on as long as necessary, for now. We set a target of 10,000 troops, but through this pipeline I envisage that we will continue to train as many as are sent by Ukraine, to ensure that we are providing forces for them during the offences they are engaged in. Last Thursday, I again visited Yorkshire and met some troops who had come back. I met one man who had been injured by shrapnel and another man who, not long after leaving, had used a British NLAW to destroy a Russian tank. The scheme has a double benefit: we are learning as we go and improving the curriculum to ensure they get the very best training—they already want to learn more about some things and less about others—and our own troops are learning on the latest battlefield what our enemy does and how we deal with it. That is incredibly important, and we will continue to supply and support them as long as possible. When they arrived for the first curriculum I went to visit them, and some of those guys were getting off the plane in their tracksuits, training in uniforms and then having to hand them all back. They now leave here with 50 pieces of uniform—equipped, ready to go, with much better battle training and so on—to go into the next phase of their training in Ukraine. We will continue to supply that.
How many are trained, again, is in the hands of the Ukrainians, but we already know that they will want more specialist training. That is where I often convene our international partners, because they might want to do that closer to Ukraine than in Yorkshire or wherever we are delivering it. Those are the two phases, but the training is still going strong. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman came to visit, and I am happy to facilitate the leaders of the other parties or their Defence spokespersons to come and visit it as it progresses. I notice we have all the Vikings—the Danes, the Swedes and the Finns—all in the same camp, so come October time they will be able to teach us about working in the cold. That is very good.
Our strategy is to give the Ukrainians the absolute best chance either to negotiate, when they wish to, from a position of strength or to defeat Russia in their own country—to hold their position, to push back the Russians and, if necessary, to defeat Russia within Ukraine, to ensure that Russia comes to its senses and withdraws from its military and illegal action there.
We signed off last week on more replenishment of the high-velocity anti-air missiles, which are made in the same factories as the Thales NLAWs, to ensure that they are replaced. Right across the western industries there is a challenge with replenishment. Many of the supply chains have been dormant, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will know—as I think either he or the Leader of the Opposition made a visit to Belfast—that it is not as simple as switching on a tap. I have been very clear that we will place the orders, but we need to encourage the arms industry to invest as well.
It is not just for us to effectively pay for manufacturers to double their production lines; those lines will be full of customers, and we would like to ensure we get the balance right. Nevertheless, I will not sacrifice our readiness and our stocks to do that. The industry has letters of comfort from the accounting officer in the Department to say, “We will be placing orders, and you should start to proceed.” I met the head of BAE recently, who said it is already starting to expand its production, so that is on track.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne is absolutely right about the energy crisis. It did not come out of nowhere; some of it was about peak demand post covid, but President Putin is weaponising energy. He has weaponised a lot of other stuff over the years: he has weaponised cyber, political division in our countries, misinformation and corruption, and energy is just another plank in his arsenal. It is important that we communicate to our constituents that some of the deeply uncomfortable times that we all face are driven by a totalitarian regime in Russia that is deliberately setting out to harm us and trying to test whether we will sacrifice our values for our energy costs. That is very important.
For what it is worth, President Putin is sowing the seeds of the end of energy dependency, not only for Russia but around the world. We must all work on putting investments into renewables, which many Governments have talked about—I have been in this House under both Labour and Conservative Governments—but diversity of supply is also important. In the long term, Putin has put Russia in a weaker position. Switching off the pipeline instantly will just persuade Germany even more that it has to invest in something else, and I think that is a good thing.
I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman on a commitment to more defence spending; I wonder whether he will join us in our commitment to 3% of GDP on defence spending by 2030. I have always been very clear that as the threat changes, we should change what we do and how we invest. The Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), has made the point that it is not as simple as taking whatever extra money we get and doubling or increasing our troops; the lesson of Ukraine, as I have often said, is that history shows that when people spend lots of money on lots of new platforms and on certain numbers, they can hollow them out and not actually produce medium, small or large perfectly formed units.
If we have more money, I can assure the House that we will ensure that our soldiers and sailors are less vulnerable than they are today, that they have the 360° protection they need and that we invest in the enablers to make sure that the frontline is properly supported. All the vulnerabilities that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown—across the western armies, not just in the United Kingdom—will be fixed. At the same time, we will make sure that we fix the forces we have with better maintenance, better spares and everything else, so we can be more available and readier.
It is always tempting at these times for people to come out with ideas that are like going back to the steam train. Some people still want to go back to the steam train. There is always a tendency to want to suddenly mass up, but if we mass up without the appropriate funding, we will be in a mess in 10 years’ time. I do not want to repeat that.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Defence Secretary and his team on ensuring that there has been continuity in defence while the rest of the Conservative Government have collapsed in chaos? Let me also say, lest this prove to be their last session of oral questions in their current jobs, that whatever our other disagreements, the Secretary of State’s cross-party working on Ukraine has helped to ensure that the UK has strong, unified support for the Ukrainians.
The right hon. Gentleman has been Defence Secretary since the Prime Minister, nearly two years ago, boosted defence spending and boasted that that would create 10,000 jobs every year. Only 800 new defence jobs have been created since then. Why the failure?
Mr Wallace
I should be happy for the right hon. Gentleman to show me that 800 figure, but, first and foremost, we have started to invest that £43.1 billion, or £41.3 billion, in the land scheme, a huge amount of which will be spent on Boxer and Challenger 3. That will generate an enormous number of jobs. Obviously, replenishing some of our ammunition stocks, many of which are made up and down the United Kingdom, will result in more jobs, and indeed the increased skills base for our work on the Dreadnought submarine.
Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman—my opposite number on the Front Bench—and, indeed, the whole House for the cross-party support on Ukraine. I also thank my team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (James Heappey), for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), Baroness Goldie, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy). It is not often that a team stick together in Parliament or indeed in Government and, whatever happens over the next few months, it has been a privilege for me to work with all of them.
We will continue to invest in the jobs—over 200,000. No doubt the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will be attending Farnborough air show this week; it is an incredibly important event to showcase British industry.
John Healey
The answer is simple: direct British defence contracts first to British firms and British jobs, starting with the Navy’s new support ships.
The right hon. Gentleman has been Defence Secretary since the Prime Minister also pledged, at the last election:
“We will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”
However, he then launched plans to cut the British Army by a further 10,000 troops. He uses the words “when the threats change”. With Ukraine, the threats that we face are greater and our obligations to NATO are greater, so will he now do what Labour has been urging the Government to do for more than a year, and rethink these cuts in the strength of the British Army?
Mr Wallace
As I have also said over the year to those on the Labour Front Bench, we have already reduced the original cut by 500 so that the numbers are increased from 72,500 to 73,000. As for the changing threats, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the defence command paper was written and delivered before the actual Russian invasion of Ukraine. I have said continually that we will review it, and we will obviously review the threat as it changes. That review of the threat is ongoing, which is why Defence Intelligence gives regular briefings, and next year, or the year after, is the Department’s spending moment.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
When the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), answered my urgent question on Thursday about new public allegations about British special forces in Afghanistan, he said that,
“the Secretary of State is clear that he rules nothing out”.
He also said:
“I am certain that the House will hear from him in the near future.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 494.]
With the summer recess starting on Thursday, when will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on this?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s interest. It is an incredibly important allegation that has been made, which none of us takes lightly. Mr Speaker, you waived at the time the sub judice rule; as the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a matter before the courts that may determine that timetable and precludes my guessing when I can make certain decisions. What I can say in the meantime is that I think the right hon. Gentleman is due for a briefing on this matter. We have a date for him on that, and I am happy to oblige the SNP Front Bench as well if they wish to get it. We take everything seriously. This is incredibly important, but we can only act on the evidence before us. People need to remember that we cannot act based on noises off. We will always act on the evidence put before us, but this is a matter for the independent police and prosecutor.
British Special Forces in Afghanistan: New Allegations
John Healey Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on new allegations concerning British special forces in Afghanistan.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your very careful consideration of this urgent question request.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
On 12 July, the BBC broadcast an episode of “Panorama”, claiming evidence of criminality allegedly committed by the UK armed forces in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence is currently defending two judicial reviews relating to allegations of unlawful killings during operations in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012. While I accept, Mr Speaker, that to allow today’s urgent question you have waived the convention that we do not discuss matters that are sub judice, advice from Ministry of Defence lawyers is that any discussion of specific detail of the cases would be prejudicial to the ongoing litigation, and thus I am afraid I simply cannot enter into detail about specific allegations made on specific operations relating to specific people.
James Heappey
Let me apologise on behalf of the Department for the fact that you, Mr Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne were put in that position. I was not aware of the request that you had made, but I assure you that, when I return to the Department, I will investigate fully why that was not responded to in the way that it should have been.
We very much recognise the severity of these allegations, and where there is reason to believe that personnel may have fallen short of expectations, it is absolutely right that they be held to account. Nobody in our organisation, no matter how special, is above the law. The service police have already carried out extensive and independent investigations into allegations about the conduct of UK forces in Afghanistan, including allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful killing. No charges were brought under Operation Northmoor, which investigated historical allegations relating to incidents in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2013. The service police concluded there was insufficient evidence to refer any cases to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority. I stress that both these organisations have the full authority and independence to take investigative decisions outside of the MOD’s chain of command.
A separate allegation from October 2012 was investigated by the Royal Military Police under Operation Cestro. It resulted in the referral of three soldiers to the Service Prosecuting Authority. In 2014, after careful consideration, the director of service prosecutions took the decision not to prosecute any of the three soldiers referred. It is my understanding that all the alleged criminal offences referred to in the “Panorama” programme have been fully investigated by the service police, but we remain fully committed to any further reviews or investigations when new evidence or reason to do so is presented.
A decision to investigate allegations of criminality is for the service police. They provide an independent and impartial investigative capability, free from improper interference. Earlier this week, the Royal Military Police wrote to the production team of “Panorama” to request that any new evidence be provided to them. I am placing a copy of the RMP’s letter in the Library of the House. I understand that the BBC has responded to question the legal basis on which the RMP are requesting that new evidence, which makes little sense to me, but the RMP and the BBC are in discussions. As I have said, if any new evidence is presented to the Royal Military Police, it will be investigated.
I am aware that the programme alleges the involvement of a unit for which it is MOD policy to neither confirm nor deny its involvement in any operational event. As such, I must refer in generality to the armed forces in response to the questions that I know colleagues will want to ask, and I cannot refer to any specific service personnel who may or may not have served in those units.
We should continue to recognise that the overwhelming majority of our armed forces serve with courage and professionalism. We hold them to the highest standards. They are our nation’s bravest and best, and allegations such as these tarnish the reputation of our organisation. We all want to see allegations such as these investigated, so that the fine reputation of the British armed forces can be untarnished and remain as high as it should be.
John Healey
No one doubts the bravery of all those who served in Afghanistan, nor the extreme risks they faced. And the Minister is right: our British armed forces have a proud tradition of upholding the very highest standards of military ethics and professionalism, and the international laws of armed conflict and human rights. This is fundamental to Britain as one of the world’s leading democracies, so the allegations reported in Tuesday night’s “Panorama” programme could not be more serious—a pattern of suspicious deaths, with newly obtained military reports suggesting that one unit may have unlawfully killed 54 people in a single six-month tour; “drop weapons” planted to fabricate evidence, with the squadron’s reports “causing alarm at headquarters”; and those at the top warned, but not acting to stop the pattern of killings and withholding crucial details from the military police. Verifying the truth in any new evidence should matter most to military leaders and the MOD. This will not be buried.
What action are the Government taking to respond to the growing calls from military figures, including the former Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards, for a thorough investigation? I welcome the Minister’s statement today that, if there is any new evidence, it will be investigated, but how can he argue that the service police can credibly tackle this task when “Panorama” exposes the systemic failures in their investigations, just as the Government’s own Lyons review highlighted gaps in capabilities in the military police, and when the new defence serious crime unit, designed to fix the problems, will not be up and running until the end of the year?
There were similar claims from the same period against Australian special forces. However, these have been investigated thoroughly via a special inquiry commissioned by the head of the army, not Ministers. That inquiry had independence, justice and military experience, and welfare support. It had privacy, immunity and compulsory questioning powers to get to the truth. Justice Brereton’s report confirmed credible evidence that members of Australian special forces were responsible for the unlawful killing of 39 people. It made 143 recommendations, all accepted by the Australian defence force, and referred 36 matters to the federal police for criminal investigation. Will the Government now do the same and investigate these claims and any cover-up in the chain of command, to secure justice for any of those affected and above all to protect the reputation of our British special forces?
James Heappey
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this will not be buried. Absolutely nobody in the Ministry of Defence wants to see these sorts of allegations buried. That does no service to our armed forces whatsoever. These allegations will be investigated fully, if the new evidence is handed over.
The investigation by the RMP itself has already been double-checked, as it were, by a recently retired chief constable and a senior QC, and they agreed that the investigation was sound. Further to that, there has been the Henriques review, published in October 2021, which recognised only too well that there were problems—failings, if you like—in the military justice system that needed to be resolved, so ahead of this there has already been a recognition that the military justice system could work better. The Henriques review identifies many of the ways that it could.
The Secretary of State was clear when I spoke to him earlier in the week on this matter that he is not ruling out any type of public inquiry or review if it is clear that there are failings that need to be looked at. The MOD wants this to be as transparent as possible, so that everybody can have confidence in the service justice system and the reputation of our armed forces can remain untarnished.