Dalgety Bay: Radioactive Contamination and Remediation Works
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes, and thank you for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on securing this important and constructive debate regarding radioactive contamination at Dalgety Bay. We met on 21 March to update him on the remediation works, and I am grateful to him for this opportunity to update the House, as I am to all those who have helped to keep this important issue on the agenda. It falls to me to update the House on the work to clean up this beautiful part of Fife, Scotland and the wider United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman helpfully summarised the background to this issue. I will not detain the House by rehearsing all the details again, but it is worth reiterating some of the more salient facts. In 1990, the first in a series of radioactive objects and particles was located on the shore of Dalgety Bay. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the material is thought to have originated from an eroded landfill site containing debris from the second world war—specifically, aircraft that had radium painted on their dials to make them luminous in the dark. To be clear, that contaminant was buried using the best practice at the time. Frankly, it is not entirely clear how material that appears to have been buried about a kilometre away from where it was ultimately found got from place A to place B, but the fact is that that appears to be the most likely source.
The amounts involved are small. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the particles are smaller than a grain of rice, and both Public Health England and SEPA have concluded that the threat to people using the beach is very low. Nevertheless, the existence of radioactive material, in a place where people walk and children play, clearly created a theoretical risk, however slight, that such particles might be breathed in, swallowed or come into prolonged contact with skin. On that basis, in July 2013, following an investigation by SEPA, the Ministry of Defence agreed to carry out the work to remove those radium particles on a voluntary basis. This is at a cost of around £15 million, and I stress that there was absolutely no legal requirement on the Ministry of Defence to do so. However, we decided to take that step.
The hon. Gentleman has, quite properly, referred to the period of time that has elapsed since then. Before the physical work could begin, it was necessary to agree the extent of the work with SEPA, the protocols for removing the contaminant, the protocols to carry out investigations, and the design of the infrastructure. The tendering also had to take place. All of that was done within the expected timelines for a project of this scale. Thereafter, there had to be protracted discussions with landowners about access. It was then necessary to procure a contractor, which was a difficult process, not least because there was only one applicant to do that job; there was not a cast of thousands bidding to do the work. Then there were unforeseeable issues with the contractor, which sought to renegotiate the contract after it had been awarded, and there was the issue of statutory licences. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, those statutory licences were not issued until the spring of, I think, May 2021.
In any event, the project finally got under way in spring 2021, and it is worth reflecting on the scale of the operation. It is not just an enormous endeavour, but a hugely complex one. Nothing like this has ever been done before in the UK. After all, we are searching through many tonnes of sand and soil for minute radioactive particles. Let me just give the House a brief sense of what is involved. Essentially, material is scooped up from the beach and poured on to a specifically designed conveyer belt, which then passes under eight detectors that are sensitive enough to detect tiny traces of radiation. If a particle is detected, workers wearing safe clothing and gloves use a handheld monitor to locate it, before removing it with a trowel. Each one has to be physically and manually removed. Particles are then securely packaged and stored, before being taken away to be safely disposed of.
By the end of last year, over 3,500 individual particles had been picked out by hand. By the time the operation concludes, the team estimate that they will have dug up, scanned and replaced some 7,500 cubic metres of beach, which is equivalent to three Olympic-sized swimming pools. On top of that, they will have installed a ground membrane, rock armour—in plain English, big lumps of hard-wearing rock—and a replacement slipway and jetty, as the hon. Gentleman referred to. All of those will provide a wider environmental boost to the local community.
That is the job, but where have we got to? I am delighted to say that we are on track to finish all of the work by this September. There was a necessary pause over winter to protect nesting birds, in line with Scottish Natural Heritage guidelines. Following that, work began again on the remediation project at the start of April. Regarding updates, over the coming months Ministry of Defence officials will continue to attend Fife Council’s south and west Fife area committee meetings alongside SEPA to provide updates. Those records are in the public domain, and I would be only too happy to answer questions from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath as and when they arise.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. We wrote to him at the end of March following our meeting. I hope he received that. We did not get an acknowledgment, but that communication contained some of the information he requests. The costs are over £15 million. Officials visit the site regularly. I do not know whether I will be able to do so—I will discuss that with my officials—but the Ministry of Defence is in place there, and I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on the issue of ongoing monitoring.
To conclude, few could have predicted at the end of the second world war how artifacts from that dreadful conflict might return to impact the present. The residents of Dalgety Bay have waited some time to be able to enjoy what is a stunning part of the Fife coastline. I pay tribute to those who have fought hard to get the work done. I am pleased to say that the job will soon be over.
Question put and agreed to.
Ajax Payments
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I wish to provide a further update on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme.
The Ajax Platform
Ajax is part of our £41 billion investment in British Army equipment and support over the next decade, delivering critical modernisation to address the threats of today and the future. The Ajax programme will deliver 589 vehicles to the British Army made up of six variants, allowing the Army to operate in all weathers, 24 hours a day.
The range and capabilities of the sensors on the platform and the on-board software will deliver a step-change in the surveillance capability of the Army. Ajax will provide a world leading competitive advantage, from its suite of cutting-edge sensors, modular armour packs and its 40mm stabilised cannon.
Recovering the programme
The Ministry of Defence has openly acknowledged the problems previously faced by the Ajax programme. Alongside General Dynamics, the Ministry of Defence has successfully completed user validation trials to validate the design modifications that have addressed the noise and vibration concerns, allowing the commencement of programmed reliability growth trials on 31 January.
Reliability growth trials are a standard part of the acquisition process for military equipment of this nature. These trials stress test the durability of the vehicle’s platform and components through a series of battlefield missions that represent years of activity on the platform. Since starting, the AJAX, APOLLO, ATLAS and ARES variants have driven over 2,260 kilometres through different terrains, completing a variety of representative battlefield tasks such as operating across a range of speeds and terrains, firing weapon systems, using the vehicles’ systems and communications, and completing specialist tasks such as vehicle recoveries and repairs using the integrated crane. Reliability growth trials are progressing well. No fundamental design issues have arisen to date. These trials are part of a broader trials programme aimed at validating that contracted vehicle requirements are met.
The MOD has developed with General Dynamics a revised schedule for the delivery of vehicles that is, subject to contract amendment, robust, realistic and achievable. Revised key delivery milestones set a meaningful initial operating capability of a trained and deployable squadron. This is scheduled to be achieved between July and December 2025. Full operating capability will be met when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver armoured cavalry capability to the deep reconnaissance strike brigade and its two armoured brigade combat teams. This is scheduled to be achieved between October 2028 and September 2029.
The ability to deliver against this new schedule has been extensively scrutinised and assured within the Department and externally. A recent review by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority concluded that the programme’s successful delivery is feasible, re-grading the Ajax programme from red to amber.
Resuming Contract Payments
The Ministry of Defence remains clear it will only accept vehicles that comply with General Dynamics’ contractual obligations. The Department has withheld payments for work completed and had not made a payment since December 2020. Given the satisfactory progress against the programme, the Department will resume payments this month, starting with a payment of £480 million. This is approximately half of what has been held back since December 2020. Restarting payments to General Dynamics reflects the fact that the programme continues to return to a firm footing and supports the delivery of the schedule to deliver operational capability. The payment will cascade to the UK-wide supply chain of more than 230 companies, reinforcing confidence that the programme is progressing and providing for more than 4,000 jobs, including hundreds in south Wales.
Future payments will be made against the new schedule and its milestones, conditional on the delivery of compliant and deployable Ajax vehicles and the continued progress of remaining trials activity. We have a robust firm price contract for the delivery of 589 vehicles, which will ensure that General Dynamics is incentivised to deliver against agreed outcomes. As such, the whole programme remains within its originally approved budget.
Learning Lessons
The Ajax programme is turning a corner, but this does not remove the need for the Department to identify and learn lessons. We have always been clear that we will not shy away from taking action to change the culture and processes across defence as necessary. We look forward to receiving the finalised report from Clive Sheldon KC on the Ajax Lessons Learned Review and publishing it as soon as practicable.
[HCWS652]
AUKUS Defence Partnership
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the AUKUS defence partnership. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, standing alongside the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Australia, announced that our three nations would be jointly developing a conventionally armed—I stress that—nuclear-powered submarine, the SSN-AUKUS, which will come into service in the late 2030s.
Before I provide the House with more details about this landmark announcement, it might be beneficial for colleagues if I provide a brief summary of how we got here. For more than 60 years, the UK and the US have successfully collaborated on the development of nuclear submarines. This unprecedented co-operation goes to the very core of our special relationship. Currently, with the support of the United States, we have a fleet of five Astute-class submarines, with a further two boats to be built. These world-class vessels are an essential component of our defence and security apparatus in a more contested world.
More recently, Australia has also recognised the need for a stealthier and more enduring underwater capability to deter threats to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific. That is why back in September 2021, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), while Prime Minister, announced to the House a pivotal new defence partnership involving the United States, Australia and the UK, otherwise known as AUKUS. The partnership involves two pillars: first, the joint development of a nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarine capability for Australia; and secondly, the creation of a suite of complementary technologies, among them hypersonics and cyber. It is the first of those pillars that I wish to focus on today.
For the past 18 months, we have been working closely with our trilateral counterparts to understand Australia’s requirements, to make a detailed technical assessment and to set out the optimal pathway for delivering this unique platform. As the Prime Minister said last night, this scoping period has now concluded and a solution has been identified.
The SSN-AUKUS will be based on the design for the UK’s Astute-class submarine replacement, SSN(R), which has been under development for several years. SSN-AUKUS will build on these firm foundations by incorporating cutting-edge US submarine technology, including the propulsion plant, combat systems and conventional weapons, but this boat will not just be of benefit to the Royal Australian Navy. It is now clear to us that the SSN-AUKUS, which is an evolution of SSN(R), should now become the UK’s future platform as well, providing the future attack submarine requirement for the Royal Navy as well as the Royal Australian Navy.
As yesterday’s refreshed integrated review underlines, we are having to contend with an increasingly volatile and complex environment, with multiple adversaries seeking to undermine our rules-based international order. In response, the deepening of our defence partnership offers three distinct advantages. First, it bolsters our undersea capability. It will give us the ability to deter future threats in the underwater battlespace, to protect our nuclear deterrent and our vital sea lines of communication and to fulfil a range of military tasks, including anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare, land attack and intelligence gathering.
Secondly, AUKUS will bring a truly global and interoperable capability for our nations that is not just capable of operating in the Indo-Pacific, but strengthens our contribution to NATO in Europe. It will enable us to operate in the high north, where the impact of climate change is opening new military and commercial shipping access to the north Atlantic, and it will ensure that three like-minded nations with shared interests on the global stage can work together even more closely.
Thirdly, and finally, AUKUS helps us share the burden of research and development costs, not just giving us access to some of the most advanced technology on the planet, but allowing us to integrate our supply chains and provide greater resilience at a time of growing resource costs and inflationary pressures. It will also open up further opportunities for technology sharing and interoperability across the defence context.
The first SSN-AUKUS for the Royal Navy will be built in the United Kingdom and delivered in the late 2030s, taking full advantage of our many decades of experience in building nuclear-powered submarines. To support SSN-AUKUS, Australia has committed to making a proportionate financial investment in our submarine industrial base. SSN-AUKUS will support thousands of new jobs at Barrow-in-Furness and Derby and throughout the national supply chain. These are truly centres of excellence, and I am proud to say that they stand ready to support Australia in this endeavour. It is particularly good news that Rolls-Royce UK will be building the nuclear reactors for all of Australia’s submarines.
We intend for the first SSN-AUKUS to come into service with the Royal Australian Navy in the 2040s, and Australia will receive substantial support to develop and operate these nuclear-powered submarines. Submariners from the Royal Australian Navy have already begun to train with the Royal Navy to gain the relevant experience and, alongside the US, the Royal Navy intends to increase the number of submarine deployments to Australia from 2026, building on the successful visit to Australia by HMS Astute in 2021. The United States has also signalled her intention to provide Virginia-class attack submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, with Australia planning to acquire three. Taken together, this plan is consistent with Australian sovereignty and international obligations. It systematically and carefully builds Australia’s ability to safely and securely operate, maintain and sustain SSNs.
It goes without saying that compliance with non-proliferation requirements is paramount, and I reassure the House that throughout this process we will remain fully committed to setting the highest non-proliferation standards. We are undertaking every step in a way that reflects our long-standing leadership in global non-proliferation and our steadfast support for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have been clear that we will pursue this endeavour in a way that sets a strong precedent for states seeking to develop a naval nuclear propulsion capability. We have consulted, and we will continue to consult regularly and transparently with the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to the development of a suitable nuclear safeguards approach. The IAEA director general has expressed his satisfaction with our engagement.
This is a momentous journey for us all. For maritime nations such as the UK, as well as Australia and the US, maintaining a capability advantage over potential adversaries is essential. For the UK, AUKUS represents an historic opportunity for a deep, enduring and mutually beneficial partnership with two of our closest allies—a partnership that will strengthen the resilience of our nuclear submarine enterprise and will bring with it investment and high-skilled, high-wage jobs, as well as an even stronger and more capable Royal Navy submarine force. The United Kingdom will now begin embarking on delivering SSN-AUKUS, along with our allies. I look forward to keeping the House updated on how it progresses. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. This AUKUS defence partnership has our fullest Labour support. The multi-decade agreement deepens security and opportunity between our three countries. It strengthens strategic security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. It promises not just jobs now, but jobs in the next generation and the one after that. It fulfils all our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. I want to see Britain playing the biggest role possible in building these new submarines, with the first AUKUS boat launched as early as possible in Barrow.
Yesterday’s 2023 integrated review states
“£3 billion will be invested across the defence nuclear enterprise”.
How much of that total is going to Barrow and to Derby? The current funding of £85 million each for developing the new SSN(R) submarine runs out at the end of this month. As the Minister has mentioned, the AUKUS pathway report published by the Australian Government last night confirms that
“Australia will also make a proportionate financial investment in the UK and US industrial bases.”
When will this investment in Barrow and Derby begin? How will the combined UK-Australian investment in the SSN-AUKUS programme be managed?
This AUKUS agreement is profound. It is not about any nation buying weapons systems off one another, or the Government contracting with major companies for a new platform; it is about building the industrial capability of all three countries. It is a national enterprise for the UK on skills and workforce, on technology, on security of essential supply chains and components, on sharing highly secret technologies and on decommissioning and recycling out-of-service subs, so who will lead this drive? How will the necessary co-ordination and integration be done? We know, as the Minister said, that Australian personnel have begun serving with the Royal Navy, and that the UK will increase SSN visits to Australia ahead of what is called the submarine rotational force west being created in 2027. How often and for how long will a UK Astute be rotated to Australia?
The UK’s former National Security Adviser, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, has described the AUKUS pact as
“perhaps the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past six decades”,
because it is about more than just subs. Pillar 2 of the AUKUS partnership, which the Minister mentioned, promises potential co-operation on hypersonics, cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Those are essential capabilities that can be delivered before the new AUKUS subs enter service.
Yesterday’s integrated review said little about pillar 2, so can the Minister overcome his reluctance and provide an update on it? What are its strategic objectives? What are its timelines? Which of the technologies has the highest priority? As the broad coalition of countries imposing sanctions on Russia has shown, some of our strongest and most reliable allies are in the Indo-Pacific. Could any other countries, beyond the three AUKUS nations, become involved in pillar 2 collaborations?
Finally, AUKUS is a national enterprise for the UK and a trinational endeavour with our closest security allies. Will the Minister commit today to report regularly on progress with AUKUS to Parliament and to the public?
Alex Chalk
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is absolutely right that this is an announcement of such moment that it will require cross-party and generational support. It is important to note precisely the scale of what is being proposed. As he rightly indicated, this is about not simply the sale of a weapons system, but the growth of a capability across continents and across generations. With scale comes opportunity: having that trinational approach builds the resilience of the supply chain and of the industrial capability, which benefits Australia, of course, and the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about investment. I am pleased to note that, in the last financial year, £2 billion was invested into Barrow-in-Furness and Raynesway, as he will have seen, because I think he has had the opportunity to visit both recently. There will be further investment to come, partly as a result of what has been announced recently, and in the years to come, which echoes my point about it having to be sustained and continued. He is right, of course, to reference the fact that, in the document that accompanies the announcement, a copy of which I am sure he has seen, the Australians have indicated their agreement to make a proportionate investment in UK infrastructure.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to ask about co-ordination, because this has to be co-ordinated. The way that happens is, first and foremost, to ensure that the Australian experts who need to develop that expertise, as they have candidly acknowledged, spend time in the UK—in Barrow and Raynesway. Indeed, this Thursday, I am looking forward to going to Barrow with the Premier of South Australia, where the first SSN-AUKUS for the Royal Australian Navy will be built.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of AUKUS pillar 2. I have had the opportunity to speak to my opposite number here in the UK to discuss precisely that. There are a number of aspects to it, as he indicated, such as hypersonics, AI and underwater technologies, and further detail will be explored in due course. To his point about other countries, I can say that, unlike pillar 1, which is not open for engagement beyond the three nations, we will of course consider the interest that other nations have expressed in pillar 2.
As is well expressed in the fact sheet that accompanies the announcement, AUKUS—whether pillar 1 or pillar 2—is designed to show:
“our shared commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific and an international system that respects the rule of law, sovereignty, human rights, and the peaceful resolution of disputes free from coercion.”
That is what our nations stand for, and that is what AUKUS will deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
As somebody who is passionate about UK security and Britain’s place in the world, I could not hide my deep disappointment yesterday when the new integrated review spelled out a deteriorating global threat picture, but offered no new investment in our conventional forces. We are back here today, however, and I welcome this landmark announcement of ever greater collaboration between three trusted allies. Our political relationship with Washington experienced a bumpy patch post Brexit—I say that as a US-UK dual national—so it is good to see it back where it should be. Indeed, landing AUKUS, the Paris agreement and the Windsor framework shows that statecraft has returned to No. 10.
The procurement programme is for the long term and the first subs will not arrive for another couple of decades, yet the threat picture is deteriorating rapidly. If we are to commit to the Indo-Pacific tilt, does the Minister recognise the urgent need to increase the surface fleet, so that we can meet our responsibilities there?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous in his attention to the issue of the deterrent and the nuclear submarine capability in general. His point about the surface fleet is absolutely right. As a relatively new Minister coming into the Department, it has been encouraging to see the approach taken on Type 31—in other words, the choice of a platform that is deliverable, affordable and configurable to a mission. We have to move beyond a situation where exquisite and highly expensive capabilities are not necessarily operating on a particular mission to their full specification, so Type 31s can be reconfigured for anti-piracy missions, war-fighting missions or humanitarian missions. The British people want to see British warships and frigates acting in the national interest abroad in a sustainable and affordable way, and that is the approach we are taking.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am not a huge advocate of nuclear submarines, but I recognise their dynamic advantages over air-independent propulsion, in terms of range, speed and duration. Moreover, as the SNP’s lead on defence, I spend my time engaged on the defence posture and resources that an independent Scotland will require to defend our national interests and those of our allies collectively, in a way that is consistent with Scotland’s defence and security priorities, so I will not lecture Australia or the United Kingdom on what is right for them. I encourage the Defence Procurement Minister to acknowledge the outstanding engineering prowess that supports attack submarines at Thales in Glasgow and MacTaggart Scott in Loanhead. Nevertheless, I wish everybody in Barrow-in-Furness every success with the work and I hope it generates great prosperity there.
I note the challenges in delivering Astute-class SSN in the UK, with boats one to three being delivered five years late and 53% over budget. What assurances has the UK given to the Australians that that contagion will not affect SSN-AUKUS? What about refit—will the UK be helping Australia with technology transfer and how to refit the boats? Presumably not, given that, due to the Ministry of Defence’s dithering and short-termism, HMS Vanguard required seven years to overhaul and refuel, rather than the planned two, with an attendant cost explosion.
Of the 21 submarines languishing at end of life—seven at Rosyth and a further 14 at Devonport in England—only seven have been defuelled. This scandal sees the previous HMS Vanguard, which went out of service in 1980 and has a 62-year-old hull, still sitting there waiting for the Government to put the money in to safely dispose of it. We have the industrial expertise in the United Kingdom to do that work, so why are the Government not funding their responsibilities? Has the UK cautioned the Australians that it is not enough simply to fund the build, commission and operation of these nuclear submarines, because states must also allocate the budget for disposal? Has the MOD had that conversation, and if so, how did it manage the hypocrisy of it all?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sunny observations, which were hugely appreciated. If I can begin at the end, I was disappointed to hear him asking questions about whether the Australians have been reminded about decommissioning, because it is in the very document that I would have thought he had read. This document, at page 41, talks about radioactive waste management and Australia’s plans to do precisely that, so I am pleased to have been able to deal with that.
On the issue the hon. Gentleman raised about the expertise in Scotland, let me join him, in the spirit of unity across the House, in commending the excellence in Scotland. I am delighted that it is the Ministry of Defence in a British Government that has ensured that those brilliant experts in Scotland have got the ships to work on. That simply would not happen in the event of independence, and he needs to be straight with the Scottish people about that.
On the second issue about refitting, let me say that one advantage of co-operating across the three nations is that we have not only the broader industrial capability to build these boats in the first place, but the capability to develop them over time. One thing he will well understand, as others in the House also recognise, is that it is not enough to think about the capability of the platform on day one; we have to consider how it will develop through the years. Our ability to do that and to ensure that it remains at the cutting edge is immeasurably enhanced by the fact that we are operating across the three nations.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about dismantling, I hope I can reassure him. Swiftsure, one of the boats he referred to, is being dismantled as the demonstrator—that will be completed by 2026—and low-level radioactive waste has been removed already from Swiftsure, Resolution and Revenge. The matters are in hand, and they will continue at pace.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
May I put on record my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister, and to their teams, for getting this bold and visionary deal over the line? AUKUS will provide resilience for our submarine programme, and capacity and capability between our three nations, and it will secure our allies in uncertain times, and deliver jobs and investment in Barrow. It will be a true win-win. Further, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is testament to the remarkable skills of the ship makers in Barrow that Australia chose a submarine designed by Barrovians for its future fleet? Will he join me in thanking and paying tribute to the hard work they do day in and day out, at the shipyard and in the wider submarine programme, to keep us and our allies safe?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for his heartfelt and powerful tribute to the people he represents, and he is absolutely right. This decision is a vote of confidence—not just a British Government vote of confidence, but an international vote of confidence—in the good and skilled people he represents. Let us be clear that this is a British design that will be enhanced principally by US but also by some Australian technology. It is an excellent example of where international scale allied with British know-how and British hard work can produce something genuinely world beating not just for this generation, but to ensure that future generations—our children and grandchildren—can enjoy the safety we have enjoyed.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement. Last year, I visited Australia, and one thing that impressed me was that, for Australia, this is a national endeavour. With meetings at federal level and obviously with the state premier of South Australia, this is a joined-up national endeavour, including looking at skills not just for today, but for the future.
I noticed that, in the new refresh of the integrated review yesterday, it says:
“We have also: announced…Great British Nuclear, to progress a resilient pipeline of new nuclear projects”.
The fear I have is that we are not matching the endeavour of the Australians. Could the Minister explain how we will get that concentration on skills—not just today, but in future—especially with the Business Department shilly-shallying around the investment for Rolls-Royce in the small modular nuclear reactors?
Alex Chalk
May I welcome the right hon. Member’s approval, which is appreciated? He is right that it is a joined-up endeavour in Australia. It has to be, and the Australians well understand the enormous scale of what they are taking on. As he indicated, I look forward to welcoming the premier of South Australia in Barrow this Thursday. His point about skills is well made. We are clear, as are those at Raynesway in Derby, and in Barrow and Furness, that we need to grow the skills pipeline, but that has already begun. If we consider the £2 billion invested last year, yes, some of it went to new buildings and equipment, but it also went to ensuring that the capacity and college facilities to bring on those apprentices are in place. Someone who goes to Derby can be briefed now about precisely what is taking place. The excitement, enthusiasm and drive that is going into ensuring sufficient suitably qualified and expert personnel is reassuring and encouraging. The right hon. Gentleman is making the right point, and I am pleased to reassure him that that matter is not lost on those involved.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement and the work that has gone into it. Can the Minister give the House any indication of the first phase of roll-out, and of how many submarines of the new type will be built? How many of those could be for the Royal Navy?
Alex Chalk
We know, come what may, that the first of these submarines will be built in Barrow, and we have already begun the procurement of long-lead items for that initial batch. Precise numbers will emerge in due course, and that will depend on all sorts of things, including how quickly the Australian industrial base matures and so on. I reassure my right hon. Friend that the first boat will be built here in the UK, and work is being done to ensure that the necessary components for future builds are already being procured.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I welcome this development, as well as the announcement from the Prime Minister, an American Democrat President and an Australian Labour Prime Minister, showing unity between parties and across countries on this vital endeavour. However, I think the Minister is unreasonably complacent. It is not clear who is in charge, and lack of clarity leads to delay and disruption. If we look at the Polaris agreement—it was signed at Nassau in 1962, and HMS Resolution was laid down in 1964, launched in 1996, and commissioned in 1967. Who will be doing that? On the nuclear aspect, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, the report states that we will be looking to
“align delivery of the civil and defence nuclear enterprises”
and goes on to mention the development of
“small modular reactors in the UK through Rolls-Royce SMR;”.
Yet the Treasury is sabotaging that project. It is demanding endless inquiries and evaluations, and is now talking about having a competition with international competitors to try to undermine Rolls-Royce. We do not have that link-up between the civil and military enterprise, so when will somebody get a grip?
Alex Chalk
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I do not recognise the points he is making. As far as Rolls-Royce is concerned, the Government are absolutely behind that fantastic facility—
Alex Chalk
I have been there recently, and I am pleased to say that they are. Rolls-Royce recognises the importance of this programme. One thing that is clear about building nuclear powered submarines is that unless we keep the drum beat of “always-on” manufacture, it is easy for those skills to erode. I am delighted that this programme ensures that we will be building reactors now and in the future for generations to come. That means we will keep those expert personnel, ensure a pipeline of staff, and we will be experts for many years to come.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the work he has done with his Department, his team, and the Ministry of Defence as a whole. The changing geopolitical landscape, and the 360-degree view of NATO, make it vital that there is a silent capability in the Pacific, especially when we look at changes to the geopolitical energy demands coming from western South America. On pillar 2, and the development of weapons, if we are to expand to other nations to help with the development of highly complex weapons, on which I think the west would admit it is way behind the curve, has the Minister given any consideration as to how the UK and AUKUS members can work with PESCO nations which, as he will understand, are a closed shop and have made it difficult for a relationship to form? Will he give that issue some attention regarding how that relationship can be built moving forward?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am also grateful to him for the part he played in progressing this matter when he was in the Department. He comes to this subject with enormous knowledge of the NATO context. I want to pick up on his first point, on capability, because we have not spoken a vast amount about it. The ability to be stealthy and undetected is not a capability enjoyed by conventionally powered submarines, and that is one reason why the United States and the United Kingdom no longer operate them. It is vital that submarines have the range, the lack of detectability, and the ability to be more stealthy and detect more in terms of intelligence and so on, so I take that point. On his second point about pillar 2, he is absolutely right and I will certainly undertake to consider the matter he raises. We had very warm and positive discussions with the Australians here in the UK about pillar 2. I think there is a shared recognition among the United States, the UK and Australia that we need to move quickly. There is no time to lose.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On behalf of my party, the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the AUKUS defence partnership announcement. I endorse what the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said about the stealth it will bring to our partnership. Like the Minister, the US President was at pains yesterday to stress that SSN-AUKUS will be nuclear powered but not nuclear armed. The Minister went further today and talked a little about compliance with international law on proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency is satisfied that Australia does not intend to pursue uranium enrichment. Given that since the announcement China alleges that AUKUS undermines the international non-proliferation system, will the Minister provide a little more assurance to the House and the British public that the initiative does indeed comply with the non-proliferation treaty?
Alex Chalk
I am happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right to say, of course, that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I have made that crystal clear. The NPT is about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, not nuclear propulsion systems. I am pleased to be able to indicate that the director general of the IAEA reported to IAEA member states that he believes the AUKUS partners are committed to ensuring the highest non-proliferation and that safeguard standards are met. He noted his satisfaction with the engagement and transparency shown by the three countries thus far. Australia, in joining the UK and the US, has joined not just the strongest possible culture of safety, but the strongest possible culture of adherence to the rule of law. Indeed, these systems are the very tools that we bring to the table to defend the rules-based order.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
This is a very welcome agreement that helps to make the world just a little bit safer. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Faslane with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I met some of our submariners, went aboard one of our nuclear submarines and saw a reactor built by Rolls-Royce in Derby, which will have been made by some of my constituents. The announcement is incredibly welcome news for Derby and Derbyshire. What assessment has the Department made of the economic boost it will bring to the east midlands?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He is a great supporter of his constituents who produce these brilliant reactors. I am so pleased he went to Rosyth and met the submariners, because I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. It is a tough job, candidly. They do on our behalf, out of sight and sometimes out of mind, an enormously important job and I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them for what they deliver for the security of our nation. The additional investment—let us be clear that the nuclear reactors will supply all the Australian SSN-AUKUS submarines—will mean thousands more high-skilled, high-paid jobs here in the UK. To the point made just a few moments ago, they will be welded shut nuclear reactors. I am happy to be able to make that point. They will not need to be opened or tampered with in any way during the lifetime of the submarine.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I was deeply disappointed with the funding announcement yesterday, which was woefully inadequate for our defence needs, but I fully support and welcome today’s announcement and the AUKUS partnership. May I ask the Minister a specific question? Page 56 of the “Integrated Review Refresh” rightly refers to supply chain risks, particularly in terms of the five priority technologies. To ensure that we, along with our partners, produce and develop the best possible assets that can outmatch our adversaries, at what point will we hear—we still have not heard—when we will publish a strategy on semiconductors and quantum technologies?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman is right that semiconductors and quantum technologies are significant. I am happy to write to him on that point.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome today’s announcement as further evidence that we and our allies are taking seriously the threat of Chinese aggression in the Pacific, and taking action to deal with it. Apart from the strategic security advantages, the announcement offers economic benefit to the United Kingdom. The Minister has indicated that the defence supply chain should benefit, and it is reported that Barrow shipyard, Rolls-Royce, Thales and more will be in line to benefit. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether this announcement will lead to extra high-value jobs in engineering and defence in Northern Ireland?
Alex Chalk
It is overwhelmingly likely that this announcement will have a positive impact across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. Inevitably, precisely how it shakes down will become clear in the fullness of time, because we will need to see the extent to which the supply chains are met in the UK, the United States and Australia. There is the rub—the point of all this is that all three countries bring that element of resilience. Already, Australia has certain capabilities in pressure hull steel, valves, pumps and batteries; we have capabilities in nuclear reactions and so on; and the United States brings weapons systems and various other technologies to bear. That resilience in the supply chain is important to ensure not just that the current submarines can be fitted out and produced, but, vitally, that there is a pipeline in future, because it sends the strongest possible demand signal not just now but for generations to come.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
My hon. and learned Friend will have noticed that China has been quick to condemn our historic AUKUS agreement as a “path of error”. It also still refuses to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Does he agree that that illustrates both the difficulty that we face in determining our relationship with Beijing and why AUKUS is so important for our security?
Alex Chalk
It is important to note that we are looking to have an interoperable presence with our allies in the Indo-Pacific as a whole. Although my hon. Friend is right and proper in identifying China, which the Prime Minister said presented an “epoch-defining systemic challenge”, it is also correct to say that the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States want to ensure that all of the Indo-Pacific remains free for those who believe in the international rules-based order and the rule of law. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that when it comes to China, we have grave concerns about human rights violations and other aggressive actions. That is why we want to ensure the capability to allow our values and what we stand for to be properly represented and upheld in that vital part of the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Many in the world are concerned that this agreement undermines, if not breaches, the non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister assure us that it will be constantly under review and will be reported to the NPT review conference when it comes along? Will he also explain the longer-term implications of this in stoking up a cold war with China? That is likely to increase defence expenditure by the UK, the US, Australia and China in future, leading to greater danger in the South China sea. What is his aspiration for a more peaceful relationship in the long term that will not cost such vast amounts of money for all the countries concerned?
Alex Chalk
May I reject in the strongest possible terms what the right hon. Gentleman says? I do find it troubling that he is so ready to take the side of any country that stands potentially in opposition to the United Kingdom.
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is the self-same man, I am sorry to say, who in 2014 blamed NATO for Russian aggression. Now, again, he wants to take the side of others. This is the country, together with its allies, that believes in what he should believe in: the international rules-based order and the assertion of those rights in a contested world. We will continue to do that, and we will not be knocked off course by those who try to do our country down.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that major defence announcements such as this one should not be considered in isolation? By far the biggest foreign policy challenge that we face is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Western strategies are largely dependent on economic sanctions against Russia, but those sanctions have been blunted by the fact that Russia has been able to find other markets with which to trade. What assessment has the Minister made of whether the AUKUS security pact will help or hinder our strategies to bring Russia’s war to an end?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have to ensure that our defence nuclear programme progresses in the way that I have indicated, but not to the exclusion of what we are properly doing on the continent of Europe. I am proud, and I think this whole House can be proud, that after the United States there is no nation on the planet that has done more than ours to provide military equipment to the Ukrainians: more than 100,000 artillery shells, 200 armoured fighting vehicles, night vision goggles, more than 10,000 anti-tank weapons, winter clothing and so on. We do all this and more because we believe that we need to send a message from this country that might is not always right and that our country can be counted on to stand up to bullies.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for almost three quarters of an hour.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his proper concern about this issue. The Sheldon review was and is entirely independent of Government, and it provided an initial draft to the MOD at the end of January. Since then, Mr Sheldon has been conducting a fact-checking and Maxwellisation exercise as part of the final stages of drafting. The timeframe, in an independent review, is not a matter for the Department. Once received, however, I can say that it will be published with all expedition, accompanied by a statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is a champion of SMEs, and rightly so: they are at the heart of a vibrant and flexible UK defence industry. That is why this Department helps to find and fund exploitable ideas from SMEs. To his point, however, there is nothing contradictory between the principles of ESG and the defence industry. On the contrary, strong national defence is the ultimate guarantor of the freedoms that all too often are taken for granted—human rights, democracy and the international rules-based order.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
As part of my commitment to keep Parliament informed on the programme, I wish to provide a further update on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme. Ajax reliability and growth trials commenced on 31 January 2023 and are progressing as expected, with more than 1,390 km driven and four battlefield mission tests completed as of 28 February 2023.
[HCWS596]
Defence Space Strategy: One Year On
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
A year ago the Ministry of Defence (MOD) published the defence space strategy (DSS), which set out a vision for the MOD to be a meaningful actor in the space domain. I now wish to update Parliament on the progress made since its publication.
Since we published this strategy, the war in Ukraine has served to reinforce the space domain’s importance in securing information advantage and enhancing military operations. Access to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data from space has proved vital in that conflict, both for the conduct of operations and the ability to counter Russian disinformation on the global stage. Satellite communication has also played a critical role and we have observed the importance of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) solutions for delivering precision effects.
UK Space Command
UK Space Command reached initial operating capability on 1 April 2022. This joint command has the role of generating, integrating and operating space capabilities to protect and defend UK interests in support of global operations. The command is now over 500 strong and will continue to grow its workforce over the coming 12 months.
Following our commitment to invest a further £1.5 billion into UK defence’s space capabilities over the next decade, Space Command is now delivering the defence space portfolio, which combines existing space programmes and exciting new capabilities in support of our mission. Space Command published its capability management plan on 9 November 2022, which set out capability head- marks against seven capability areas: satellite communication, space domain awareness, ISR, command and control (C2), space control, PNT and launch.
Delivering Space-based Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
UK Space Command, partnering closely with the Defence Innovation Unit, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), has placed on contract the creation of two research and development (R&D) satellites: TITANIA, a space to earth laser communications system, and TYCHE, an electro-optical earth observation system. Both are expected to be launched into low earth orbit (LEO) in early 2024.
UK Space Command has also started the process of placing on contract further R&D projects. The first of these will develop a synthetic aperture radar satellite capability. This UK defence R&D programme will play a role in supporting operational capability investment decisions from 2025 onwards.
Delivering Space Domain Awareness (SDA), Command and Control (C2) and Space Control
Noting the strategy’s commitment to identifying “dual use” opportunities, the MOD has worked closely with the UK Space Agency (UKSA) to agree the first set of cross-government, civil and defence, SDA requirements. We will now assess the available technologies and opportunities with our allies to identify areas for investment. This will likely combine the use of commercial sensor data, allies’ data and sovereign sensors over the coming years.
To improve C2, Space Command and UKSA continue to develop long-term plans for a joint civil-military national space operations centre, which will have improved SDA capabilities at its very heart and draw on new software to improve automation and exploitation.
Space Command continues to develop a range of operational concept demonstrators for space control that will help to sustain advantage and freedom of action in space.
Delivering Satellite Communications (SatCom) and Space-Based Positioning Navigation and Timing (PNT)
UK Strategic Command (UK StratCom) continues to maintain crucial satellite communication services for defence. Since the transfer of ownership of the Skynet Constellation back to the MOD in August 2021, UK Space Command has now taken on responsibility for the protection and defence of our satellites on orbit. Following conclusion of a successful private finance initiative with Airbus Defence and Space, we are planning to announce the winner of the service delivery wrap (SDW) competition in February 2023 to provide satellite, terminal, and network elements of the next generation SKYNET 6 system until 2029. We will work with allies to ensure an enduring capability in an increasingly contested operating environment.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) lead for Government on national PNT resilience and a cross-government PNT team was established by BEIS in July last year. MOD is supporting this effort, including through embedded military expertise. This team is taking forward a “concept demonstrator” project to develop a stance on national PNT resilience through a better understanding of national needs, PNT risks, mitigations and opportunities. Its work is due to conclude this spring with options going to Ministers on next steps.
Since the strategy’s publication, UK StratCom has continued to pursue options within defence to enhance resilient and assured positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) capabilities. This includes: the robust global navigation system (RGNS), designed to utilise all unencrypted global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals being broadcast today to generate a more reliable and available PNT solution; and a programme of activity to develop alternative technologies to GNSS PNT capabilities (AltNav), which is due to complete its research phase this year.
Increasing Space Operations
The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces has resulted in unprecedented levels of activity for UK Space Command operational units and has accelerated activity with our international partners. The UK Space Operations Centre and RAF Fylingdales have contributed to homeland defence through strategic missile warning while continuing to provide critical theatre missile warning, GPS accuracy predictions and space weather alerts to deployed UK forces overseas. With embedded UK Space Agency analysts providing re-entry and space debris analysis and warnings, the Space Operations Centre continues to track suspicious activity on orbit and is undergoing significant enhancement to meet the additional demand.
Skills and Training
UK Space Command concluded its training needs analysis in March 2022 and this is informing its activity in pursuit of the DSS goal to “upskill” the defence workforce. The command delivered its inaugural executive space operations course in December 2022 and continues to work towards the establishment of a space academy. The MOD is working with DSIT to ensure that a coherent approach is taken to address skills gaps across the UK space sector through partnerships across Government, industry and leading academic centres around the country.
International Partnerships
The DSS committed us to broadening and deepening multinational co-operation and we have made good progress on this, with UK Space Command signing agreements with several new international partners to formalise collaboration on issues such as organisational structures, training of personnel and acquiring of new capability. Terms of reference with the Republic of Korea Air Force and Australian Defence Space Command have been signed (in July 2022 and December 2022 respectively), outlining future co-operation in areas such as information sharing, collaborative training, and personnel exchanges. UK Space Command also signed the enhanced space co-operation MOU with US Space Command in April 2022. This is the most comprehensive defence space arrangement signed yet between the UK and the US, and the basis for a number of new and developing areas of co-operation.
We have also played a leading role in the combined space operations (CSpO) initiative—comprising Australia, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, UK and US —which seeks to align activity relating to operations, capability and policy. Throughout 2022 the UK chaired the CSpO’s Policy and Legal Working Group that has been instrumental in shaping the debate in the UN on responsible space behaviours. Linked to this, MOD supported the Government announcement on 3 October 2022 of a UK commitment not to destructively test direct ascent antisatellite (DA-ASAT) missiles.
Conclusion
Significant progress has been made since the publication of the DSS. We have the right structures and governance in place and we have established many key relationships at home and abroad. We continue to work at pace to deliver the strategy’s ambition and to integrate space into our business-as-usual activity across defence—from operational planning to doctrine, capability development, training and education.
[HCWS579]
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
The Type 32 programme began the concept phase on 21 September 2022 and will seek to deliver an outline business case in spring 2024. The programme and procurement strategy will be decided following the concept phase, in the normal way.
Sir Edward Leigh
Further to the earlier exchange between the Secretary of State and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), can the Minister confirm that, although this Type 32, so called, will not, as I understand it, come on stream until 2030, the Government are fully committed to having an ongoing warship programme and that, whether we call it the 31A, the 32 or whatever, we remain committed to renewing the Royal Navy’s capability after 2030?
Alex Chalk
Yes, and last week I had the pleasure of being in Rosyth, where steel was being cut in respect of the Type 31, which is an affordable frigate that can be configured for the mission, whether that is a humanitarian mission, a war-fighting mission or an anti-piracy mission. That flexibility is exactly what we want from our frigates, and we want them to ensure that there is a pipeline into the future.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
The Ministry of Defence works closely with British industry and academia, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to identify and invest in innovative technologies that address our most pressing capability challenges, as well as publishing our future priorities to incentivise investment. We are already testing and deploying these technologies.
Greg Smith
The best innovation is not necessarily the preserve of the giant players in the sector but can be found among smaller enterprises such as those at the Westcott Venture Park in my constituency, including Flare Bright’s development of autonomous drones for flight in global navigation satellite system-denied areas. Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that when it comes to the development of new defence innovations, such smaller, dynamic enterprises are as valued to his Department as the more traditional big beasts?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a lot of innovation does indeed come from agile SMEs, which is why the MOD’s SME action plan is firmly aimed at improving access for SMEs to work right through the defence supply chain. Indeed, the MOD has a target that 25% of its procurement spend will go directly and indirectly to SMEs—that is up from around 16% in 2016. The latest figures I have seen show that we are at 23% already. We are on the right path but there is further to go.
Gareth Davies
The Tempest fighter jet and the Challenger 3 are examples of the Government’s commitment to giving our forces good-quality equipment. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must also prioritise the wellbeing of our personnel? One way to do that is to ensure that the quality of their food matches the calibre of their kit.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right. Ensuring that our service personnel receive good-quality meals is a vital contribution to defence capability, which is why the Ministry of Defence has established a team of subject-matter experts to overhaul and modernise the delivery of defence catering using the findings of the “Delivering Defence Dining Quality” review and the ongoing Army Eats trials to inform change to the total food offer. The trials began in 2020 and the results are expected imminently. They will inform the future of dining for defence.
Stephen Metcalfe
If we want to keep our country safe we need to work with our allies to ensure that we remain at the forefront of the latest developments in defence technology. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that our new partnership with Japan and Italy will involve collaborating in areas such as weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles, and not just on fighter jets?
Alex Chalk
The ambition of this truly international programme is principally to deliver a cutting-edge fighter aircraft, providing a credible deterrent to future threats. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a system of systems, and it is likely to include uncrewed aircraft, new sensors, weapons, advanced data systems and secure networks. Those wider capabilities may be developed together with our wider partners, or with our existing partners in that endeavour. We will continue to explore system opportunities between both our core partnership and more widely.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Following the recent memorandum of understanding signed by the Royal Air Force and Imperial College London, how do Ministers expect that will impact on the RAF’s technological capabilities, particularly around digital and artificial intelligence?
Alex Chalk
Digital and artificial intelligence are central to RAF capability. I was delighted recently to announce that significant investment has taken place in Lincolnshire to ensure that when those aircraft take to the skies, they have the weapons systems but also the battlefield management plans that they require to ensure that they can take the fight to the enemy.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that UK operational sovereignty will be a factor in increment 1A of the maritime electronic warfare programme? Will he meet me to discuss that?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I will write to my hon. Friend on that important question.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred to the allegations in the weekend press about 77th Brigade. I know him well enough to know that when he told us that he gave clear instructions and guidelines to the brigade, which operates only against foreign powers and extremists, he was telling the exact truth. However, will he review the issue and ensure that his guidelines have been followed in all cases?
Ukraine Update
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
Equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping it to defend what it already has. Together, we will continue supporting Ukraine to move from resisting Russian forces to expelling them from Ukrainian soil. By bringing together allies and partners, we are ensuring that the surge of global military support is as strategic and as co-ordinated as possible.
The new level of required combat power is achievable only by a combination of main battle tank squadrons beneath air and missile defence, operating alongside divisional artillery groups and further deep precision fires that enable the targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes in occupied territory.
On 16 January, the Secretary of State for Defence announced in this House the UK’s latest package of military support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom is committed to providing the capabilities Ukraine requires to drive further international donations and to secure lasting peace. The UK, our allies and partners are responding decisively to provide military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. The UK has led the world with the gifting of modern main battle tanks to Ukraine, and we are engaging international partners through a co-ordinated military and diplomatic effort.
The Secretary of State for Defence co-hosted a meeting of partners with his Estonian counterpart on 19 January to push forward international donations. The Tallinn pledge is an important declaration of commitment to Ukraine. The provision of tanks was also discussed at the meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group at Ramstein airbase on 20 January.
We welcome the decision by Germany to send Leopard 2 tanks, and by the United States to send Abrams tanks, to Ukraine, and we are delighted that they have now joined the United Kingdom, France and Poland in equipping Ukraine with this important capability. Our united resolve can and will prove decisive. In 2023, we are more determined than ever. We will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This is an important opportunity to discuss the developments of the past few days.
The UK remains united in its support for Ukraine. The first package of UK military assistance in 2023, with tanks, artillery, infantry vehicles, ammunition and missiles, has Labour’s fullest support. We warmly welcome the announcements from Germany, the US, France and Poland that they will be sending tanks, and that Germany will grant export licences to allow others to follow suit. This will provide more of the equipment that Ukraine needs to win at a pivotal moment. This is an historic move from Germany in particular, and NATO allies continue to move in lockstep to provide vital support.
We also welcome the Tallinn pledge as an important statement of western unity and intent to provide Ukraine with the support it needs. The west is united and we move together at a vital moment for Ukrainian forces. We encourage the Government to continue to work with NATO and European allies to deliver the support Ukraine needs to face down Putin’s aggression. It is now our duty to make sure that Ukraine wins this war. Can the Minister say when he expects Ukrainian troops to begin their training with our Challenger 2 tanks, and when he expects those tanks, and the tanks being sent by NATO allies, to begin to arrive on the frontline?
Labour has argued for months that Ministers need to move beyond ad hoc announcements and set out a long-term plan of support for Ukraine, as they promised last August. Will the Minister commit today to ensuring that that is published before the one-year anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? The Prime Minister has rightly identified this as a window of opportunity for a surge in global military support for Ukraine. How will the Minister ensure that there is a surge in UK support? What further support do the Government plan to send this year?
The conflict is also depleting our stockpiles and Ministers are moving too slowly to replace them. What steps is the Minister taking to ramp up production of ammunition and equipment to restock our own armed forces and to support Ukraine? It took 287 days from the start of the invasion for the Defence Secretary to get his act together and sign a new contract to replenish NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—for our armed forces and for Ukraine. How many more contracts have been signed to replenish UK stockpiles of the other weapons sent to Ukraine?
Finally, will the Minister now say what bearing these developments will have on the coming refresh of the integrated review? The Defence Secretary has said he will review the size of our tank fleet. Does the Minister think scrapping a third of our Challenger tanks in the original IR was a mistake? We are now at a critical moment in the war. The winter deadlock could soon give way to a spring offensive from Russia and further counter-attacks from Ukraine. As the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion approaches, the UK and NATO allies must send a clear signal that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Putin must be clear that things will get harder for him, not easier, this year.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She ended them by saying that the world must send a clear signal and she is absolutely right about that. I am pleased that this House, too, is sending a clear signal, as reflected by her opening remarks. She was also right to pick out the particular role of Germany, and she mentioned the historical context; this is a big move, it is a welcome move and it is the right move. I also wish to put on record that Germany has made a very significant contribution in providing munitions and support, and I hope that will not be understated.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, so let me turn to those. I am pleased to say that training is expected to start next week, on Monday. She asked when the Challenger 2 tank will be in theatre; the intention is that that will be at the end of March. Between now and then there will be a significant programme of training, not just for the tank crews who are to operate the vehicle, but for those who will be charged with maintaining it. I am happy to discuss that further in due course if questions arise.
The hon. Lady talked about a surge of support. I will come on to that, but I want to make the point, which I am sure is well understood in this House but bears repetition, that this country has provided more military support than any nation on the planet apart from the United States. What does that mean? It means: 100,000 artillery shells; more than 200 armoured fighting vehicles; more than 10,000 anti-tank weapons; Javelins; Brimstones; NLAWs; night vision googles; and plastic explosives. It means so much. We do all that and more. I also pause to note that this was the nation that ensured that a lot of that equipment was in theatre before the invasion started, because we saw what Russia’s intentions were.
The hon. Lady rightly presses us on what will happen next. We have already trained 10,000 troops—we have been training Ukrainian troops since 2014. We will continue to do that in 2023, and indeed the funding is there for a further package of support, and it will include, for example, another 100,000 or so artillery shells.
The hon. Lady is right to mention restocking. She will understand that operational sensitivities mean that I cannot go into the detail of exactly what is going to be restocked and when, but she will know that Privy Counsellors, including from the Opposition, have been given a briefing on that—that is exactly what we should be doing to ensure that those who need to know these sensitive details are told what they properly can be told. That has taken place.
Let us pause for a moment to consider the IR. The original IR, which was framed before the Russian invasion, correctly identified that Russia was a threat. Of course in this refresh we look to recalibrate and consider what further steps need to be taken. The Secretary of State has been clear that we will review all matters, including tanks, to which the hon. Lady referred. I want to close by saying that the UK has been on the front foot and on the frontline in terms of providing support for Ukraine, and when it comes to main battle tanks we have done exactly the same. This nation will be unflinching in its support of Ukraine—we were in 2022 and we certainly will be for the rest of this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome this update and the detail that the Minister has provided. It is not often one can say this in the House, but Britain and our allies are now mobilising in earnest for war. After so much international hesitancy, we are finally, nudged on by the UK, beginning to muster the serious hardware that can make a material difference on the battlefield. But we must move from talking about tactics to strategy. Does he agree that this war is no longer about just Ukraine—it is about a widening threat to the west? Does he agree that Putin is now the single most destabilising force in Europe and that the conflict has entered a more complex and dangerous chapter, with major security implications for our own defence posture, particularly the poor state of our land forces? It is unacceptable that our tank numbers have dropped from 900 two decades ago to just 148 today—that must be reviewed.
Alex Chalk
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s important contribution. Of course we accept that Putin represents a threat; we said that in the IR. In the actions Putin took in February last year, he made it crystal clear that the rhetoric he had been developing prior to that period had been put into action. It is clear to us that unless we address this threat now, through the support for Ukraine, which is fighting a just war of defence, it is likely that that threat will only grow. On land forces, my right hon. Friend is extremely well acquainted with the future soldier programme to rebuild those armed forces. On a matter of detail, the tank number is not 148—it is 227.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I, too, rise to welcome this statement and I thank the Minister for advance sight of it. I will largely echo the comments of others, because clearly all of us in this place stand united behind Ukraine and welcome the steps that have been taken. I do not think any of us can underestimate the steps taken yesterday with the decision by Germany and how difficult a decision that was for the Germans. That is most certainly worth noting. I also note that there are concerns about this next wave of mobilisation of Russian troops, the suggestion that the Russians have drafted 500,000 new recruits into their army and how quickly they may be able to mobilise.
Although I welcome the moves we have made, there is, obviously, concern about the time it is going to take to get troops up and running and feet on the ground. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s authorisation of the shipment of the 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, although I note that Ukraine’s most senior military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny, said that it needs some 300 western tanks and about 600 western armoured fighting vehicles in order to make a difference. Will the Minister outline whether we will be sending any further Challenger 2 tanks, beyond this initial squadron? I note that in 2021 the Government announced that they were planning to retire about 80 tanks from the UK’s arsenal, so it is possible that some or all of those could be considered for repurposing for deployment to Ukraine, if they are fit enough for that? How is the Ministry of Defence assisting other NATO allies such as Spain that have not yet sent tanks but wish to do so?
Ukrainian forces will need time to learn how to operate this highly technical equipment, so how will UK armed forces collaborate with NATO counterparts to supply the necessary auxiliary equipment and training to make sure that Ukrainian forces can maximise that capability? Finally, what discussions has the Department had with allies to consider sending fighter jets to Ukraine in the coming weeks and months, so that we do everything we can to aid Ukraine’s struggle?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He raises a number of very important issues. May I reiterate the point about unity across the House? He has demonstrated that, and I thank him for it.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point at the beginning about the time taken to mobilise. No apology is made for that, because, unless the time is taken to properly train the tank crews and also those who support the equipment, we will not achieve the impact that we all want to see. One thing that I am encouraged by, and I am pleased to be able to update the House about, is the extent to which we will be training those maintenance crews on a five-week course, entirely separate from the tank crews themselves, to provide the kind of deep maintenance that is needed, by which I mean if a gearbox or wheel needs to be replaced. We will be supplying not just the tanks, but the supplies and the training to ensure that those vehicles can remain on the road. The tank crews themselves will have a level of maintenance training, but there will be a deep maintenance training support package as well. In addition, there will be the ability to reach back to the UK. In other words, they will be able to communicate to the UK, “Look, this is an issue with this tank. Can you support us?” We will then provide that technical knowhow remotely.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of tanks. The thing that is so important, and that the Secretary of State was so clear about in his remarks in the House, is that the UK has a leadership role to catalyse other nations. That is what we intended to do and—I hope it is fair to say—that is what we have delivered. The number of tanks overall is now over 70. Two weeks ago it was zero, so we are making steps in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman asked about other countries—Spain, for example. It is of course a matter for Spain, but I hope that it will take comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom and, indeed, Germany, as he rightly pointed out, have reached this decision, and it may be that other nations will see the way to make similar decisions. Ultimately, though, it is a matter for those other countries.
Let me address the point about armoured fighting vehicles—a point that is sometimes lost. This nation alone has donated more than 200 armoured fighting vehicles—the so-called dogs of war that we are familiar with from Afghanistan. These are big, heavy fighting vehicles with weapons capabilities that provide assistance on the battlefield.
On the issue of tanks overall, the Secretary of State has been clear that 40 tanks have been provided, which means that those existing hulls that were at low readiness will be brought forward to high readiness. That is about ensuring that our overall fleet—the fleet that remains—is more lethal and more ready for action.
As for fighters, we will just have to wait and see. This is an important step at the moment. It is one that we think has a way to go, especially as other nations will perhaps see their way forward as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What further steps can be taken to reduce the effectiveness of the criminal Wagner organisation? Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied that all its expenditure on helping Ukraine is being fully reimbursed from the Treasury reserve?
Alex Chalk
Those are two very important points, for which I am grateful.
On the second point, yes, expenditure is being reimbursed by the Treasury. Indeed, when we look at the sums that have been allocated for ammunition, there is an additional £650 million to procure not just replacement ammunition, but deeper supplies. That is a very important point. It is a statement of fact that it takes time—of course it does—to replenish those stores, but the funding is in place to do so.
On the first point, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, tactical decisions about precisely how equipment is deployed—it could be against the Wagner organisation in and around Soledar and Bakhmut—is a matter for commanders on the ground. Our job, as we see it, is to ensure that those decision makers in the field have the equipment they need to push back against Russian forces, Wagner forces or whoever it is. If the Russians have their own difficulties over precisely who is in control and the politics within their ranks, that is a matter for them.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting a new record for the shortest statement in history: four paragraphs and less than a page and a quarter.
I return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), which is the effect of these donations on our Army’s capability. We have seen the press speculation about the Chief of the General Staff’s comments about the hollowing out of our capabilities in the Army. The Minister talked about 227 Challenger 2 tanks, but he knows that, operationally, it is far fewer than 100. What will he do to ensure that those alarm bells that have been sounded by the Chief of the General Staff are met with new capabilities so that we can meet our NATO commitments?
Alex Chalk
The Chief of the General Staff also went on to make the point that it could not be in a better cause. Indeed, it is important to make the point that weapons that we supply have the effect of degrading the very adversary who was noted in the integrated review. We are fighting this just war not only to stand up for the international rule of law, and to make a statement that might is not always right and that we cannot remake borders by force, but to degrade the forces of our principal adversary as identified in the IR.
The Secretary of State has said, in respect of our Challenger 2 tanks, that he will now, at his instruction, ensure that more hulls are brought to a greater state of readiness, so that, as part of our overall land fleet, we have Challenger 2 squadrons ready to deploy in the defence of this nation.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend and the Government for the exemplary way in which the UK Government have led on all this. They have made a very significant and considerable change in the atmosphere over the past few days. But what about France? What discussions are taking place with it? If we want NATO unity, it is now the odd man out because it is not sending tanks. Does the Minister agree that the side that can mass its forces with sufficient speed is the side that will turn the tide of the war? Should we not be doing more? Why are we not sending all our tanks that are available—all our Warrior vehicles? We can replenish our armoured vehicle fleet over time, but the Ukrainians need our stuff now. What else will those vehicles be used for?
Alex Chalk
Let me deal with the issue of France. It is, of course, a matter for sovereign nations to make their decision, and we would respectfully point out and welcome the decision of the French Government to provide Ukraine with the AMX-10 highly mobile tank. It is not their main battle tank, as my hon. Friend points out, but it is, none the less, one that has been used very recently in reconnaissance missions by the French army and was deployed as recently as the Barkhane mission in west Africa. That comes together with a number of very sophisticated and lethal bits of ammunition. We would, of course, welcome further progress, but, ultimately, it is a matter for them.
My hon. Friend raises an important question that will doubtless be in the minds of many people, which is why not give more. That is something that we will keep under review, but we do have to balance it with the point that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made about UK sovereign capability and the ability for us to deploy tanks in the defence of our own borders. These are difficult judgments to make, but we are satisfied that our initial contribution, which has helped to galvanise and catalyse further international contributions, is the right donation to be making at this stage. We keep all these matters under review.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I echo the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), about the state of our land forces. It is vital that this is addressed in the context of the refresh of the integrated review. May I also echo the sentiment expressed by the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), about the resourcing of all of this? Although providing this capability is the right thing to do, it will come at some cost and with some undermining of our defence capability. Will the Minister reiterate the point that I think he made just a moment ago that the costs will fall on the Treasury, and that the cost of deploying this additional capability will not fall on an already stretched MOD budget?
Alex Chalk
May I underscore that point and add that, as part of the support to the Ukrainians in respect of Challenger 2 tanks, we provide them with ammunition, spares and the technical support that I mentioned a few moments ago? We also want to support them to provide a lot of the spares themselves in the fullness of time—whether by using 3D printing or whatever it is—so that they can become self-sufficient. That is a very important part of sustaining this effort. As far as financial support is concerned, it was £2.3 billion last year and a similar sum this year. That is an important part of the support that we can provide, and it goes together with humanitarian support.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Ukrainian diaspora and the Ukrainian families who have come to my constituency will welcome this announcement and the UK’s leadership on the issue. I particularly welcome what my hon. and learned Friend had to say about the maintenance of the vehicles and kit supplied, because that has been a problem in other theatres. Can he reassure me that, along with the focus on very high-level equipment—tanks, and indeed the question about fighter jets—we will not lose sight of the basic kit required in the day-to-day conflict?
Alex Chalk
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the support his constituents have given the Ukrainian people. We sit here and talk about tanks and missiles, but some of the most important support we have given is through the people of this country who have welcomed into their homes Ukrainians fleeing persecution and aggression. On his specific point, we will continue to provide military support, particularly supplies for the tanks, and—I cannot remember what his second point was—
Alex Chalk
Yes—that is essential. One thing we do not talk about as much, although perhaps we should, is winter kit. Much of the equipment we are providing is what helps with basic war fighting, to ensure that Ukrainian troops do not suffer from cold. We also provide night-vision goggles, medicines and other equipment to allow them to take the fight to the enemy.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Abrams tanks provided by the US Government could prove to be extremely expensive to run, as they rely on jet fuel. What discussions have Ministers had with our international partners about ensuring that the heavy armour provided can be easily maintained and is not a hindrance to Ukrainian forces?
Alex Chalk
It is not for us to discuss how the Abrams tanks should be maintained, but the hon. Lady makes an important point: heavy armour can be a liability if we do not ensure it is properly resourced and maintained. That is why we are working at the fastest possible pace to balance the urgent operational requirement of getting this equipment into the field with ensuring that it is an asset, not a liability. We have ensured that not only will the tank crews—who, incidentally, will be already experienced on tanks, albeit of a different type—be selected to be trained, but separate maintenance crews will have the skills and supplies to sustain Challenger 2 tanks in the field and take the fight to the enemy.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Will the Minister pay tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Telford and elsewhere in the country who are working hard to deliver the new turret for Challenger 2, and who will have to pull out all the stops to supply support for those tanks? Has he considered whether, if we need to cannibalise some of our tanks temporarily and take them out of commission to provide spares to Ukraine, we are prepared to do that?
Alex Chalk
We have already identified the spares that are to be required as part of this package. Right hon. and hon. Members can have in their minds that not only is the physical tank being provided, but a container or something similar of supplies is coming with it. That has been identified as well. We have looked into our inventories to make sure we are in a position to properly support the Ukrainians, and there is a helpful and constructive dialogue with them about the number of munitions they require and the level of maintenance supplies needed to sustain them—informed, by the way, by the experience they already have in the field.
I pay tribute to those at BAE Systems and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land in Telford, who will do an important job. I have been to see them myself. I want to emphasise one further point: yes, we will provide munitions and technical know-how, but we also want to pivot to a position where those operating the systems can independently maintain them and supply the spares required. That is what the Ukrainians want, and that is the know-how we are going to assist them with.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we should strongly support the comments of the Secretary-General of NATO when he says that this is an important time to end the Russian tyranny and to remind people that Ukrainians are the victims? They did not ask to be invaded and we should support them until the end.
Alex Chalk
I do, and the right hon. Lady paraphrases it very well. Those of us who look at history can look back at all sorts of conflicts and sometimes it is quite difficult to work out what the war aims were, but there is nothing complicated about this case. This is a war of invasion and a war of aggression; it is an attempt to demonstrate that the international rule of law does not matter at all and that might is always right. This nation will always stand up for basic principles of international law and justice. That is why the Ukrainians find in us a staunch ally.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for confirming to this House that we will continue to lead the world in supporting Ukraine, as we have since the beginning of this war. Will he reassure me and my constituents in Southend West that we are doing everything we can to encourage other countries, particularly European countries that may not have done anything so far, to step up their efforts to contribute to ending this evil war?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend, who stands up so well for her constituents. She is right that the UK cannot do everything on its own, but we can set a powerful example. We have significant capabilities that we can bring to the field and a powerful example that we can set. That is the approach we intend to take. Leadership comes from doing the right thing, and I am confident that we can expect the trend we have already seen, of other nations following our lead, to continue.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about the importance of the basic winter kits and so on. Given that we are trying to persuade other countries to be more generous and supportive as well, what role is the UK playing in trying to co-ordinate efforts so that what is supplied matches the need on the ground?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to ensure that co-ordination takes place. That is why the British Government were in the lead in Tallinn, as I indicated in my initial statement, where the Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Czech Republic and various other countries were present, and that led to the Tallinn pledge. We were also present at Ramstein the following day, with the United States and various other countries. I think the pledges we are now seeing find their root, as it were, in those important meetings that took place. She is right that co-ordination is essential, and not just on main battle tanks, because main battle tanks operated by soldiers who do not have proper winter equipment, for example, will not be as effective as they otherwise would be. There are all sorts of things going on that are perhaps not necessarily reported on with the same level of intensity, but are vital to ensuring that Ukrainians can fight and fight to win.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
At Christmas time, I launched a campaign along with local residents to take generators to some of the worst affected areas in Ukraine. It was Christmas, people do not have a lot of money, and I was not quite sure how successful it would be, but today I can say we have raised nearly £18,000 and, thanks to this campaign and all the constituents who have been incredibly supportive, we now have 94 generators from North Norfolk in three Transit vans to take over to Lviv to be distributed. We talk a lot about people power around this country and all the people who have helped, so will my hon. and learned Friend thank my constituents for gathering together 94 generators, and Andrew Hadley and Rob Scammell, who have been superb and worked tirelessly on this project?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend paints a powerful tribute and I am happy to echo it. The people of North Norfolk have stepped up admirably, not only in providing generators, but in opening their hearts and their homes to people fleeing Ukraine, so I absolutely pay tribute to them. It is worth remembering that this country has provided not just generators, but ambulances and Sea King search and rescue helicopters in addition to medicines and so on.
There is one matter that I am happy to correct, by the way: I said £600 million for additional ammunition, but I think it is £560 million. In so far as that is material, I am happy to make that clear.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that, if anyone wants to understand President Putin better, they should do what I have done and watch the brilliant new documentary by Norma Percy, “Putin, Russia and the West”, which will be broadcast again on Monday on the BBC? It is very revealing about what we face. Does he also agree with me and other Back Benchers who have said that, while it is crucial that we send more tanks, and I applaud that—the gearboxes for the Challengers are all made at David Brown Santasalo in Huddersfield, and much else, too, so that is all good news—this is also about morale? The civilians across Ukraine need blankets, heat and food. Can we make sure across Departments that the folks at home, who support their troops and their President, are getting that kind of help with keeping warm this winter and feeding themselves and their children?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and pay tribute to his constituents, who have been providing gearboxes for the Challenger 2 tanks. He is absolutely right to say that the support is not just military. Indeed, more than £1 billion of humanitarian support has been provided by the British Government, and there are those from North Norfolk and elsewhere who have been doing a huge amount besides—blankets are important, food is important, generators are important. I am proud that this country has provided tens of thousands of sets of winter clothing for Ukrainian troops. That means that General Winter—as some have referred to winter and the impact that it can have on conflicts in that part of the world—should be on the side of the Ukrainians.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Liberal Democrats join the Government and other Opposition parties in opposing this dreadful invasion. The Minister mentioned the Wagner Group, which we know is an agent of Putin that is responsible for egregious human rights abuses and atrocities not just in Ukraine, but around the world, in Mali, Sudan and Syria. Will the Minister commit to proscribing the military units and mercenary groups that are carrying out those atrocities in Ukraine and elsewhere?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her support. Her point about the Wagner Group is one that is under active consideration by the Government as we speak.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I am overwhelmed by the support from across the House for the people of Ukraine, and I thank the Government for the amount of military assistance that they are giving. One of the outstanding issues of the war, and something that is maybe slightly newer in modern warfare, is the overwhelming use of drones—Russia’s use of Iranian-supplied drones in particular is having a devastating effect on Ukraine. The use of drones is very lopsided; the Ukrainian military does not have the number of drones that the Russian military has. Have the UK Government considered supplying drones to Ukraine, and did that form part of the talks in Tallinn or Ramstein or with NATO counterparts?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much thank our Government and our Ministers for their stance to galvanise public opinion and get us all together, and to encourage all NATO countries across Europe and elsewhere to support Ukraine. As the anniversary of the conflict with Russia approaches, we are all very much focused on a long-term commitment to Ukraine, which there has to be. The Minister has indicated clearly what needs to be done. Has he made an assessment not just of military help—tanks and other matériel—but of long-term help? We in Northern Ireland have been supporting Ukraine, through Thales and our anti-tank weapons, which have become useful to the Ukrainians. When it comes to the long term, does the Minister accept that the Ukraine war is our war, that the Ukrainian battle for freedom and democracy is our battle, and that, whatever we do, in every aspect, we must do for ourselves as well as for them?
Alex Chalk
The point about unity is so important. If this war has shown anything, it is that the values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law are values around which many free nations coalesce, so there is that unity. Of course, we are not a participant in the war, which is a matter for the Ukrainians, but they are fighting for a principle, and we absolutely join them in sending the message that you cannot redraw international borders through the use of force and exert your will in some totalitarian lawless way. They will have our support for as long as it takes.
Fleet Solid Support Ships: Contract for Manufacture
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
Today I am providing an update on our plans for the next stage of the fleet solid support ship programme.
I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has placed a contract with a value of around £1.6 billion—linked to CPI—for the manufacture of three fleet solid support (FSS) ships by Team Resolute. This is an excellent deal for the taxpayer and will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy.
Team Resolute, comprising Harland & Wolff Belfast, Bath-based BMT and Navantia UK, will manufacture these crucial vessels providing munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 new UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply chain. Team Resolute has pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to modernise the UK shipbuilding sector.
Blocks and modules for the ships will be constructed at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore, and this work will also support the UK-based supply chain. Some build work will also take place at Navantia’s shipyard in Cadiz in Spain, in a collaboration allowing for key skills and technology transfer to the UK from a world-leading shipbuilder.
The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolff’s shipyard in Belfast, to BMT’s British design.
The awarding of this contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland and Wolff Belfast and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will deliver long-term improvements in UK shipbuilding capacity and capability through investing in shipbuilding infrastructure, productivity, skills, and a more resilient supply chain. Overseas expertise will be used to transfer to the UK high value skills and provide inward investment in technology in the UK whilst meeting the UK’s security requirements.
The contract will also balance shipbuilding across the whole United Kingdom. Alongside the existing Type 26 and Type 31 frigate construction in Scotland, the Government are now committing substantial contracts to yards in England and Northern Ireland.
[HCWS502]
Service Family Accommodation
Alex Chalk Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the maintenance and repair of service family accommodation.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgent question.
The provision of safe, good quality and well-maintained accommodation is an irreducible minimum when it comes to supporting our armed forces. It is essential to operational output, recruitment, retention, and morale, which is why providing such accommodation is a core priority of the Ministry of Defence.
More than 96% of the MOD service family accommodation of 46,000 properties meets or exceeds the Government’s Decent Homes Standard. Only those properties that meet this standard are allocated to service families. However, it is unacceptable that some of our personnel and their families are not receiving the level of accommodation services—in the form of maintenance standards—from our suppliers that they deserve and, in particular, are suffering from a lack of heating and hot water. I have spoken to a number of our personnel, from a range of ranks and circumstances, and I share their indignation. It is not acceptable.
MOD contractors are under a legal, but also a moral, duty to resolve heating and hot water problems. What are those duties? Emergency calls should be responded to, and the issue made safe within two hours. An emergency is an incident that threatens imminent risk of injury to persons, or that presents a high risk of extensive damage to property or the environment. Urgent calls should be responded to as soon as possible and within 48 hours. Those are the terms of the contract that were agreed, but our suppliers in too many cases are failing to meet those requirements. We expect and demand that our suppliers do better, and we will do everything we legally and properly can to force them to do so. Let me be clear: no home should be left without heating or hot water for more than 24 hours. Should it not be possible to resolve the issue quickly, alternative forms of heating and sources of hot water, or alternative accommodation, must be provided.
Rectification plans were triggered by the Ministry of Defence earlier this year following concerns about contractor performance. Since then, access to temporary heaters for families without heating has been improved. A total of 1,500 additional heaters have been purchased, and they are being dispersed at various locations based on several factors, including where there is a high density of homes.
Secondly, there is an increased use of temporary accommodation to support families with vulnerable people, or where some form of heating cannot be restored in a reasonable time. Thirdly, more staff are being recruited by Pinnacle, VIVO and Amey and, following a call to the National Service Centre about a heating or hot water issue, families will be contacted by a qualified engineer to support the diagnosis of faults, enable remote fixes if possible, and arrange an appointment if a remote fix cannot be achieved. All families will also be provided with temporary heaters, or offered alternative accommodation, should a fix not be possible.
Fourthly, I can confirm that compensation will be paid to families to cover any increased energy costs caused by the use of temporary heaters. VIVO, Amey and Pinnacle are, I know, in no doubt about Ministers’ profound dissatisfaction at their performance. I have met them already and I am meeting them again later today. This is not any old contract. This is a contract to support the accommodation of British service personnel and their families—the people who answer the call of the nation to step up and defend us when required. These contractors must improve. They will improve, or they will face the consequences.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the Minister for his response. There will be complete agreement, I am sure, on the importance of looking out for those amazing men and women who serve in our armed forces and, critically, their families as well. The Minister will be well aware—he alluded to this in his statement—of the volume of concerns about the state of service family accommodation and single living accommodation. It is particularly concerning given the recent freezing weather and proximity to Christmas, but it is also at a time when our armed forces continue to be busy, not least, potentially, with commitments to Military Aid to the Civil Authorities.
Some shocking recent accommodation cases include: recurring black mould causing viral infections in children; crumbling roofs leaving houses exposed to the elements; burst pipes flooding homes; and broken boilers in sub-zero temperatures. What is worse is that, currently, there is no reasonable way to report and resolve those problems, as there are waits of two hours on Pinnacle’s helpline, if callers can get through at all. Even when a report is lodged, there is no guarantee that a repair will happen urgently.
Such are the concerns that have been expressed about the inaction of various contractors, there is evidence of soldiers signing out sleeping bags. No single contractor is responsible for repairs and maintenance, meaning that there is no central responsibility. However, there is central accountability, and, ultimately, that lies with the MOD.
Those who step forward to serve deserve and expect better. I look to the Minister to act urgently, by which I mean today, to move heaven and earth to ensure that measures are being taken to alleviate this problem. Can I ask him to provide an update on whether the Secretary of State’s meetings with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Amey, Pinnacle and VIVO have taken place? If not, why not? Can he outline a plan for MOD intervention to ensure that the backlog of repairs is dealt with as a priority? Can he say more on how the Department will support service personnel and their families affected by these issues over the Christmas holidays?
The current standards of service accommodation are just not good enough. We are a very long way away from homes fit for heroes. The Government must do better.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks, many of which I completely agree with. He asks whether we will act today. I can say that the Secretary of State has met the DIO, Pinnacle, Amey and VIVO and that some of these issues were becoming apparent quite some time ago. In fact, a rectification plan was imposed in the middle of September. There were 480 or so elements of that plan, of which 200 have been complied with. That does not mean that the situation has been sorted—far from it—because when the cold snap came, we saw that it revealed more difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the backlog. I can say that the backlog of complaints peaked at a stunning 4,200 or so. That has come down to around 3,100, but I completely accept that that is far too many.
The real issue, it seems to me, is there must be prevention in the first place. In other words, the quality of accommodation must be good enough at the point that service personnel go into the properties in the first place. There are some indications of improvement in that regard. First, in addition to the standard £176 million for accommodation, the MOD has allocated £350 million over and above that annual sum to get on top of the maintenance issues. In July of this year, when 1,276 service personnel went into properties, 4% turned out on the day to have non-habitable failures; by December that figure had gone down to 0.6%. This is about ensuring that the properties are fit for purpose at the outset.
On the issue of mould, which the hon. Gentleman is right to raise, it is unconscionable to think that people should be moving into properties with any mould, and I am pleased to have had a clear assurance from DIO that that will not happen again. Now, if there is a report of mould, a fully qualified inspector should come in to do a proper report and alternative accommodation should be provided, if appropriate. I will end where he did: these are people who come to serve our country, and the least we can do is ensure that they have proper accommodation. I will do everything in my power to ensure that we honour that requirement.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker; it was not in any way a complaint, but a confirmation. I am delighted that we are able to address this matter today. As I was saying, we have the most professional armed forces in the world, but I am afraid that accommodation plays second fiddle to the equipment and the training that we provide them. I ask the Minister what is going to happen in the integrated review, which is due for an update shortly. Will it identify funding to be put in place to make sure we can improve the accommodation? This problem did not happen in the last few days. Reports of heating and boilers not working, let alone the mould that he speaks about, need to be addressed, or the soldiers, sailors and air personnel will vote with their feet and depart the already overstretched armed forces.
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is an issue about ensuring retention in the armed forces. He asks about money going in: one positive thing, as I indicated, is the £350 million going in over two years, over and above the budget. However, I do not want to let the contractors off the hook. He is right that there is a backlog of work that needs to take place, and I have talked about the £350 million for that, but one of the most shocking things about this to me, as a new Minister coming in, is that it appears to have come as a surprise to Pinnacle, Amey and VIVO that their IT systems were not properly married up. Service personnel would pick up the phone to report a complaint to Pinnacle, but by the time it got VIVO or Amey, it was not necessarily the right contractor who turned up. That is an IT failure. They are grown-ups entering into a contract—caveat emptor and all that—and they should have known what the situation was and have made arrangements accordingly. As I said before, this is not any old contract. It is a contract to provide accommodation. People need to be sure of their ground before they take on one of these deals, and clearly they were not.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Broken boilers, water pouring into homes, mould, vermin and painful waits for basic repairs—all while Ministers cancel troops’ Christmas leave. Our forces deserve so much better. It is a national scandal that the Government are leaving service personnel, their families and their children without heating and water during the coldest winter for more than a decade. Can the Minister say exactly how many forces homes are currently without heating or hot water, and what he is going to do about it? Can he guarantee here and now that no one in uniform or their family will be without heating or hot water this winter?
Although shocking, these reports are unfortunately not surprising. There are deep-seated problems with the Government’s handling of Defence housing, going back years. One third of our armed forces personnel are dissatisfied with the overall standard of their family accommodation and almost one in three service family homes are awaiting repair. Between June and October this year, more than 5,000 maintenance appointments were missed. Is the Minister confident that his contractors are meeting their mandated key performance indicators? It certainly does not look as though they are. The MOD paid £144 million to contractors to supposedly maintain service family accommodation this year. Is he satisfied that that represents value for taxpayers’ money?
These reports of dodgy accommodation not only are a breach of the contract the nation makes with those who serve, but pose a risk to recruitment and retention. More than one quarter of armed forces personnel said that poor accommodation increases their intention to leave the services. Decent accommodation is a fundamental part of our moral obligation to those who serve and their families. This Government are failing our armed forces when it comes to service accommodation and we need to see better from Ministers. In setting out what he has done, will the Minister now apologise to forces and their families, many of whom will be spending yet another Christmas in shoddy military accommodation?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman asks, quite fairly, whether I think that the contractors are meeting their requirements. We are absolutely clear that they are not meeting their requirements. Indeed, that is why a rectification plan was imposed as long ago as September; it was clear that there were some fundamental issues going wrong. I have spoken about the IT issues, but also, candidly, there were not enough people in the call centre. I think Pinnacle had 14 people, although that has now been increased to 60.
I get that there has been some snow and ice, but not biblical levels of snow and ice; these are things the contractors should have accounted for and prepared for. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the contract is value for money, and no, at the moment I do not think it is. If the contractors performed, it would be a perfectly sensible contract, but I reiterate: over and above the annual amount, we must ensure there is the £350 million of support to get ahead of this problem, so that we can have a well-maintained service family accommodation estate that does not run into problems in the first place. I am pleased to note that there is £76 million targeted towards improving thermal efficiency—to you and me, Mr Speaker, that means boilers, insulation and so on—which again will resolve some of these issues.
There are lessons to be learned, candidly, and I am clear about that. One thing that must be investigated is how this contract was entered into. Was it the case that some people were—how can I put it?—a little economical with the actualité when indicating what they could provide by way of support and IT? What did they say and when? We need—[Interruption.] Of course we should also look at the due diligence; that is a fair point as well.
The hon. Gentleman made a political point at the beginning, and I hope he will forgive me for saying this: it is true that a lot is being asked of our troops at Christmas, including to fill in for jobs that others are not doing. I urge him to join the Government in saying that those going on strike should call those strikes off so that our troops can get the Christmas they deserve.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
In February 2020, I co-authored a report called “Stick or Twist?” for the Prime Minister, copied to the Defence Secretary, after a year-long study into why armed forces personnel leave. Poor standards of accommodation was one of the major factors why they decide to stop serving the Crown. In that report, we pleaded with Ministers not to go ahead with the Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract, but to look at better alternatives, such as a bespoke forces housing association instead. Nevertheless, they ploughed on. FDIS will never work. It is structurally dysfunctional. I say to the MOD: “Please, on behalf of service personnel and their families, rip off the plaster, admit you were wrong, create a workstream on accommodation as part of the integrated review, and do something better that actually works.”
Alex Chalk
As my right hon. Friend indicates, he has been assiduous in raising the issue of service family accommodation, and I commend him for doing so. There will have to be a long, hard look at FDIS, and I suspect—in fact, I know—that the MOD will look carefully at the points he made in his “Stick or Twist?” report. We will have to see what the lessons are from entering into contracts such as this, and it may be that he is absolutely right.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Once again, we are debating with a Minister forced to atone for the appalling housing conditions inflicted upon our armed forces. This is, of course, a decades-long problem, which the MOD continues to show no strategy to resolve. Pinnacle was recently, in March, awarded a £144 million contract to manage these homes. This money has barely scratched the surface. It has been reported that families are still being issued with sleeping bags and are sleeping in their coats in mould-ridden houses, and some go weeks without heating. Some houses are so badly insulated that families cannot afford to turn the heating on. How can the Minister defend that enduring shame?
Senior officers and junior ranks alike are frustrated by an unresponsive private sector facilities management contractor. That is further compounded by the now demonstrably failing Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Is that failure in political leadership caused by a lack of funding, the DIO’s incompetence, a failure of the contractors, or all three? Can the Minister say specifically that he has full confidence in the executive officer team of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation?
Alex Chalk
On the plan, as I have been at pains to underscore, the MOD is specifically putting money into that area over and above the normal maintenance contract. That is absolutely critical. It is what the hon. Gentleman would do in his own house if he wanted to get on top on maintenance issues: if he were able to, he would invest in it to ensure that things do not go wrong in future. That is precisely what the MOD is doing by way of a plan. To put that into context, £350 million is around double what is paid annually to keep on top of the problem, so there is a plan.
On funding, lest we forget, in the spending review of 2020, a full £24 billion was released by the then Chancellor and now Prime Minister to show that this Government will always get behind funding our armed forces and ensuring that they have the resources they need to be lethal, agile, expeditionary and so on.
On confidence, at the moment, frankly we do not have confidence in Pinnacle, VIVO and Amey. I am very disappointed by the performance that has been discharged so far. The hon. Gentleman asks about DIO. I do not think I am betraying any confidence in saying that some exacting questions need to be asked about precisely how this contract was entered into. Those questions have started to be asked, and I can assure him that they will go in the direction of the evidence—I make that clear. I want to get to the bottom of who knew what and when, and how this was allowed to happen.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In my hon. and learned Friend the Minister’s welcome and forthright response to this urgent question, he said that consequences would follow if satisfaction was not forthcoming. Can he explain to the House what those consequences might be, and what options the Government have to discontinue the contract and, if necessary, find alternative and better providers of service accommodation?
Alex Chalk
In the first instance, there are clauses in the contract that allow for the MOD to recoup—or, indeed, to refuse to pay out—certain sums that would otherwise accrue under the contract. In fact, from 23 January, we will be in a position to do that. We could not do it for the first six months because there is a contractual bedding-in process, but that point has now been passed, so there is, potentially, a financial remedy. As with any contract, however, if the breach has become so severe as to become a fundamental breach, other remedies may follow. My right hon. Friend will understand precisely what I mean by that. If he will forgive me, I will not go down the road of spelling out what all those remedies might be, but I can say that all options are being considered in the normal way, as he would expect.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
HMS Raleigh; the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines, Lympstone; HMS Sultan; HMS Collingwood; RAF Cranwell; RAF Halton; Catterick garrison; RAF Cosford and Stonehouse barracks are just nine armed forces sites that have contacted me about problems with hot water and heating. Many of those sites deal with initial basic training. What message does it send to young people and potential recruits if we cannot provide the basics of heating and hot water?
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: that is not good enough. When we get into the details on the specific numbers of properties that have been left without heating and hot water, if there is the thinnest of silver linings, it is that the majority—indeed, the large majority—have experienced that for less than 24 hours. In other words, the overwhelming majority are fixed during that period. But it should not happen at all. It is a fact of life that sometimes boilers break, and we accept that. It is no doubt the case that elsewhere—in civvy street, so to speak—some suppliers are having difficulties fixing them within a reasonable period because demand has spiked. But the central is point is that there was a contract, which had specific requirements, and grown-up, experienced contractors entered into it knowing fine well whether they had the resources to meet them. They should have taken account of the fact that, just perhaps, it might get a bit snowy in winter. It seems that that did not happen. That is why we are particularly indignant and frustrated about it, and we will take every proper and legal step to hold them to account.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Like many on both sides of this Chamber, I have had the privilege of spending time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, where we meet service personnel and, on many occasions, their families. I am always interested to hear about families’ experience and the expectation of being the partner of one of our service personnel. For retention and for so many other reasons, it is absolutely crucial that we sort this out. I know that the Minister knows that, so how long will he give Pinnacle to pull its socks up or make significant change?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has experienced, through her own mailbag, the impact on the families of service personnel. I have experienced that myself in Cheltenham. The answer is that we are absolutely clear that that needs to improve. She asks about timelines. From 23 January, if things have not improved, potential financial consequences can follow. Act 1, scene 1 is for Pinnacle to make progress now. I am talking about right now—indeed, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) was talking about today. I am receiving daily dashboards about what the situation is and what proportion has been left without heating for more than 24 hours and so on, and I have made it clear that I want to see improvements every single day.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
When service personnel in service families accommodation are away, their spouse has to take charge of property maintenance. I recall my wife spending hours on the phone to the then contractor, Modern Housing Solutions, waiting in the queue on the phone in the hope that, eventually, the circuitous jingle would come to an end and she would be met with a human voice. Last year, 16,250 armed forces personnel left the armed forces—the largest number since 2016. What account did the Government take of retention of service personnel when they awarded the contract to Pinnacle Group in April?
Alex Chalk
Issues of recruitment and retention are, of course, broad-based and multifactorial. All sorts of issues go into determining levels of recruitment and retention, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I would hope and expect that, at the time of entering into the contract, it was made crystal clear that Pinnacle had to deliver on it, because otherwise the implications for service families—not just the individual serviceman or woman, but their families—would be deeply profound. It has not measured up to that, and I think we need to establish in very short order what it said, when it said it and whether it was being entirely up front about what it could deliver.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Public Accounts Committee has issued two reports on this—one in 2016 and one in 2021—and there is also, of course, the excellent report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), which highlighted the same issues. Yet another contract was let earlier this year with the same problems. There is a rottenness at the core of the MOD’s ability to contract to deliver on this service, and worryingly, it also delivers on major warships, armoured vehicles and so on. What is the Minister going to do to make sure that there is a real difference? Financial penalties do not deliver better heating systems. Will he undertake a root-and-branch review of how the Ministry of Defence contracts for these services, and will he listen to some of the recommendations made in recent reports?
Alex Chalk
There are two issues here. First, there is the issue of the overall quality of the stock. I have spoken about the fact that that does need to improve. In fact, the £350 million to which I referred is principally directed at the 20% of accommodation that requires the most support. As I have indicated, 96% of all service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard, but we need to make sure that that £350 million goes where it is needed and has the maximum impact.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asks a fair question about ensuring that these contracts are properly entered into in the first place, and it is one that I am keen to get to the bottom of. DIO needs to ensure that it does everything possible to do its due diligence on contracts and make sure that, ultimately, we all end up with something that will deliver. That is absolutely what I am focused on.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Halifax is home to many armed forces families and has a long association with the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment in particular, but service families have made more than 9,000 complaints about the state of their service accommodation since the start of last year, largely relating to maintenance concerns. The Minister has been candid about the failings he has found, so what are the consequences for those contractors where he finds such failure in meeting those service standards?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the situation in her constituency. Built within the contract is an understanding that should contractors fail to meet what is known as ALP—acceptable levels of performance —consequences can follow. Under normal English law, if there is a repudiatory breach, that can lead to consequences in the normal way, but built within the contract is also potentially a financial penalty. Respectfully, I disagree with those who say that cannot be significant; it can be extremely significant and damaging for the company. As I said before, this is not any old contract; this is a contract to provide accommodation for some of the best people in our country who answer the call. The contractors should have done better; they will do better, or they will face the consequences.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his strong response to the question. Understandably, many families are deeply concerned by the lack of action to tackle black mould in these homes and the serious effect it could have on their children’s health. What assurances can the Minister offer military families with children that they will not have to live in these dangerous conditions?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The position is that if mould is found in a property before a service family is due to enter it, they will not or should not enter it. One of the things that, as I indicated, I am moderately encouraged by is that whereas in July, for the more than 1,000 families due to enter, some 4% of properties were discovered to have a non-habitable failure—which could be mould—by the time we got to the early part of December, that had gone down to 0.6%. That is the first thing: if mould is found, service families should not enter. If mould is found when they are already there, there is now a dedicated helpline they can call, which should lead to a surveyor coming to conduct a survey. If the work can be done, great. If not, and they need to move into alternative accommodation, that will be provided.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
After the death of Awaab Ishak, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said that it should never have happened and that it was a basic responsibility of the local authority or housing association to make sure that people are living in decent homes. There have been thousands of complaints since 2021 over problems of mould and leaking ceilings in the homes of service personnel. The Minister is a decent man, but we are hearing a lot of excuses about contractors today. Should the Secretary of State for Defence not accept the same basic responsibility that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) seeks to impose on local authorities and housing associations?
Alex Chalk
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done in respect of mould. One encouraging thing is that there is now a dedicated hotline for people to report it, which did not exist before. They are reporting not just into an empty room, but to people who will ensure that a professional survey and remedial action are undertaken. He makes a wider point about more general responsibility. I am pleased to say that DIO has set up an improvement team of 30 people—made up of operations specialists, IT specialists and more—to ensure that the MOD will do everything it can to ensure that Amey, VIVO and Pinnacle have nowhere to hide by blaming other people. Ultimately, we will have the inquest in due course, but right now we need to ensure that these problems are being solved, and we will do everything in our power to solve them and to support people.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
This is an extremely important issue, and I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this urgent question. I was lucky enough last year to complete the Royal Air Force segment of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I visited several bases in the UK and abroad and saw the standard of accommodation that some service families have to live in, and it is simply not acceptable. I take this opportunity to thank Wing Commander Smith for facilitating that. Will the Minister give the House a precise figure for service family properties that have cases of mould and damp?
Alex Chalk
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with a precise number, but the central point is this: any member of the armed forces, be they in the RAF—I am delighted he went on the armed forces parliamentary scheme—the Navy or the Army, should, if they discover mould in their service family accommodation, call the national hotline, and that should trigger the remedial action that I have indicated, with a surveyor going in. If the issue cannot be sorted within a reasonable period of time, they should then be re-accommodated. He raises a fundamental point. We ask an awful lot of our armed services personnel, particularly over Christmas, for the reasons we discussed earlier. This issue has to be sorted out, whether it is mould or anything else. We are absolutely determined, every single day, to do everything we can to fix it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his firm and helpful response to the urgent question. I have an Army base just a couple of miles from my constituency, and I believe it can be of use to help people, whether that is temporary accommodation or a complete refit for affordable housing. To see these sites lying vacant seems so wrong when there is so much need. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place referencing accommodation in Northern Ireland so that vacant properties are not left to fall into even deeper disrepair?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is not just Northern Ireland; other people have got in touch to say, “There seems to be this vacant accommodation.” There is a lot of movement around the country, as he will appreciate, and the MOD needs to keep significant headroom in available accommodation. The central point is that that should not be a mechanism by which properties can fall into disrepair. He makes precisely that point, and that is why the £350 million over and above the annual maintenance cost is so important. If that can be, as I am assured it will be, directed at that 20% of accommodation in the greatest need, that will ensure that when that accommodation is required, it will be fit for purpose for service personnel, who deserve high standards.