New Medium Helicopter Programme
Luke Pollard Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours 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 Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
It is good to see you in your place, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for scheduling this debate. I am afraid that he will know some of my answers to his questions, because he has asked me them before, and I will give him broadly similar answers to those he has had before. In relation to his challenge, I will try not to show him up on the questions that I have already answered previously. I appreciate his passion for this topic, and I commend the Westland Helicopters tie that I have spotted he is wearing—we seem to be at a Putin-esque table in this debate, with one person down at the far end away from the other, but we have much in common on this issue, as he knows from our private conversations.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about the contribution that Leonardo UK makes to our armed forces and our economy, especially at a time when we are reassessing every pound of defence spending and investment that we are making. Our intention is very clear, as we set out in the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan: we need to fundamentally rewire defence and build a stronger, more lethal military, which can deter and, if necessary, defeat, those who threaten us. As such, we are looking at the whole programme of defence spending.
Let me get straight to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will not be surprised when I say that I cannot announce a decision on the new medium helicopter programme today, but I can assure him that we will announce that decision as soon as possible as part of the defence investment plan. I am acutely aware that the contract decision is of great consequence, not to just Leonardo and its workforce at Yeovil but the wider community. As a fellow south-west MP, I can assure him that the importance to the wider region is not lost on me.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that when we discussed this in the main Chamber, I committed that we will not allow the decision to time out. He is right that the best and final offer price has an expiry date, but we have committed as a Government that we will not time out—that is, it will not simply fail at that point; we will make a decision ahead of that, as part of the work we are doing on the defence investment plan.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister for reiterating that point. My concern is that we do not have a date for when the DIP will come out, and he has just said that the new medium helicopter programme will be in the DIP. Is he therefore saying that if it is not out by the end of March, he will make a decision outside of the DIP on the new medium helicopter programme?
Luke Pollard
I have been pretty clear on a number of occasions in the Commons that we are not letting this decision time out. Therefore, a decision will be made, which is consistent with what I have said before.
Ian Roome
This is a really important programme, and I see that the official Opposition have not even bothered to turn up to the debate. I asked the Defence Secretary about the DIP, and he told me it would be out by the end of December. Now it is going to be March. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be March? What is the hold-up? Is it that the Treasury and the MOD cannot agree the finances? Could he be honest and let us know what the delay is in getting the DIP out?
Luke Pollard
As a Department, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP. It remains one of the key actions that we are trying to deliver as a Department. As a Defence Minister, I would prefer to get it right to getting it done quickly, with decisions that may not be as comprehensive or clear as we would like them to be. We have committed that we will get it out as soon as we can. I have also said a number of times that we will not let the decision on the new medium helicopter time-out. In the spirit of commenting on ties, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman wearing an RCDS tie; as a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies, which I know he is as well, it is good to see that.
I want to set out the engagement we are having with Leonardo, because it is important that we tell the story about what is taking place while we are looking at the new medium helicopter programme, as well as the wider record that we inherited. We have been engaging closely with the management team at Leonardo in both the UK and Italy, and we have stressed throughout that the company remains a vital strategic partner to UK defence. In fact, the Defence Secretary spoke to Leonardo’s global chief executive, Roberto Cingolani, last week. I continued those discussions in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia this week, when he and I were at the world defence show, where I met with both Roberto Cingolani and the managing director of Leonardo’s helicopter division, Gian Piero Cutillo.
Last month, the Secretary of State visited Leonardo’s radar and advanced targeting system centre in Edinburgh to confirm the award of a £453 million contract to manufacture upgraded and new radars for the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet, which is a huge investment in cutting-edge British technology with Leonardo. That investment will support 400 highly-skilled jobs at Leonardo’s site in Edinburgh and Luton, as part of a network of nine main sites that the company operates across the UK, employing more than 8,500 people. The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), is sitting behind me. The Leonardo site in her constituency will also benefit from that contract, which reinforces the fact that contracts are about not just the point of manufacture but the supply chain across the entirety of the UK—a point that I know has been made in a number of these debates.
It is important to reflect on the challenges as we came into government. We inherited a procurement system that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to the threats that Britain faces today. Reforming, refinancing and restructuring that programme for a new generation of warfare is a challenging task but a necessary one, and it is one that we are tackling methodically and thoroughly. This is the first line-by-line review of defence investment for 18 years, a period in which our armed forces have been increasingly hollowed out and yet the world has become a far more dangerous place.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a situation where there are far too many platforms across all our forces, which complicates servicing, operations and interoperability—the warfighting effect they can have—and does not create the inter- changeability that we are looking to deliver, as set out clearly in the strategic defence review.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but in his intervention he spoke about the Puma helicopter, which is a really good example. Those helicopters were on average between 43 and 50 years old. It is hard to make the case that the Puma helicopter was at the cutting edge of military aviation. It was also an incredibly expensive helicopter to keep up. As we made decisions about removing old technology and investing in new technology, we announced that platforms like Puma would be retired. Retiring old equipment and bringing in new equipment is the right decision, and that is effectively the work we are trying to do at the moment.
Edward Morello
I do not disagree with the points the Minister is making, and Lord knows I am happy for us to dedicate the rest of the debate to bashing the previous Administration for their failures. He talks about the need to future-proof decision making. Part of the problem that we have with defence procurement is the length of time it takes to get from a decision to deployment. That means that we end up changing the spec of what we are asking for, which ends up with the Ajax disaster that we are all looking at. In the remaining time, will the Minister speak to what the plans are to speed up defence procurement to make quicker decisions on both smart tech and dumb tech and on crewed and uncrewed, so that we can get to that war footing as quickly as possible?
Luke Pollard
I had noted the hon. Gentleman’s question and was coming to it in a moment, but as he has invited me to, I will deal with it now.
Since the general election, we have signed 1,100 major defence contracts as a Government, and 84% of those have gone to British companies. Where we do buy from international companies, we do so either because the technology is solely available from international supply or because it provides a military advantage in terms of timescale, price point or interoperability function with existing technologies. That is a necessity. I want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK firms, and that includes international firms that are based in the United Kingdom, creating jobs and growth opportunities.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister for that comment, because that is so important. As he knows, Leonardo, which is based in Yeovil in the south-west, is the only end-to-end helicopter factory left in the UK. Surely, that is definitely a win-win. I hope that when the Minister said he would not let the decision time-out, a positive decision will be coming.
Luke Pollard
I would be surprised if the hon. Member was advocating for another position on that point.
At the risk of getting another intervention from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I will finish the point on procurement. In the defence industrial strategy, which is a good read if he has not been through it, we have set out the ambition that was mentioned in the SDR of improving our procurement times. That means large, complex programmes that take five or six years on average going to two years; two-year programmes going to one year; and one-year programmes going down to a few months to six months. That is a big change in terms of how we procure, and it is a fundamental part of the decisions that will be coming out of the defence investment plan.
Rather than looking at the procurements that started under the previous Government—and as the House will know, the new medium helicopter began in February 2024—we continued. That is because, once a procurement policy has started, it is best practice to continue it with the rules of the road that were in place at the point where the procurement began; otherwise, it can be opened up to legal challenge and so on. To address the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned about pressing ahead, we pressed ahead with that procurement because it had begun and it was in train. That was the right thing to do, because the sense from industry and from the MOD was that restarting it carried greater risk than bringing it to a conclusion. The framing, setting, financing, financial arrangements and specifications were all set by the previous Government in relation to the new medium helicopter.
Finally, I will deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), before returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The challenge about whether we will always need crewed helicopters is a live one. If we look more broadly at our transition from crewed systems to autonomous systems, the SDR sets out very clearly that, at this period in time, the Government will invest in a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems with a greater drive to autonomy, which not only increases lethality and mass, but provides jobs and growth opportunities. We know our adversaries are investing in similar technologies, so the question about the crewed, uncrewed and autonomous mix is a live one.
That brings me nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned around Proteus, which is a brilliant example of how investment in new technologies can deliver more change. It is a good project, which was funded by the Ministry of Defence through our work with UK Defence Innovation and was delivered by Leonardo. It is a sign of our strong partnership with Leonardo that we collaborated on the Proteus project, which experiments with a future rotary wing uncrewed air system. I have spoken to Leonardo about not naming helicopters after our ships. I would also like to get to a point where we stop naming things after bad guys in science-fiction movies, such as Skynet from “The Terminator” films, which is the name for our satellite communications systems, or giving things existing names.
However, the technology is outstanding. That is an area that provides huge growth opportunities for British industry, including, potentially, for Leonardo, subject to the usual competitive tendering processes around Proteus in the future. It is a good example of how an autonomous full-size helicopter can be demonstrated, but the mix that we are looking for in the strategic defence review is a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems as we move in that direction. The investment that Leonardo has made in uncrewed and autonomous systems is to be welcomed.
Adam Dance
I am worried that if we do not get the new medium-lift, and if we should want Leonardo to be a bidder for Proteus, its job force might not be there—the company has that concern—so Proteus may not come. I am glad the Minister has said that he wants a mixture of both; that sounds promising.
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review sets out very clearly the mix that we are looking for, partly because the technology is not currently available. In many cases, there is not an off-the-shelf product that we can simply buy from UK, or largely international, firms. It is something that requires the innovation that we are looking for.
The work we are continuing to do with Leonardo recognises the opportunities for growth in the defence sector, the importance of sovereign capability, and the importance of different military capabilities within our overall force picture. Given the defence knowledge present in the debate, the hon. Member for Yeovil will appreciate that there are different and changing priorities, and that we are learning lessons from Ukraine in terms of what capabilities we need.
Some of the programmes that we inherited from the Conservatives, who are not represented in this debate, were unsuitable for modern conflict, and unfunded. A key part of the defence investment plan is ensuring that every programme that is in our programme of record is sustainable, funded and can exist in reality, not just on PowerPoint. That is a big difference to the previous Government’s approach. As we move to warfighting readiness, which is my No. 1 mission as a Minister, I need to ensure that the equipment that we are purchasing and supporting can provide the deterrent ability that we need to deter aggression, but also has the ability to defeat it if required. That is why we are preferencing battlefield-ready technologies and those that give an increase in lethality.
I appreciate the passion that the hon. Member for Yeovil has for his hometown, and the importance of the contract. I will commit to continuing to have conversations with him and MPs from the wider region, and we have frequent discussions with our colleagues from Leonardo.
Edward Morello
I am aware of the time and it sounds like the Minister is wrapping up, but I did not want to be the only Member in the debate who had not been complimented on their tie.
Luke Pollard
I am afraid I did not bring my long-vision glasses, so I cannot spot everyone’s tie.
Adam Dance
The Minister made the point about funding; is a lot of this tied up with the money for the contract not being there from the Treasury?
Luke Pollard
Unlike in previous Governments, our Treasury colleagues are aligned to our defence mission. We are working more closely with our Treasury colleagues than I have ever seen before. The close co-operation that we have, on the preparation of the SDR, the DIS, and the work that we are doing with Treasury colleagues on the DIP, is a good example of how the MOD with a different approach can find a close friend in the Treasury, which will ultimately help support the growing defence budget that the Chancellor and Prime Minister have announced for the Ministry of Defence.
There is £5 billion extra in our budget this year, and there is not a single person who has ever served in our armed forces before with a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. What we spend that money on—and, importantly, how we spend it—is the debate around the defence investment plan. I welcome that debate, because there needs to be more discussion about how we can not over-spec, as the hon. Member for West Dorset suggested, and then change the specs during procurement. That is something that we have embraced fully, learning the lessons from the last Government, where that was not the case.
I have committed, earlier in the debate and previously, to not letting the decision on the medium helicopter time-out. We will continue our conversations with Leonardo, and I am happy continuing conversations with the hon. Member for Yeovil in a constructive manner to ensure that the points he raised on behalf of his constituents can be taken on board as part of the broader defence investment plan work.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
Luke Pollard Excerpts(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s contracts with Palantir.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Palantir is a strategic supplier to the Ministry of Defence, providing secure data integration, analytics and AI platforms that help to support operational planning and decision making.
In 2022, the Conservative Government signed a three-year enterprise agreement with Palantir, in light of the growing significance of faster operational decision making, and the impact that that technology has had in operations, including in Ukraine. This Government negotiated a new enterprise agreement to update the one signed in 2022, and that was published in a transparency note in December last year.
As part of the development of the new enterprise agreement, the MOD negotiated a strategic partnership with Palantir last September. The SPA reaffirms the strong relationship developed between UK defence and Palantir over the past decade, and includes new commitments that this Government secured from Palantir, including £1.5 billion investment into the UK, a new UK defence tech SME mentoring scheme to help companies grow and access the US market, and a commitment that London is to be the company’s European defence headquarters.
This Government took over what the Tories started in 2022, but we made it work better for Britain and better for our forces. As the Defence Secretary has said, the contract was his decision, and his alone. Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. The deal that we struck with Palantir will significantly reinforce the innovation of our forces, and reinforce the safety of this country as we move towards warfighting readiness.
James Cartlidge
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the detail, let me say that the Mandelson scandal is truly shocking. When debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein’s crimes.
Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on MOD contracts have emerged, to which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the MOD signed a contract with the US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million. Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own Government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, and was granted to a US company by direct award. Why was that?
For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company. From my time as the Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and to our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis, but this is about transparency. Above all, the question is: to what extent did Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which he was a controlling shareholder at the time, benefit from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors—access that was used to deliver a defence contract of some £250 million to a client of Global Counsel without competition?
Regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Palantir in February 2025 in Washington DC, is it true that no minutes were taken? If they were not taken, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson’s firm? The Minister must answer that. In the build-up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK Government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were? Did they involve any clients of Global Counsel?
Finally, let me mention the actions to take. Given the public interest in this matter, will Defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the Humble Address, will the Government publish, as part of the Mandelson files, all relevant material relating to this contract award?
Luke Pollard
As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract; it was a decision made by the Secretary of State, and it was his decision alone.
As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that Conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022, and he knows that the MOD uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support operations and wider data analytics. I am sure he is not suggesting that we should not be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his Government were wrong to formalise the relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I do not think he is.
It is really important that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, the then ambassador unfortunately was not available to meet, or was not there, but the Prime Minister has been clear at the Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency. We intend to publish as much material as we can, as soon as reasonably possible. The Cabinet Office is working with the Met police and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents does not prejudice the Met investigation, or the UK’s national security and international relations. That process is under way, and that is in addition to the other actions that the Prime Minister has already taken.
Luke Pollard
The Palantir enterprise agreement was a direct award, justified under the Procurement Act 2023. The agreement covers existing services and areas in which there is a robust technical justification for using Palantir products and services for defence outcomes. All procurement procedures were followed, and a transparency notice was published.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said?
Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer I just gave to the Chair of the Defence Committee about the procurement process. As I set out, the decision was made by the Secretary of State alone; he has been clear about that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK has a strong security and defence partnership with the United States. We are clear that we will continue to invest in that strong security and defence partnership, while we deepen partnerships with our European friends and allies further afield. On data, UK defence data used and developed in Palantir software remains sovereign to the UK and under the control of the MOD, and it resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear, contractual controls in place to ensure that, and we have control of the data system that Palantir software sits on. No change can be made to that without the consent of the MOD.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
When I was in opposition, I raised concerns about Palantir and the £1 deal that was made. It was always a trap to ensure that Palantir got its foot in where no one else could. The co-founder of Palantir is mentioned in the Epstein files. I think that anyone who is mentioned in the Epstein files should be fully investigated by this House and by the police; the scandal is an absolute disgrace. The Minister must ensure transparency and robust safeguards. Palantir and AI organisations have the ability to bamboozle Ministers, unless we have concrete ways to ensure that they cannot abuse their power.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that investigations are under way. As the Government made clear to the House last week, we will co-operate fully with those investigations, and we will ensure that the information that the House requires to be published is published in a way that creates the transparency that we all seek. There are already safeguards in place around the use of artificial intelligence in Ministry of Defence decision making, and we are looking at ways to enable new opportunities, especially for UK firms, given the growing requirement in the Ministry of Defence for faster decision making and better data management. I understand her concerns about AI and safeguards, and I will continue to update the House as the AI strategy that Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published is rolled out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Most British scandals are fairly pathetic by international standards—they are about things like serving a piece of cake to the Prime Minister—but this scandal is monumental because it involves somebody in service to the Government using his position for commercial gain. In my long experience of such scandals, what brings down Presidents and Prime Ministers is not the original scandal, but the cover up. My advice to the Minister is to answer the perfectly sensible questions that are being put to him, particularly by the Chair of the Defence Committee about the lack of competitive process, and by the Opposition spokesman about the meeting in Washington. Will the Minister now answer the questions put to him?
Luke Pollard
I have answered those questions. I say politely to the Father of the House that the partygate scandal, which is not the subject of today’s urgent question, is not a trivial scandal, and it is important to put that clearly on the record. It undermined confidence in the Government at a time when we were being asked to do something that the decision makers were not doing themselves. I agree with him that transparency is necessary and important. The MOD publishes its procurement decisions in the usual transparent way, continuing the theme from when his party was in office. We will continue to do that, and I am happy to continue to take questions about the transparency of this contract.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Given the scale of the contract—it is for almost a quarter of a billion pounds—and the fact that Mandelson had had a contract with Palantir, and attended a meeting in Washington with the Prime Minister and Palantir after he became the ambassador, questions inevitably arise. May I ask the Minister explicitly whether all the papers relevant to the Prime Minister’s visit and the contract will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as we believed we decided last Wednesday? I am aware that at least five or six senior civil servants in the Ministry of Defence have gone to work with Palantir. Can we have an assurance that there are proper firewalls in place to protect the interests of the public, as against the private interests of Palantir?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend asks valid questions. I say to him clearly that this Government will stand by and honour the agreement on the publication of information that was struck last week during the debate on the Humble Address. If there are documents from the Ministry of Defence that need to be published, we will continue to support the cross-Government effort to do so. On employees, when anyone who has worked in defence moves over to a defence contractor, be it Palantir or any other, we make it clear that they have certain obligations, and there are certain requirements. Palantir employs an awful lot of UK veterans; it has made employing veterans a point of principle. It is a good principle, and that should be done by all defence companies, in my view, but I take his point and I agree with it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister know whether or not minutes were taken at the key Washington meeting in February last year? If they were not taken, why not? Why was Lord Mandelson, a political appointee, not required to sever any links with his former activities and business that could have given rise to a conflict of interest in his role as ambassador?
Luke Pollard
Peter Mandelson has let us all down in this House. The question about the minutes is being looked at by Downing Street, and it will be for Downing Street officials to publish more in due course.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reply to the urgent question, and want to press him on safeguards. On contracts being held to ransom or a lock-in, what safeguards are there to protect our data and its sovereignty? Is there an exit strategy, if the Minister wants to choose a different contract in future?
Luke Pollard
We take vendor lock-in very seriously. We will build a more comprehensive AI framework in the Ministry of Defence; we will be using AI more frequently in more aspects of defence, just as the wider economy is doing. We want to ensure that our data sovereign. Our contract with Palantir retains the sovereignty of that data, and of decision making about the systems that the data sits on. That data resides in the United Kingdom, and no changes can be made by Palantir without the consent of the MOD. It is because we take the data issues so seriously that that is locked into the contract.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Select Committee said that DSIT was in the loop when it came to buying things, so I challenge the Minister’s statement that it was purely the Secretary of State who made the decision about the contract. This contract with Palantir is nearly three times the value of the previous contract with it. The MOD transparency notice sets out that “only Palantir” can run the service, and that there would be a “significant cost” to changing all the analytics services, so we are entirely locked into a contract with a company that is now hiking up the price. What is the exit strategy?
Luke Pollard
We signed a contract with a supplier to provide a service for which there is clear military need and clear utility, in order to strengthen our armed forces. We keep all contracts, not just those with Palantir, under constant review to ensure that they are delivering what they were signed up to deliver, and we will continue to do that. We want more companies to provide AI services, so we are looking at how we can support more British AI companies to interact with defence. We recently stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth because there are many AI companies that are not yet defence AI companies but could be, and we are trying to make it easier for them to access defence contracts.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
This deal with Palantir stinks. It stank before Peter Mandelson was involved, and it stank when those now on the Opposition Benches initiated the NHS and defence contracts. Peter Thiel is an oligarch who despises democracy, and the company has had widespread allegations of human rights abuses made against it. Even the Swiss army has rejected Palantir as a platform on national security grounds. Surely, after Greenland, now is an opportunity for our Government to begin to distance themselves and pivot away from companies, such as Palantir, that are so closely connected with Donald Trump. It is time to move away. Will the Government commit to such a pivot?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s passion on this matter but, as I have set out to the House, we will continue to maintain a close defence and security relationship with the United States—it is in our national security interests to do so. In signing any agreement with a US company, just as would be the case with a French, German or Australian company, we ensure that the agreement is in the UK’s national interest, and that controls are in place on the sovereignty of data, particularly with AI contracts. We will continue to ensure that those standards are upheld in all contracts, but we will also continue to work with international partners where no UK provider could deliver that work, or where the services they offer are in excess or deliver a defence capability faster, better or cheaper than one provided elsewhere.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to return to a question that was initially asked by the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). When the Prime Minister met Palantir and Peter Mandelson in February 2025 in Washington DC, was he aware that Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s firm Global Counsel?
Luke Pollard
As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that is a matter for Downing Street to publish in due course. I am afraid that I have spent the last three days in Saudia Arabia, so I am just catching up on these events. I have been clear about where that information will come from, and I point my hon. Friend in that direction.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a pattern with Palantir: its £1 covid contract with the NHS expanded to a £330 million contract under the last Government, and its Ministry of Defence contract tripled in size to £240 million, without due process or competition. As we have seen, the links with Global Counsel are now on the record. Will the Minister ensure that all contact with Global Counsel from his Department and across Government—Palantir has a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies—are published, so that we can understand the revolving doors around Peter Mandelson, Global Counsel and this Government?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direction of travel and passion. We followed due process, in accordance with the Procurement Act, in awarding those contracts. As I have clearly set out, we will comply with the agreement made last week on publication of data and documents.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?
Luke Pollard
As I have been clear to the House in a number of answers, we will continue to have a security and defence relationship with the United States, and it is in our national interests to do so. We are a party that takes defence and security very seriously, which is something that I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party would do more of, although I have much respect for him. I will continue to ensure that we get the best services for our armed forces as we move to warfighting readiness. I have answered the question about minutes, and it will be for Downing Street to publish that in due course.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this Government’s record funding for our defence, and I also recognise that the US is one of our closest allies. In this House we often talk about energy security, but I sometimes think that we do not talk enough about the security of security. What more can this Government do to invest in UK tech firms so that we are less reliant on foreign firms?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at security, data security and the opportunities here. In the strategic defence review, we set out our direction of travel in defence, and investing in new technologies, including artificial intelligence, is key to securing our national security. I want to see the best-in-class products used by our armed forces, and I also want to see more British small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, being able to access this area. We have set up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, and we are looking in particular at how we can support small defence AI companies to onboard their software in a whole range of defence utilities. We will continue to do so as we look to spend more of our rising defence budget with UK SMEs.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that Peter Mandelson was not involved in the decision on Palantir. However, the issue is not the decision itself but the run-up to it. We know that Peter Mandelson, or executives from Global Counsel, were flown into embassy parties, and we need to understand more about whether Peter Mandelson, in pushing for deliverables for the state visit, was pushing for deliverables with Global Counsel clients. Will the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson was not involved in any way, at any stage, in the decisions on the contracts given not just to Palantir but to Anduril Industries?
Luke Pollard
I am afraid that looking for deliverables ahead of a state visit is pretty standard practice, and it is something that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at just as much as we do. We will continue to have conversations with our ambassadors in all circumstances, as he would expect. The right hon. Gentleman raises questions that should be answered by the publication of the information. We as a Government have committed to publish the relevant information that the House asked for last week, and we stand by that.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Government’s ongoing relationship with Palantir is deeply concerning, given the company’s involvement in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Palantir’s AI technology has been used to destroy entire neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals. If we claim to want an ethical foreign policy and pride ourselves on being a rules-based nation, why are we still signing contracts with such a company?
Luke Pollard
I entirely appreciate my hon. Friend’s position. Palantir provides services to the United Kingdom that keep our troops safe and enhance our national security. We have a range of contracts with US firms in procuring not only services but platforms. All those contracts go through the necessary rigour and assessment before they are signed. Some are subject to competitive tender and some, for other reasons, are subject to direct award. We will continue to work with our US partners.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, maintained a close financial and personal relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There are profound ethical concerns about the web of connections between Thiel, Epstein and Mandelson. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is absolutely right: the MoD’s contract with US-based spy-tech giant Palantir absolutely stinks. Will the MOD now cancel that contract? Will we get a fast and independent inquiry into the Government’s contracts with Palantir, as it currently has several billion pounds-worth of further framework contracts with the UK Government? Will we find out whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir? If it is true that Palantir is hosting a party in Mayfair tomorrow for MOD officials, as The Times has alleged, will the Minister get that stopped?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady’s position would be stronger if the Greens were not so soft on defence. We will continue to invest in our national security, and we will invest in the contracts that keep our troops and our country safe. That will involve investing not only in UK firms, but in international partners at the same time. I have been clear at the Dispatch Box that we will comply fully with the agreement made on the Humble Address last week, and we will publish information in the right way in due course. I hope that will be able to provide more of the answers that the hon. Lady is looking for.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister appreciate how appallingly bad it looks for the Prime Minister of this country and the then ambassador in Washington, the disgraced Peter Mandelson, to have met Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, in February last year without any written record of the meeting being made? Is he at least able to say which officials—other than, of course, our then ambassador—were present at that meeting?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the photographs that appeared on No. 10’s Twitter feed, to which I referred in response to the earlier question about the publication of information. He will also recall—perhaps from his time as a Defence Minister—that in 2021 the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, also met Alex Karp.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing position on a number of the items he asks about. I have been clear to the House today that we will continue to work with our US friends—they are our closest defence and security partner. Where appropriate, we will look at working with US technology firms that can provide best-in-class products that deliver increased defence for our armed forces and our nation. We will continue to do that, as well as investing in UK firms.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am not qualified to make observations about the enduring value for money or effectiveness of Palantir, but I am concerned that Mandelson’s dynamics with every aspect of this Government have toxified the integrity of their processes. Unless the Minister can make absolutely clear what quiet, unspoken influences Mandelson had on this follow-on order with Palantir, people are bound to question the integrity of the process. To respond to the Minister’s earlier point, if we are to have a viable alternative and meaningful competition in future, he will need to do a little more to advance the case for alternatives, beyond just saying that he has an SME strategy.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is important that people can have confidence in the system, including the procurement system. As I have set out to the House, the decision to extend the contract with Palantir was originally signed in 2022 by the previous Government, of which I think he was a part at the time. That decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone.
I do want to see more British AI companies working in defence—something we have been very clear about. Indeed, I think even the last Government set out an ambition to do more in that space. We have stepped up to make sure we can grow our own indigenous AI industry, with its software and services able to be onboarded into a more AI-friendly defence environment, because AI provides a decision advantage for our forces that is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I take very seriously the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and when we publish the information that we have committed to publish, that will hopefully answer some of his questions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Palantir has links to Peter Mandelson, to Peter Thiel and to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and it is extending its web of influence across multiple parts of our public sector. It is extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to have this deal properly scrutinised. Does the Minister come to this place today feeling any shred of embarrassment that he cannot tell us why there are no minutes of the February 2025 meeting? We do not know whether a future contract was discussed, or whether the Prime Minister was aware of Mandelson’s links to Palantir.
Luke Pollard
I am absolutely happy that we have signed a contract and conducted that process in the appropriate way. Scrutiny of that process is not something I am afraid of. I actually think it will show that the decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone, and that the extension of the contract—which was originally signed by the Conservative Government in 2022—delivers a benefit to the United Kingdom and secured £1.5 billion of investment in the UK. It also supplies onboarding routes for more SMEs and makes the UK Palantir’s European headquarters, which will help to support our economy and our armed forces in the future. As I have mentioned a few times, publication of the minutes is a matter for Downing Street, but it is pretty standard for Ministers to meet defence suppliers.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In a call with investors a couple of weeks ago, Palantir’s chief executive officer Alex Karp said that
“we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”
Palantir’s share price has almost doubled over the past year, so can the Minister confirm whether Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any member of this Government or of the Ministry of Defence, or any public official currently has shares in Palantir and will financially benefit from the Government contracts it has been awarded?
Luke Pollard
I am afraid that the role of defence is to disrupt our adversaries and to secure our national security. To do that, we possess capabilities that can disrupt, deter and, if necessary, defeat our adversaries. That includes killing our adversaries at times—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. First, do not walk across the Member who is asking the question. [Interruption.] Just sit down. Secondly, if you have asked a question, please wait for the answer—do not keep interrupting. We have to treat people with respect and tolerance in this House.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the role of defence to keep our country safe; as part of that, we do procure lethal capabilities, but not all the capabilities we procure are physical capabilities to secure our national security. AI will continue to be an increasingly large area.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the transparency of our shareholdings, Defence Ministers have to publish all of our shareholdings with the relevant standards commissioner. I do not hold shares in Palantir, and no Defence Ministers are allowed to hold any shares in a company that interacts with defence businesses.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In 2024, Leicestershire police signed a contract with Palantir worth close to £1 million for an intelligence and investigation platform. From what I can deduce through the work I have done, there was absolutely no formal tender process. I raised this concern in the Chamber in June 2025, along with my concerns about Palantir’s racial profiling and civil liberty abuses, which we are seeing in ICE raids now. The written response I received did not address any of my concerns, so will the Government now ensure that all the information about that contract is released immediately? Can the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson played absolutely no role in unleashing this dystopian contract on the residents of Leicestershire?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s focus on that particular contract. As a Defence Minister, I do not know about Home Office policing contracts that were secured by individual forces, but I can direct him to my colleagues in the Home Office, who might be able to help more.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State’s responses regarding relationships with political parties and others. There are issues with regard to some companies. For example, the Quadrature hedge fund has massive investments in Palantir and donates to political parties in this country, including the Labour party, to which it made a £4 million donation in 2024. Will he take away the question of what influence that had on the decision-making processes for the award of contracts?
Luke Pollard
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the inadvertent promotion he has given me. He is right to talk about the necessity of ensuring that political donations are transparent and in order. That is an area in which the Government have already set out some changes, and I want our politics to learn lessons from the experiences of the past to make sure that donations are clear and transparent, which was not always the case under the last Government. However, I take seriously the issue that he has raised, and if he writes to me with the detail of that particular donation, I would be happy to look into it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He is well known for his decency; he is a good Minister, and always tries to answer well. As he knows, I have been a firm supporter of the need to enhance defence—both physically and in the cyber world—so I welcome the defence contract. However, public confidence is at an all-time low due to the Mandelson debacle, and his connection to Palantir naturally raises questions, which is why this UQ has been tabled today. How can the Government assure us that this firm was awarded the contract not due to any connection, but because it can provide the best program and the best defence for our nation?
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of the hon. Member, too. I have been clear in my answers today that the decision to extend the 2022 contract signed under the previous Government was made by the Secretary of State alone. It was his decision to do so. We are procuring new AI capabilities to speed up our delivery of outcomes within defence. We know that our adversaries are using AI in how they position themselves, and it is necessary that we do so, too. He is right that as we deploy more artificial intelligence, not just in defence, but across our wider economy, we need to secure a level of confidence in the contracts and in the technology itself. That is a bigger debate than this one, but I understand precisely where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Pembrokeshire is at the heart of Britain’s defence future, and I am excited about the opportunity for local people. To help deliver that, I am proud that this Labour Government are working with the Labour Government in Wales on progressing the defence growth deal for Wales, which will help prove that defence is an engine for growth right across Wales.
Henry Tufnell
I welcome the Government’s increased investment in the defence sector in Pembrokeshire; it represents a real opportunity for businesses and the local community, with good, well-paid jobs and strong local supply chains all strengthening our national security. Can the Minister set out what engagement he has had with the local supply chain, as well as any discussions regarding the new munitions and energetics factory in Milford Haven?
Luke Pollard
Since I met my hon. Friend, we have been discussing how we can not only roll out faster the new munitions factories that the Government have committed to deliver but support growth in skills, and our £182 million for skills in the defence industrial strategy includes skills funding for Wales. The defence growth deal provides the opportunity to uplift skills for defence right across Wales, and I am happy to continue our conversations on how that can benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Pembrokeshire.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment. As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.
Ayoub Khan
Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider diverting defence spending away from programmes that do not truly protect the British people? Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts. Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades. As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In Bury St Edmunds, we have many US servicemen from Lakenheath who are living off-base. They are a huge asset and greatly welcome. Does the Minister agree that the US remains our most essential ally, and will he join me in expressing gratitude for the service of those brave US servicemen and women, who are so important for our security?
Luke Pollard
There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?
Luke Pollard
I am sorry that the shadow Minister missed my concluding remarks at the end of the Opposition day debate on the subject last week. Not once did he say why his Government started that deal; nor did he give details of the preparatory work that his Government were supposed to do to answer his own question. This deal secures the future of that UK-US base. We will continue working closely with our American allies to progress the deal, and will continue those conversations, but I am afraid that all the shadow Minister is asking for is more uncertainty. We are securing the future of that base; he is just talking it down.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We entered negotiations on SAFE participation in good faith; however, no agreement was possible that met our national interests. We will continue to explore co-operation with the EU and its member states that strengthens European security and underpins our NATO-first policy. We are pleased that the Government have been able to conclude new defence partnerships with our European partners, including France and Germany.
Max Wilkinson
Does this not go back to the key problem that faces us as a nation, which is the failed Brexit bestowed upon us by the previous Government and their friends in the Reform party? Ministers have my sympathy as they try to unpick this mess, but they are going too slowly. Brexit is clearly the biggest barrier to us participating in this scheme. Is it not now obvious that our best economic interests and our national security are best served by a more rapid reintegration with the European Union?
Luke Pollard
The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?
Luke Pollard
I, too, want a closer defence partnership with Europe. That is why we set that out in the Prime Minister’s announcement on the EU reset. We will continue working closely with not just the European Union, but European Union member states, the majority of which are NATO members. That will support their security. We are an important player on the international defence scene, and it is important that UK businesses are able to access markets, not just for the purposes of economic growth, but because that keeps European Union member states safe.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have paused the declaration of IOC for Ajax until the investigations of safety incidents have concluded. Let me be clear: I want the Ministry of Defence and our forces to be bold, to innovate and to challenge, but they must never compromise on safety. We are preparing a recommendation on the next steps on Ajax, and I will keep the House informed, as I have since Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November last year.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?
Luke Pollard
It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman, the Member of Parliament who tables the most parliamentary questions to the MOD, keeps track of all his questions. I am certain that I have replied to that one, but will check when I get back to the Department, and make sure that he has the reply. We are looking at all the incidents from Titan Storm, at previous suggestions of incidents, and at potential injuries. The injuries under the last Government were well documented, but we have instigated a number of investigations to get to the bottom of what happened, and why that information did not flow to Ministers ahead of the IOC declaration. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
To deter and defeat aggression, this Government are investing in innovation in the latest capabilities for our forces. R&D is critical to maximising defence ability to be an engine for growth. It is this Government who have ensured that 10% of our equipment plan must be spent on novel technologies, and we have introduced a £400 million defence innovation fund.
Bobby Dean
The Minister will know that investment in defence R&D has tremendous impacts on the UK economy, not only through jobs and crowding in private investment, but through the spill-over effects of new technologies helping Britain to prosper. Is it therefore not clear that if the Government were to issue defence hypothecated bonds, that would make a brilliant return for the British taxpayer too?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that defence innovation has considerable positive spill-over effects for the wider economy. That is one of the reasons why this Government are investing in technologies that have dual use potential—not just to give our fighting forces the equipment they need but to provide benefits for the wider economy. He will have heard what the Secretary of State set out on defence spending, but I welcome his support for defence innovation and investment in R&D.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
For the past few months, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and I have been campaigning for a new drone centre to be designated at the Dorset Innovation Park. The park already hosts a strong defence ecosystem for testing, developing and researching drone technology. Alongside this, the county has a well-established network of colleges and universities, in Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth, offering the skills we need to make this a success. With all this in mind, will the Minister continue to work with me and all relevant stakeholders to establish a drone centre at the Dorset Innovation Park, which I know will help to strengthen national security and, of course, secure good jobs?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow west country MP, I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition and determination to see more of those innovative technologies—autonomy, drones and other types of novel technologies—creating good jobs in his community. He has been speaking not only to me but to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who leads on drones, and I wish the businesses in his constituency and the wider region the very best as they innovate to provide our armed forces with the kit they need.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
This Government have stepped up our support for naval shipbuilding. We have secured the largest shipbuilding export in British history, with the Type 26 being sold to Norway; we have invested in strategically important infrastructure; and we are driving naval programmes in UK shipyards. The shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will set out our future ambitions to support the naval and civilian shipbuilding and maritime technology sectors.
Mr Quigley
Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine in my constituency do fantastic work and they thoroughly welcome the launch of the new dedicated unit to help ensure that small defence companies can access Ministry of Defence contracts. However, given the recent news that a £200 million contract has been awarded to the Dutch firm Damen, what assurances can the Minister offer to companies such as Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine that they will have a fair and credible route into competing for these major programmes?
Luke Pollard
Serco has indeed awarded a contract to Damen as part of its provision of tugs for the UK military. We have set out clearly our intention that more of our rising defence Budget should be spent with British companies, supporting the construction of more naval assets in British shipyards. We will continue to do that, not just through supporting the Type 26s and Type 31s being built in Scottish shipyards but, as we move to a hybrid Navy, through more platforms being built in shipyards right across the United Kingdom.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We could invest better in naval shipbuilding if the Government paid attention to a report published by the National Audit Office, which estimates that £1.5 billion a year of defence spending is lost to fraud and that the Ministry of Defence recovers only 48p in every £1 spent on counter-fraud work, less than other Departments. What will the Minister do to ensure that more of that funding can be recovered for our national defence?
Luke Pollard
Let us be absolutely clear: any money lost to fraud is money that people have taken away from our national security and our national defences, and that is unacceptable. The Department is looking at how we can continuously improve our anti-fraud measures, and we will continue to do so. As we roll out increased defence spending, it is even more important that we spend the money wisely.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent—only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons, even if they are deployed as part of a wider NATO response—and £15 billion is being invested in the sovereign warhead programme over the course of this Parliament.
Cameron Thomas
If the Government want to make inroads into the EU Security Action for Europe fund via Emmanuel Macron, they could do worse than recognise the foresight of Charles de Gaulle, whose suspicion of the United States has been fully vindicated by Washington’s national security strategy. The French nuclear deterrent is the only truly independent nuclear deterrent. What steps are the Government taking to minimise the UK’s reliance on the US for nuclear deterrent servicing?
Luke Pollard
Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. It supports thousands of jobs up and down the country. We will continue to invest in the skills and technologies required to keep our continuous nuclear deterrent at sea. We will continue to invest in that sovereign capability, but we will also continue to participate across defence programmes with our partners, both in the United States and in Europe.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants
“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have read it to the hon. Gentleman three times. Do I have to read it to him a fourth time for him to start understanding this? No wonder the Conservatives do not want to admit that they started the negotiations over Diego Garcia. They do not want anyone knowing that because they are clearly not prepared for it, unlike this Government, who are securing that base.
James Cartlidge
It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling
“the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I am not going to read it to him a fifth time—my God! The hon. Member is not being serious. He also knows, as a former Defence Minister, that we do not comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, but I am happy to read it to him again any time he wants, so that he can note the word “weapons” in there.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Luke Pollard
As the Secretary of State set out earlier, we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. We are continuing to speak to our colleagues in Leonardo, not just about NMH but about how we are investing in Leonardo’s services nationwide.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?
Luke Pollard
We live in incredibly uncertain and difficult times, so the clarity and strength of our commitment to NATO matters. Labour is the party of NATO; we helped found it. We will continue to support it and to support NATO allies, because the strength of NATO is the UK’s strength as well. We are going to continue to have a NATO-first approach.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law, and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Our servicewomen are currently not as well protected by in-service body armour, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. With testing of female body armour now under way, will the Minister commend the work of NP Aerospace in improving women’s safety, and commit the MOD to continuing to cultivate vital UK sovereign capabilities such as this?
Luke Pollard
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been leading the charge for female body armour. NP Aerospace is doing a superb job on this, and I know she will be bringing female body armour to Parliament so we can all see that this can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate—and to support our female serving personnel through—better body armour, and I look forward to working with her to deliver that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The defence readiness Bill was set out in the strategic defence review. We are looking across Government at how we can bolster readiness measures—not just legislative ones, but policy changes, removing stupid rules and spending more. We are looking to implement the defence readiness Bill later in this Parliament. The Armed Forces Bill is now before the House, and that is our immediate focus.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a base closure programme from the Conservative Government, with announcements of closures right across the country. We are looking carefully at the bases we have, at how we can use them for military needs, and, where we can dispose of them, at how we can ensure that we build houses for our armed forces and veterans on that land.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the delays to the awarding of the new medium helicopter contract and the potential closure of Leonardo helicopter site in Yeovil.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to provide an update on the current status of the Ministry of Defence’s new medium helicopter procurement.
Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with the CEO of Leonardo UK and the managing director of Leonardo Helicopters to continue our conversations around NMH exports and autonomous helicopters, and stressed that Leonardo remains an important strategic partner for the MOD. In fact, I had to leave that meeting early to get to this UQ. It is something that remains on my priority list.
The NMH programme was first announced in March 2021 by the previous Government, with competition opening nearly three years later in February 2024. The Government will make a final decision on the award of the NMH contract through the wider defence investment plan. As the Defence Secretary has said in this House, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP, which will deliver the best kit and technology into the hands of our frontline forces and, importantly, will invest in and grow the UK economy. It will be published as soon as possible and is backed by the Government’s largest sustained increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war, spending £270 billion on defence in this Parliament alone.
Adam Dance
Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for granting me this urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his response.
Leonardo in Yeovil, the home of British helicopters since 1915, has been the only bidder for the UK’s £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for over a year now. It is clear that the current bid will not be sustainable past March. If this contract is not awarded by then, we will lose over 3,000 manufacturing jobs in Yeovil, support for over 12,000 jobs in the regional supply chain and the £320 million that Leonardo contributes to local GDP. We would also lose our country’s ability to produce our own helicopters end to end here in the UK at a time of serious global tensions and insecurity.
Will the Minister please reassure us that the Government plan to go ahead with this contract and that the delays do not mean that the funding for the contract is not available? Can the Minister commit today to protect the future of the site in Yeovil? Will he state that the new medium helicopter programme is vital to our national defence? Finally, with the defence investment plan now seemingly in limbo, can the new medium helicopter programme be separated from the plan and awarded today—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He will have heard my first answer, which answers some of his questions, which said that the NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan. That will be announced shortly, so I will not be able to give him an answer today. I continue those conversations with Leonardo, as indeed I have today. It is important that we continue having those constructive conversations because I understand the importance of Yeovil not only to his constituency, but to our wider defence ecosystem and, as a south-west MP, to the wider region as well. Leonardo is expert in not only building helicopters but servicing them, and I am excited about some of the work it is undertaking on autonomous helicopters, as well as its wider business interests across the UK, especially in electronics and other areas. I am happy to continue conversations with the hon. Member about this, as I will do with the company and with the trade unions representing the workforce.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is not only the highly skilled jobs and sovereign capability brought by Leonardo’s investment in Yeovil that are at stake; we must also recognise the opportunities for social mobility that industries such as this create for young people from across the country and from every background. I note that the NMH programme existed in the previous Government’s unfunded £29 billion equipment plan. Their failure to prioritise the programme and deliver the defence funding that such hard decisions need—[Interruption.] It is in the National Audit Office report. That failure means that we need the defence investment plan to make the decisions necessary to secure our country and European security.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right about two things. First, defence is an engine for growth. That is why we are investing more of the increasing defence budget in British companies. Secondly, the Conservatives left huge swathes of their equipment programme unfunded—a problem that we are sorting out because of the mess that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on tabling this urgent question. It was a real pleasure to visit the Leonardo factory last September and witness how critical it is to employment in his constituency. Visiting the factory, one gets a powerful sense of Britain’s rotary history, but we want it to have a brilliant future too. That is why it is so worrying that the CEO of Leonardo recently warned that at least 3,300 jobs could be at risk if the NMH procurement does not go ahead. It was with those jobs in mind that when I announced the formal tender of the new medium helicopter as Defence Procurement Minister in February 2024, I took the decision to give a much stronger weighting to two key areas of the tender: first, the commitment of bidders to delivering high-skilled rotary work in the UK; and secondly, exportability, so that the supply chain could endure. All that will count for nothing if the procurement is cancelled.
Can the Minister confirm whether there is still a military requirement for NMH? If so, is he still committed to procuring NMH? After all, when I asked the question last April, I was told I would get the answer in the strategic defence review, but the SDR document never mentioned NMH at all. Instead, when the Secretary of State announced the SDR to Parliament last June, he said that the detailed decisions would be covered in the defence investment plan, which he said then would be published in the autumn of 2025. Given that it is now 2026, and that promise has clearly been broken, can the Minister tell us in which month he will finally publish the DIP? Can he confirm reports from multiple sources that the reason the DIP is delayed is that there is now a £28 billion black hole in the MOD budget?
Finally, the Budget Red Book shows exactly what Labour will spend on removing the two-child benefit cap right up to 2031, but does not say what the defence budget will be that year. Can the Minister tell us? Is the reality not that by prioritising welfare over going to 3% on defence this Parliament, Labour are paralysing decision making in the Ministry of Defence and putting thousands of jobs at risk in our defence industry at Yeovil and across the UK?
Luke Pollard
Deary me. It is this Labour Government who are increasing defence spending to the highest level since the end of the cold war. It is the Conservatives who hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion. In their 14 years, they never once hit 2.5% of GDP on defence.
I remind the House that as the Defence Procurement Minister until the election, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left a defence programme that was overcommitted and underfunded. He left 47 of 49 major defence programmes over budget and delayed. He left forces families in terrible housing and our warfighters with broken kit. We are clearing up his mess while he focuses on gaslighting the public about the Tories’ record on defence.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I support calls by my union, Unite, for a speedy decision on crewed helicopters. I hope soon for good news on that front in the defence investment plan, which we all look forward to so very much. Might the Minister have any news on the manufacture of autonomous helicopters here in the UK, and on the good jobs that will come with them?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow Unite member, I recognise the importance of good, well-paid, unionised jobs in our defence industry. The opportunities in autonomy were set out clearly in the strategic defence review. We believe that a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems—for not just some but all units of our armed forces—is the right future, in which we can increase our lethality and move towards warfighting readiness faster. When we do that correctly, as we will set out in the defence investment plan, more jobs will be created in British companies—and, potentially, at Leonardo—as they consider autonomous helicopters and uncrewed platforms working together to increase our armed forces’ lethality and ability.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents.
The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. They are, I am afraid, the same questions that his hon. Friend asked, so I will have to give him the same answers. All decisions on the new medium helicopter contract will be made as part of the defence investment plan. We continue those conversations with Leonardo. I recognise the importance of the skilled workforce. I will continue speaking to the company, as well as to the trade unions, about that—I am meeting Unite later in the week to have further conversations. I want to see more of the increase in the defence budget spent with UK companies, as we set out clearly in the defence industrial strategy and as the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said we will continue to do. I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman’s passion about renewing our armed forces. We will make those decisions as part of the DIP, which will come shortly.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I am passionate about renewing British military aircraft. After all, my constituency hosted the Bournemouth air festival until it was scrapped by the Liberal Democrat-led council, with no plans to return it—something that I am trying to reverse.
I welcome the award of 1,000 major contracts since July, and the defence spending bumps of £5 billion this year and £270 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. Like me, the Defence Minister is a south-west MP. Will he set out how the Government are investing in defence across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and the broader south-west?
Luke Pollard
Constituencies across the south-west of England and around the country stand to benefit from the increase in defence spending set out by the Chancellor: £5 billion for the defence budget this year, which will rise to 2.5% and then onwards. We know that we are living in a new era of threat, and we are renewing our armed forces as a result. Many of the contracts that we are placing now are for the newer end of technology—autonomous systems and latest capabilities. That retires some of the old capabilities we inherited from the previous Government, who would not give our warfighters the fighting advantage that they need—especially given the lessons learned from Ukraine. Later this month, we will stand up the Office for Small Business Growth, which will help to support more small businesses and procurement in defence. There will be advantages, given the number of small businesses around Bournemouth that have huge potential to contribute to our defence and national security.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Leonardo is an important company for Somerset, Dorset and the wider south-west. The Minister will know that corporate decisions are competitive, and his Department plays a key part in shaping what those decisions will be. The defence investment plan is now long overdue. I appreciate that he probably cannot give us a specific date, but it would be helpful if he could tell the House whether we will see the plan in this financial year or the next.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone in which he asked it, and he is right to say that corporate decisions about where investment goes are important. That is one reason that we have continued dialogue with Leonardo, not just in the UK but also with its parent company in Italy, to ensure that it is kept abreast of our challenges with the DIP, and with the military need and procurement strategy. I am afraid I will not be able to give a date for the DIP. We are working flat out to get it, and it will be published shortly when ready.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Issues such as these are why the new defence industrial strategy is so welcome, and it places a prioritisation on British firms. That is welcome news to local Rolls-Royce, which has been awarded billions of pounds of contracts under this Government. What more will that investment do to support neighbouring areas such as mine in Burton and Uttoxeter?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right to say that the defence industrial strategy is a key piece of the puzzle in building up our new armed forces. It was published last year—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister is asking where it is, but it is on the internet because it was published a number of months ago, so if he has not read it, he should have a read. My hon. Friend’s question about Rolls-Royce is important. We have given Rolls-Royce a £9 billion contract for new nuclear reactors to support the SSN-AUKUS work. That Unity contract is an important part that enables Rolls-Royce to invest in its infrastructure and, perhaps most importantly, in its skills base. I recently met Rolls-Royce, and I know it has plans to go even further with its product offer and employment opportunities, and I will continue to keep the House informed about those developments.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State promised long-term partnerships with our domestic defence industry, but when the Government dither and delay in giving primes confidence with their big contracts, that directly impacts the ecosystem of brilliant British subprimes across our country. Those include StandardAero at Fleetlands in Gosport, which has the opportunity to provide the assemble and inspect test on the GE motor in Leonardo’s AW149. Fleetlands has been a key player in our country’s defence rotary wing history for 100 years. Does the Minister see how delay in that decision is not only holding back our world-class industry, but delivering uncertainty to key companies across our country and all the people they employ?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there are important defence companies in her constituency, and across the country. We continue to place contracts with the defence industry, with more than 1,000 placed since the general election, and over 80% of those with UK firms, and that is an important continuation of our efforts to renew our armed forces. I entirely understand her argument that we want more investment and certainty, and when the defence investment plan is published—shortly, I hope—that will provide clarity on the kit we are buying, and in what order and sequence. That will help to support the growth of British businesses both large and small.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this urgent question on behalf of his constituents, as well as mine in Glastonbury and Somerton. Alan from Keinton Mandeville, a Leonardo employee, recently wrote to me to stress how securing the new medium helicopter contract would protect jobs, support growth, and maintain the UK’s sovereign capability in military aviation at a time of growing global instability. In addition, as the Minister will know, Leonardo supports Yeovil College in developing apprenticeships to the tune of over £1 million a year, and many of those apprentices live in my constituency. Does the Minister recognise the impact of his Department’s delay in compromising not just regional development but national protection?
Luke Pollard
I met the chief executive of Yeovil College briefly at the Great South West conference last year, and I understand its involvement and partnership with the private sector in that locality, including Leonardo, but not only that. I want to provide certainty for businesses, which is why I also want to ensure that the defence investment plan is got right. For far too long industry has had promises of funding when the equipment programme has been unfunded, and there has not been money to support those jobs or that certainty. We inherited a programme in which huge amounts were unfunded, so our objective is to ensure that all our defence programmes are sustainable. We must ensure that we are clearing up the mess. Industry must have full certainty that when something is in the programme, it will be funded, rather than the previous situation when industry saw the press releases and soundbites but not the cash. We are addressing that with the new defence investment plan.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have a high regard for his commitment and integrity, and that I have pressed successive Governments for more defence investment, so leaving aside the party politics, will he confirm whether or not the Government accept what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has estimated, which is that, if this contract is not concluded successfully by March, then it will be too late to secure the future of Yeovil as a helicopter centre of excellence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the tone in which he asked it. I have a lot of time for him and his arguments. In fact, I think that “Shifting the goalposts?”, which talks about the rise and fall of defence spending, is one of the very best Defence Committee reports and it was issued when he was Chair of that Committee. I certainly recognise what the hon. Member for Yeovil said about timings. The contract in the procurement of the new medium helicopter included a period where the prices were guaranteed; we are keeping that in mind, because we want to make a decision and not to be timed out.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on securing this important urgent question. Leonardo may be based in Yeovil, but many of its 3,000 employees live in my West Dorset constituency, which is why, when I was elected, one of the first meetings I had was with Leonardo and it was about the new medium helicopter. The Minister has said today that the decision will be made “as soon as possible”, but on 10 February, in response to my question in the Chamber, his predecessor told me that the decision would be made “swiftly”. Given that every single defence manufacturer, SME and even the military personnel I meet say that we need to speed up defence procurement decisions—even the SDR itself urges the speeding up of defence procurement decisions—how much confidence can British industry have that the Government are listening to that need, when a decision about something as simple as a single contractor bid is taking so long to decide?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for his constituents who work at Leonardo. I entirely understand what he says. We are already taking steps to reform defence procurement to speed up decisions, but I am clear that a big decision about the future of the NMH and the funding for it needs to be taken as part of the whole programme. The defence investment programme is so important and it is important that we get this decision right, so that everyone can have certainty and confidence in every single line item in the DIP, which is something they have not been able to have with the equipment programme that we inherited.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The delay in the DIP and the procurement of these helicopters has been unexplained and is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency, which is heavily dependent in the south on Yeovil and Yeovilton. Will the Minister do everything in his power to get a move on? A Government who want growth cannot afford this kind of delay. Will he confirm or refute the rumour going around that the one of the reasons for the delay is that he is descoping the number of AW149 airframes that he originally envisaged under this contract, and that there will now be significantly less than the figure of 24 that was originally booted about?
Luke Pollard
As the right hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister in the last Government, he will understand the challenge of having an unfunded equipment programme that we are seeking to address in the defence investment plan. In relation to those he represents who work in Yeovil and Yeovilton—and indeed perhaps also in Culdrose, on the wider servicing of helicopters that Leonardo does, not just the building of them—we will be making a clear decision on the NMH in the defence investment plan. He will be aware that this procurement was bounded by the process. We will make a decision, we will not be timed out and we will not be altering the contract.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Obviously, the biggest impact will be felt in the constituency of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), but there will be an impact on businesses that are in the supply chain across the UK, and most people will be asking how on earth the procurement process has taken so long. Focusing on the military impact, how much have the repeated delays cost the taxpayer through failure demand—through the extended use of existing helicopters, long past their sell-by date, with ever-increasing maintenance costs—and has any assessment been made of future failure demand costs? What impact has the increased downtime of ageing helicopters had on operational risks?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a number of very old helicopters. That is one of the reasons that we made the decision to retire Puma—a helicopter that had in many cases been flying for many, many decades. We will continue to look at the military needs and to match those with the capabilities from a rise in the defence budget, but the NMH decision will be made in the DIP.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister said that he welcomed the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but he did not answer either; he did not tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published this financial year and he did not speak to the critical nature of a decision before going into the next financial year. He has explained missing multiple deadlines by simply refusing to give any further deadlines. Does he accept that this is a choice of this Government, without blaming the previous Government? If this Government can find additional funding for welfare, they could find additional funding to meet this contract.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have found additional funding for defence; there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year. We have an increasing defence budget for every single year of the decade ahead. Let me challenge his point, as I did answer the questions to which he referred; I just was not able to give the answer that he wanted. The NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan, which will be published shortly.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on bringing this vital question to the House. As a fellow south-west MP, the Minister will know the massive impact that this issue has not just on Somerset, but across the whole south-west. Given the answers to earlier questions and the fact that he seems unable to confirm that this matter will be decided before the next financial year, do the Government recognise that they are putting into doubt not just the NMH, but the very ability to produce uncrewed helicopters in the future? In other words, if we do not get the NMH, we will not have uncrewed helicopters in this country any more, because Leonardo will have gone. Is that a risk worth taking?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that it is really important to have an industrial base that can build autonomous helicopters and autonomous lift, and a number of players are already developing in that space. I want to be able to provide certainty to the workers at Leonardo on the future of the NMH, and that decision will be made in the DIP.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Rotary is obviously a vital element of military logistics. I know from my own experience in Afghanistan how much operations can be hampered by the inability to field a full suite of rotary assets in order to move troops around. With that in mind, and following the retirement of Puma for obvious reasons, can the Minister outline the rotary requirements for the armed forces at present and confirm whether the new medium helicopter is still a military requirement?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman comes from a background of knowledge in this respect. As part of the defence investment plan, the military have set out their needs, and they are being matched against the funding of the platforms that we have and the platforms that we want to purchase. As part of that, he will be aware of the SDR objective to move to greater autonomy in our platforms; indeed, a number of projects—including ones by Leonardo—are working to build that up. The new picture of crewed and autonomous platforms will be published as part of the defence investment plan.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Can the Minister confirm whether the rumours are true that one reason for the delay in the medium-lift helicopter is that there has been a rearguard action in the Army to buy US Black Hawks instead? If he will not give a timeline for the defence investment plan, will he at least confirm that it will include a medium-lift helicopter—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
We have been very clear in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review that we want more of a rising defence budget to go to British companies. That is changing the way in which defence procures, and it is the right change that we need to see as we bring more strategic autonomy back to the UK and as we friendshore and onshore more capabilities in these more difficult times. I am afraid that I will not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the full details, because they will be set out in the defence investment plan, as he has heard from my previous answers.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Disregarding the Minister’s comment that we have to wait for the investment plan, most people in this Chamber know that that is because the Treasury is letting him do it. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I am concerned about supply chain security. We have seen China, for example, put America over a barrel by dropping off renewables and making it reverse. Having supply chains in the United Kingdom is vital. Will the Minister really emphasise to the Treasury that it is a key strategic defence requirement that we are able to supply our military needs from within these borders? Maybe that will get the Treasury to sign off on what he clearly wants to tell us but cannot.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about small businesses and the wider supply chain. A large component part of the defence industrial strategy talks about those things as well; I am sure he has read that strategy, so he will be familiar with it. We want to see our suppliers in the UK expand. We also want to see more of them selling to the UK military; indeed, lots of our small companies sell to foreign militaries, but not yet to the UK military. We are launching the office for small business growth later this month. That will enable an easier route for UK SMEs to sell their products and services into the UK military—something that, time and again, they have said has been hard in the past. We are making it easier for the future.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I, too, am concerned about the potential loss of jobs in Yeovil and the wider south-west if we do not see a positive decision on the production of the new medium helicopter at Yeovil. Late last year, we learned that the Government had failed to negotiate access to Security Action for Europe, a €150 billion defence fund. Leonardo is an Anglo-Italian company, and was also supportive of UK access to SAFE. Can the Minister reassure us that this lack of a decision on the new medium helicopter is completely divorced from access to SAFE?
Luke Pollard
Yes, I can. We were very clear that we wanted to explore the options for the UK participating in SAFE, but we were also clear that we would not join at any price. Unfortunately, we were not able to make the value for the UK taxpayer and for UK industry match in those discussions with SAFE. We continue to co-operate very closely with not just the European Union, but our European allies—that can be seen from the new agreements we have signed, such as the Trinity House agreement with Germany and more collaboration and co-operation with Poland—and there is more to come.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on securing this important urgent question. There is a resounding threat on our doorstep from Russia and international order rests on a knife edge; at this time, the efficiency of the UK’s defence procurement process must be a priority. Businesses simply cannot afford to wait while the Government dither and delay on contracts. Thousands of jobs are at risk. That is the exact opposite of what this Government say they want to deliver, so can the Secretary of State provide UK business with confidence that the defence investment plan will be announced this year?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, as well as for the promotion she has given me!
Since the general election, we have signed over 1,000 defence contracts, and more than 80% of those contracts have gone to UK companies. We will continue to use more of that increasing defence spending with UK firms, procuring with them wherever we possibly can. That is an important part of meeting the new threats we are facing as a nation and as a NATO alliance. We need to renew our armed forces, retiring old capabilities and bringing on new ones. The defence investment plan will set that out, and implement the approaches that were laid out so clearly in the strategic defence review.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On 26 March last year, three RAF Pumas performed a final fly-past of Aldergrove in my constituency. What urgency is there to fill that capacity gap of medium-lift helicopters and to secure a full utilisation of what used to be Joint Helicopter Command Aldergrove?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of conversations about Aldergrove, and I suspect we will continue to do so. It is important that, as part of the defence investment plan, we continue to maintain lift capabilities across our armed forces. That will include a mix of crewed and uncrewed, and will lead into autonomous systems, as will be laid out in the defence investment plan when it is published shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We all know that the Minister is a very honourable man, and we like him for the answers he gives us, but today we need confirmation of the dates—everybody has asked similar questions. He will be aware that delays in UK Ministry of Defence contracts create cash flow challenges, forcing delays in the MOD’s own operations. I know that from experience; 95% of defence companies in Northern Ireland are small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less equipped to absorb the financial strain of prolonged procurement cycles. Will the Minister please agree to an overhaul of the contractual system so that it acknowledges those who are dependent on contracts and makes the right decisions in a more efficient way, and will he begin the overhaul by making the decision that we have clearly and very much demanded to hear today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for the defence industries in Northern Ireland. He will know that this Government placed a £1.6 billion order for new missiles from Northern Ireland. Those are a key component of our efforts to keep our friends in Ukraine safe. We will continue to procure from Northern Ireland businesses. Indeed, we are looking forward to the development of the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which I hope will enable us to take a substantial step forward shortly.
Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
With permission, I will update the House on Ukraine.
As we prepare for Christmas, the people of Ukraine are fighting. It is their 1,394th day of resistance since Putin’s full-scale invasion, and their fourth Christmas of the war. I would like to update the House on the work that we are doing to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine by ensuring that it is in the best possible position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. A small number of members of our armed forces are at the heart of that work, whether they are delivering military training in the UK, transporting kit to Ukraine, or helping to develop innovative new warfighting capabilities. Last week, our armed forces and our country lost one of our brightest and best, Lance Corporal George Hooley. He was a model soldier who was tragically killed in Ukraine observing trials of a new defensive drone system, well away from the frontline. I know that the whole House will have been moved by the final letter he wrote to his family, which they released yesterday to coincide with his repatriation, and that the whole House will join me in sending our heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues.
This Government and this House will stand with our Ukrainian friends for as long as it takes. Twelve months ago, I set out five areas in which this Government would increase that support, and with the backing of Members across this House and the commitment of countless defence personnel, partners in industry and allied nations, we have delivered on all five. First, we have strengthened Ukraine’s military capabilities, with a record £4.5 billion military support package this year. That support package includes supplies of tens of thousands of rounds of advanced missiles and ammunition; 85,000 drones, up from the 10,000 gifted last year; and the new Gravehawk air defence system, co-developed with our Danish partners. Secondly, we have now trained more than 62,000 Ukrainians in the UK, alongside our Operation Interflex allies, and we have extended that programme until at least the end of 2026.
Thirdly, to boost Ukraine’s indigenous defence industrial base so that its destiny is increasingly in its own hands, I have led further trade missions to Kyiv. We have also signed new Government-to-Government co-operation agreements that have enhanced the sharing of battlefield technologies, and, in March, we facilitated the £1.6 billion deal for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles. That supports 700 jobs at Thales in Belfast. This demonstrates how growing defence spending across the globe can act as an engine for growth across all our nations and regions in the UK.
Fourthly, the UK has ramped up our international leadership, with the Defence Secretary stepping up in the spring to co-chair, alongside Germany, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group of over 50 nations. Since then, our UDCG partners have pledged over £50 billion of military support for Ukraine, and at Tuesday’s UDCG meeting, we confirmed the UK’s biggest single-year investment in air defence for Ukraine. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the UK is providing £600 million-worth of air defence systems, missiles and automated turrets to shoot down Russian drones and defend Ukrainian civilians. This includes Raven systems to protect frontline units, Gravehawk systems that reinforce Ukraine’s ability to protect key infrastructure from Russia’s deep-strike barrages, and counter-drone turrets designed specifically to defeat Shahed-style attack drones at scale and at lower cost.
Fifthly and finally, alongside our allies we have significantly ramped up sanctions and economic pressure on the Russian economy. We have sanctioned Russia’s largest oil majors; lowered the crude oil price cap alongside EU partners, contributing to a 35% fall in Russia’s oil revenues year on year; introduced a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will be phased in over the next year; and announced our intention to ban the import of oil products of Russian origin that have been refined in third countries.
Just this morning, we announced a further 24 sanction designations across the Russian oil, military and financial sectors to further ramp up economic pressure on Putin. As the Prime Minister said to the coalition of the willing last month, the UK is ready to move with the EU to provide financial support for Ukraine based on the value of immobilised Russian assets. We are working with EU and G7 partners to advance this aim, and I hope for further positive discussions on it today.
We have tightened sanctions, strengthened alliances, boosted industrial co-operation, delivered military training, and provided the biggest annual package of UK military support for Ukraine to date. Yesterday, we went further, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary calling time on Roman Abramovich’s inaction. The Government have issued a licence that enables the transfer of more than £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club to benefit the victims of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We urge Abramovich to honour the commitments he made over three years ago or face court action.
Twelve months ago, I pledged that this Government would provide iron-clad support for Ukraine. That is what we have delivered, and it is what we will continue to deliver for as long as Putin continues his barbaric assault on the Ukrainian people. I know that that support will continue to enjoy cross-party support in this House.
What was not on the table last December was peace talks. On Monday, the Prime Minister was in Berlin with European leaders to advance President Trump’s peace initiative. The leaders welcomed the significant progress that has been made, and reiterated their commitment to work together to provide robust security guarantees and support economic recovery as part of any peace agreement. We have worked determinedly with our French counterparts to establish a coalition of the willing, which now consists of 36 countries, and a Multinational Force Ukraine, which is an essential pillar of the credible security guarantees required to deter Putin from coming back for more territory in the future.
It has been the position of this Government from the outset that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any peace talks. That is what we have worked to achieve—not just because that is what our values and our international norms and laws dictate, but because practically, Ukraine is too militarily powerful and too determined to defend its sovereignty for peace to be built over the country’s head.
While a pattern has emerged of Russia claiming battlefield successes at opportune political moments, its claims have been exposed as disinformation time and time again. Russia has suffered over 1 million casualties to gain around 1% of Ukrainian territory since the stabilisation of the frontline in 2022. In more than a year of fighting for the comparatively small city of Pokrovsk, Russia has advanced only 15 km—equivalent to 40 metres a day—and although Putin claimed to have finally taken that city ahead of the recent visit of the American negotiating team, it is our defence intelligence’s assessment that pockets of Ukrainian resistance continue to operate there. Right across the frontline, it is Ukraine’s continued strength on the battlefield that gives it strength at the negotiating table, so we will continue to work with our allies to boost that strength and secure the credible security guarantees needed to underpin a just and lasting peace.
As we approach the fifth year of fighting since Russia’s full-scale invasion, this Government are in no doubt that the frontline of UK and European security continues to run through Ukraine. Twelve months ago, there was no clear route to ending the war; today, the US-initiated peace process represents the brightest path towards securing a just and lasting peace that we have seen since the start of the full-scale invasion. To support those diplomatic efforts, we are accelerating joint work with the US on security guarantees. The Defence Secretary directed military chiefs this week to review and update the Multinational Force Ukraine military plans, so that we are ready to deploy when peace comes. That includes revising and raising readiness levels as we continue to work with allies to maximise pressure on Putin’s war machine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield and to grow its defence industrial base.
Russia’s economy is getting weaker: military spending is around 40% of the budget. Its VAT is rising and its social spending is falling. We will continue to work with our allies to tighten the screw on the Russian economy, to provide more support for Ukraine and to lay the foundations for the just and lasting peace that the Ukrainian people so deserve and want. With increasing grey-zone attacks across Europe, Ukraine’s security remains our security. I commend that approach, and this statement, to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I echo the Minister’s rightful tribute to Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment, who gave his life for the cause of freedom while serving in Ukraine. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.
There are things that we welcome in this statement, including the imposition of further sanctions and the provision of new equipment, including drones, missiles and in particular air defence equipment for Ukraine. We must not forget that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who has sanctioned the barbaric use of highly accurate cruise missiles against children’s hospitals in Ukraine. In particular, I agree with the Minister that no enduring settlement of the war can be reached over the heads of the Ukrainians. A world war one Admiral, Sir Jackie Fisher, once remarked, “Ultimately, all nations desire peace…but peace on their terms.” We cannot allow peace on Putin’s terms, as that peace would surely not last for long.
It is also worth reminding our American allies that article 5 of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once—by them, in 2001, following the appalling attack on the twin towers. Thousands of Americans were murdered that day, as were several hundred Britons. When the Americans rightfully called for help, within weeks British special forces were working alongside their American counterparts, killing terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora. Alliances work both ways. For the record, when the call came, we turned up.
The Minister also made reference to the coalition of the willing. However, if British troops were to participate, they would need to have modern, effective equipment. That brings me to the elephant in the House: where is the long-awaited defence investment plan? Prior to the summer recess, the Defence Secretary assured us that the DIP would be published in the autumn. As the autumn came and went, it slipped right, but Ministers remained adamant that the DIP would still be published before the House rose for Christmas. So where on earth is it?
As there were multiple references to industry in his statement, let me say to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry that our defence industry will rightly be furious at this continued delay. To give just one example, we still have no decision on the new medium helicopter—a programme vital for the future of Leonardo’s workforce of thousands at Yeovil. Roberto Cingolani, the corporate CEO of Leonardo, said recently:
“We cannot subsidise Yeovil forever”.
That frustration will be repeated up and down our defence manufacturing base, from primes to fourth-tier subcontractors, the latter of whom struggle to subsidise anything at all. Is it any wonder that Mr Kevin Craven, the chief executive of ADS, said only yesterday in the Financial Times that the
“delay in releasing the Defence Investment Plan…is frustrating, to say the least”?
If we are to defend the Ukrainians successfully, we have to be able to defend ourselves. At the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who as ever is in his place, told the Prime Minister:
“the Government does not seem able to agree on the money involved. It cannot deliver the defence investment plan on time. It means that things are moving very slowly, rather than moving at pace, given the threats from adversaries.”
Is it any wonder that his all-party Committee recently described the Government’s progress on increasing war readiness in Britain as “glacial”?
We also welcome the ongoing financial commitment to Ukraine, which follows a similar path to our approach when in government. Would that we had such financial clarity at home. The three distinguished authors of the strategic defence review were adamant that it required defence expenditure of 3% of GDP to deliver it. But the Government cannot even give the year in which that will be reached because they are incapable inter-departmentally of agreeing it. Moreover, in-year—now—Defence Ministers are pursuing an efficiency savings exercise—“savings cuts” in pub English—of £2.6 billion in the Department’s operating budget, which is materially affecting our readiness for war and thus our ability to deter it.
In summary, our commitment across this House to the brave Ukrainians remains unwavering, but as someone once famously said, “To govern is to choose.” Yet again, the Government have avoided making choices, moving key capability decisions even further to the right yet again. When it comes to the future procurement of vital military equipment for the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies, they have kicked the can so far down the road that we can no longer see the can at all—even with an Ajax. In contrast, while our Ministers prevaricate, our Polish allies are digging anti-tank ditches along the border with Belarus.
The Romans had a saying: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” —he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. The Conservatives announced a £50 billion sovereign defence fund this morning to do precisely that.
Luke Pollard
I wish a merry Christmas to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I thank him for his support for the investment that the UK is making in Ukrainian air defences; we are spending £4.5 billion on Ukraine this year—the most that we have ever spent as a country. It is a really important statement, and the more powerful because it is backed on a cross-party basis. I appreciate his comments about Ukraine in that respect. It is absolutely right that we support Ukraine in shooting down Russian drones and missiles that are targeting civilians in particular, as well as protecting its frontline.
It is important that we value our alliances, and we continue to do so. We have a NATO-first defence policy, as set out in the strategic defence review. We are very clear about our priority focus on the Euro-Atlantic, securing our backyard. That includes working more closely and deeply with our European friends, our NATO allies, our Joint Expeditionary Force partners and Ukraine, as well as supporting and continuing to work with our friends in the United States.
When it comes to the DIP, I believe the right hon. Gentleman was at Defence questions on Monday and will have heard the Defence Secretary say very clearly that he is working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise it. He continues to do so. On industry, we will continue to sign contracts. We have signed over 1,000 contracts since the general election, 83% of which have gone to British companies. We will continue to back British defence companies. We continue to sign those contracts. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked for clarity on behalf of industry. We are working with our industrial partners to do that. Indeed, there are many contracts that his Government chose not to sign, which we are still working our way through to make sure that we can deliver the updated defence posture that the strategic defence review set out so clearly.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are a Government who have delivered a plan to increase defence spending: there was £5 billion extra in our Budget this year, and it will reach 2.5% of our GDP by April 2027—three years earlier than anyone projected. We will achieve 3% in the next Parliament. We have made a commitment alongside our NATO allies for 3.5% on defence, as part of 5% on national security by 2035.
The right hon. Gentleman will also remember from when he was a Defence Minister—it was a wee while ago—that it is very normal to do business-as-usual budget management in-year. We are fixing the mess that his party left us in defence, but for the purpose of this statement I do not wish to make party political jibes. I wish to reinforce the cross-party support that this House can show for our friends in Ukraine. We will continue to do that, and I look forward to that further support being on show next year and every year afterwards.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The final letter from the late Lance Corporal George Hooley is moving, poignant and inspirational. We will remember him.
The Defence Committee wholeheartedly supports the Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, their approach to a just and lasting peace, and the robust security guarantees for our Ukrainian friends. Putin and Russia have illegally invaded a sovereign European nation and should pay the cost, rather than the lion’s share of the burden falling on my Slough constituents and the British taxpayer. Rather than prevaricating, when will the Government and their European allies finally use the frozen Russian assets to punish Putin and properly support our Ukrainian friends?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the work that they have done over the past 12 months in support of our service personnel and our allies, not just in Ukraine but across the world. We continue to work alongside our European partners to look at how we can use the immobilised sovereign Russian assets; indeed, we are undertaking discussions on that very topic today. There is strong support from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary for progress on this issue, and we are seeing more progress from our European allies.
I hope that we will continue to make progress, because the case that my hon. Friend makes about Russia paying for the damage that it has caused, and about the cost that it has inflicted on the Ukrainian people, is absolutely right. We need to continue to make that case, especially as we get towards what I hope will be a peace deal that brings a just and lasting peace. It needs to be a fair peace, in which the voices of the Ukrainian people are heard very clearly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Most Members of this House recognise that Vladimir Putin has no interest in securing a just peace for Ukraine. The only peace he will accept is one that carves up Ukraine and leaves it defenceless against future Russian invasion. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to apply more pressure on Putin, and I encourage Ministers to go further.
As the Minister has pointed out, Putin’s oil profits are still propping up his war machine. They will continue to serve as a lifeline to the Russian economy until the UK, together with our international partners, turns the screw more tightly. Has the Minister considered the Liberal Democrats’ call to work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap to $30 a barrel, which could cut more than a third off Putin’s oil profits?
Donald Trump has become another vital lifeline for Vladimir Putin, as he remains fixated on rewarding the Kremlin’s illegal invasion by pressuring Ukraine into giving up unconquered land in the Donbas. Reports now suggest that Trump is trying to block the UK and Europe from seizing frozen Russian assets, despite the transformative leverage that they could give Ukraine by funding new weapons. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow Trump to block efforts to seize those assets? Can he confirm whether the Government will seize the £30 billion-worth of assets in this country, which estimates suggest could fund half of Ukraine’s military budget for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I agree with her that it is important that, as we hopefully move towards a peace deal that is brokered by our American allies, the Ukrainian voice is heard loud and strong, and that a deal signals not a pause in hostilities but the end of hostilities. In order for that to happen, the Ukrainians must have their voice heard in the negotiations and be able to maintain a viable defence of their own nation in the future. The UK stands ready to support them through the coalition of the willing, the Multinational Force Ukraine and further actions.
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the actions we have taken on the Russian oil price cap have made a difference. My colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and in the Treasury continue to look at more methods that we can use. Indeed, a key part of our sanctions activity involves doing so alongside our allies, and we continue to build international support for those actions. That includes making sure that we can maintain our NATO commitments and our NATO unity when it comes to not only Euro-Atlantic security, but the support we offer Ukraine.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I return to the issue of the Russian assets? I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and their anxiety is that if a deal is not done quickly—[Interruption.] Sorry, did the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) want to intervene?
John McDonnell
I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and they were extremely worried about the situation. They are concerned that unless a deal is done quickly, there will be further threats not just to Ukraine but to Poland, because the Russians are amassing on the Belarusian borders. The fear is that if Trump somehow tries to impose a peace deal that eventually becomes temporary, the frozen Russian assets will be used for the next invasion of Ukraine. That is why it is so important to seal the deal now.
With regard to Abramovich, I welcome the measures taken by the Government, but there was a long period in which the City of London was used as the Russian laundromat for tax avoidance. It would be worth while the Government looking again at the Russian tax avoidance that located itself within the UK, to see whether some of those assets could be used to rebuild Ukraine.
Luke Pollard
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that it is important that we make progress on the seized Russian assets. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing today, and I hope that we will be able to report positive news in due course. He is right about the threat not just to Ukraine, but to our NATO allies along the eastern flank. It is for that reason that the UK has deployed forces and Typhoon jets in support of our allies. We are supporting our Estonian allies through Op Cabrit and the presence of the British Army’s forward land forces, and we will continue to do so.
I recognise what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of making sure that we can be proud of the measures that we are taking as a country to stand up against money laundering and illicit finances. We have made good progress, but my colleagues in the Treasury will continue to look at new avenues to clamp down on illicit finance. We hope that peace comes soon to Ukraine, but the threat from Russia will not end when peace comes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that we have to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, because that is how we are strongest, so can we agree on the following two points? First, it would be intolerable if any peace settlement forced Ukraine to give up territory that Russia has not already conquered forcibly and if Ukraine gave up its fortress belt. It would be like stripping Czechoslovakia of Sudetenland and leaving it defenceless.
The second point is even more important. We cannot have a peace settlement through warm words alone; we must have a commitment that Ukraine’s defence is protected by the equivalent of an article 5 declaration. The only thing that will deter Putin is knowing that if he invades again, there will be war with the west and we will win. Can we unite on those two powerful points?
Luke Pollard
I thank the Father of the House for the strength he puts into his argument. We are in a new era of threat, and our approaches need to adapt. It is right that the Ukrainians are at the negotiating table and will decide the terms on which a peace deal is done, and we will continue to support them to deliver that. We are very clear that it is for Ukraine to decide its future in the negotiations.
On security guarantees, we continue to believe that the long-term future of Ukraine is within NATO, but it is for Ukraine to decide on its security alliances. It is important that, as we look towards what a possible peace might be, security guarantees exist within that framework that not only enable the deployment of western forces to help support our Ukrainian friends, but prevent Putin from pausing, regrouping and coming back for more. I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked his questions.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Today’s newspapers carry further coverage of attempts by Russia to influence political systems in the west. To avoid being held to account for the war in Ukraine, Russian agents are reportedly undermining financial institutions and public servants in Belgium. Following the jailing of a former Reform leader in Wales for taking bribes from Russia, does the Minister agree that the inquiry into foreign financial interference in our domestic politics has not come soon enough?
Luke Pollard
The vast majority of the seized Russian assets are held by Belgium—within its geography—which is why we are having discussions not only internationally but directly with our Belgian colleagues. I hope that progress can be made on that.
My hon. Friend is right that the threats we face from Russia are not just military threats. The sub-threshold or grey zone threats—the election interference that we see Russia perpetrating around the world, the cyber-threats and cyber-attacks against the UK and our allies, and the potential grey zone attacks on our undersea infrastructure—are all part of the increasing threat that Russia poses to our country, our values and our alliances. For that reason, it is absolutely right that the Government take steps in all those areas to look at what can be done to prevent Russian interference and to defend ourselves more strongly and better. That includes increasing defence spending, as well as other measures.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I start by paying tribute and offering thanks to all those on the frontlines in our uniform, guarding our seas, guarding our land and guarding our air? They will be on duty for the next fortnight, when many of us will be celebrating, and will not have the chance to be with their families.
May I raise a point that I do not really want to raise, but which I am afraid is fundamentally true? The promises of defence spending are actually on the never-never—they are for after the next election. The reality, as the Minister knows very well, is that the uplift he has spoken about is actually a reallocation of money that was allocated to Ukraine and is still allocated to Ukraine. It was coming out of one budget and it is now under the defence budget. That is Treasury chicanery, not a defence uplift.
The reality is that we are not considered serious. We complain, understandably, that we are not part of President Trump’s talks, but we are not willing to put in the money or put a stake in the ground to show that we are a capable and equal player. We see what Poland is doing and what the Baltic states are doing, and we are not doing it ourselves. Until we are willing to do it ourselves, I am afraid that the Minister, and all of us here, are not being serious. We are not truly standing with Ukraine, we are not truly defending the British people, and I am afraid that the promises will come to naught.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he puts the argument. We are increasing defence spending; there is £5 billion extra in the defence budget this year. We will have more money in our budget every year for the next 10 years. There is not a single person who has served in uniform and seen a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. We need to spend that well, but we also need to recognise that, with increasing threats, it is not just Defence that needs to spend money well; it is the whole of Government and the whole of society that need to step up. It is not just an MOD pursuit, although we take the lead in many cases.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the service personnel deployed around the world. For Members who have not seen it yet, the Royal Navy Christmas advert, which shows the real-life events of HMS Diamond when she was in the Red sea and what happens for our people at home and those deployed abroad, is well worth a watch.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
For some Ukrainian children, this will be the fourth Christmas that they will spend in Russia, after being torn from their families by the Russian state. Others will spend their Christmas living under occupation, and many more will spend their Christmas in a military training camp, being taught to fight against their own country. Will my hon. Friend set out what recent work he has been doing with colleagues in the FCDO to make sure that those children do not find themselves on the battlefield and that they spend their next Christmas in their own home, in their own country and with their own families?
Luke Pollard
Children should never be pawns of war. May I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for championing this issue? There is not a Ukraine debate that goes by without her raising the issue of Ukrainian children. It is absolutely vital, and it is why, as a country, we have said that a lasting and just peace in Ukraine must include the return of all the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia. We have committed more than £2.8 million to support Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. We will continue to support that effort and to make the case that stealing children is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak nation, and it is not something that we will support or that any decent nation around the world should back.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister said about introducing a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas; I was a little less welcoming of what he said about it being phased in over the next year. It was reported this week that UK-insured ships have transported almost half the Russian diesel exports since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those exports are thought to have been worth more than £24 billion pounds, and UK-owned or UK-insured vessels are reported to have enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas. Why can the Government not get on with the UK maritime services ban today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have announced that we intend to introduce the maritime services ban on Russian LNG, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export globally. The reason it is being phased in is so that it can be done in lockstep with our EU friends, who are introducing equivalent restrictions. He is right to identify the issue, and the Government are right to take steps to address it. I am an impatient so-and-so, and I know that the efforts that we are making across Government are based on a similar impatience to get it done fast, but it must be done well.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and send solidarity to Ukraine. As Christmas approaches, I would like to thank all who serve in our armed forces and wish them a merry Christmas, wherever they are in the world.
I want to pause and remember Lance Corporal George Hooley, who, as we heard from the Minister, has returned home to the UK. Before his passing, Lance Corporal Hooley wrote a letter to his friends and family to be opened in the event of his death, as many members of our armed forces do. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to share a few of his beautiful, poignant and proud words:
“If you are reading this, it means I didn’t make it home. Please don’t let that be the thing that breaks you. You know I was doing what I believed in as well as loved, with people I respected, and for reasons that matter to me, my country and democracy and freedom in this world. I was proud of what I was doing.
Don’t remember me with sadness and loss. Be proud. I went out doing what I trained to do, what I chose to do, and I had all of you in my heart the whole way.”
Rest in peace, Lance Corporal George Hooley.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for reading Lance Corporal George Hooley’s words into the record. I know how close to home that will hit with her, as a mother of someone serving in our armed forces, and indeed other Members across the House. We ask extraordinary things of our people. What they do and the sacrifices they make—the ultimate sacrifice in this case, but also the sacrifice at Christmas—is appreciated on the Government Benches, on the Opposition Benches and, I believe, by everyone in the United Kingdom.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I endorse what the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and the Minister have said about Lance Corporal George Hooley, who sounds as if he was a fine individual and a great soldier?
On 29 December, it will be the 85th anniversary of President Roosevelt’s famous fireside chat radio broadcast, in which he defined his country, which was not then at war, as the “arsenal of democracy” in support of those countries that were at war. He did not say that Churchill had no cards to play. He did not say that Adolf Hitler should be rewarded with recognition of the countries that had been occupied. By the end of the war, the Americans had seen the importance of standing in alliance with the other democracies, and when Germany was divided, they made certain that the western part of Germany was not a military vacuum. Does the Minister agree that if Ukraine is divided by force, then we democracies must make sure that western, free Ukraine is not a military vacuum either?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way he puts the argument. That is precisely the reason why we are working with our French colleagues on the coalition of the willing, to make sure that when peace comes, and I hope it comes soon, we will be able to support our Ukrainian friends, allowing them to remove their units from the frontline and reconstitute them up to NATO standard, because the deterrence we need in Ukraine is a stronger Ukraine—one that will stand up against any future Russian aggression. But we need to recognise that, as a leading country in NATO, we have commitments not just to our friends in Ukraine—which we will honour—but to our NATO allies along the eastern flank and elsewhere in the Euro-Atlantic. We will continue to make commitments and support those efforts as well.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The people of Ukraine are not alone, as we have heard in this House today. Their sacrifices are for their own country, but they are for us all. I am therefore very grateful for what this Government are doing in leading the way; so much more is being done to support our brethren and sisters in Ukraine. However, Russia is a threat not just to Ukraine but to all of Europe, and we have heard about the threats to this country. What can the Minister tell us about the cross-Government steps we are taking to stop interference in our democracy, attacks on our infrastructure and, indeed, attacks on our whole society?
Luke Pollard
This Government’s approach has been ever so slightly different from those of previous Governments. We have taken a different approach to revealing Russian activity, precisely because we face threats increasing. For instance, in revealing the activity of the Russian spy ship Yantar on her recent visit over some of our infrastructure, and the shining of a laser at our RAF pilots, we were deliberately calling out that behaviour, being clear about the threats that Russia poses and signalling support for our allies in doing so.
We were doing something else as well. We need to take the British people with us. Part of that is not just a whole-of-Government approach, but a whole-of-society approach. We are being clear about the threats that Russia poses to our way of life, values, laws and institutions, but also being clear that we can do something to stand up against them—every Department can. Having met the Security Minister this morning, I know that he is taking the threat seriously. We are doing more in that respect to deal with the threats that Russia poses, and there will be further announcements in the new year.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are thinking of all Ukrainians today, particularly the around 2,500 who found sanctuary in Aberdeen; they will be spending Christmas worried about their friends and family who remain in Ukraine. According to the Defence Committee, the most effective way to ensure long-term security for Ukraine and the strongest possible European defence framework is to have strategic unity with our European allies. Will the Minister confirm the reasons behind the refusal to join the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for putting on record the Ukrainians who are in the UK because they found sanctuary with families up and down the country. They will continue to receive our support.
We entered into negotiations with our European friends around SAFE in good faith. We wanted to secure a deal, but we were also clear from the start that we would not accept a deal that was not in the best interests of our taxpayers or the British defence industry. Sadly, we were not able to find a fair financial measure for inclusion. We were happy to pay our fair share, but we were not willing to pay above that.
We continue to work with our European friends, and British companies can participate in SAFE arrangements up to 35%. We will continue to work through bilateral arrangements, such as the Trinity House agreement we signed with Germany and the frigate deal with our friends in Norway, which will benefit Scotland considerably. There is more to do across Europe, and we will do continue to do it, whether we are in SAFE or not.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that readiness levels have been revised and increased so that, if a just peace can be successfully negotiated, forces are ready to deploy to prevent future Russian aggression. Will the Minister set out to the House the extent to which the coalition of the willing is ready for such a significant deployment and commitment and—if he can comment—what force elements might be deployed first?
Luke Pollard
The coalition of the willing is ready to deploy. I am afraid that I will not be able to give the news, which Putin wants, about what units we are deploying, but the coalition of the willing has a number of elements: safe skies, which would probably be the fastest deployment of assets in terms of combat air Typhoon jets and allied jets, to secure airspace; safe seas, securing the maritime domain; and supporting the regeneration of Ukrainian forces.
We continue to work with our coalition of the willing allies around rotating readiness, so that whenever peace comes, we are able to deploy. We have UK personnel working with our friends and allies on the coalition of the willing to ensure that, if President Trump’s peace deal is successful, we are able to move immediately after that deal takes place.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can the Minister update us on de-mining in Ukraine? Ukrainian civilians are still regularly being killed by mines or improvised explosive devices. The last time that I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine, it was with the HALO Trust, which is based in my constituency and carries out the meticulous work of removing mines. The scale of the mines is such that there remains a serious threat to the civilian population.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly correct. Russia’s reckless use of mines across large areas of Ukraine poses a threat not just to Ukraine’s military forces, but to civilians in Ukraine and occupied Ukraine every single day. I thank him for mentioning the people in his constituency and elsewhere who undertake de-mining, and we will continue to support that effort with our Ukrainian friends. Indeed, we want to go further by supporting de-mining efforts, after peace, in the Black sea, to ensure that we clear not just mines on the land, but maritime mines, which threaten peaceful trade in the Black sea. That can be addressed when peace comes.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for reiterating the UK’s commitment to stand by Ukraine in this illegal war by Russia? This is another Christmas that many Ukrainians in the UK will be spending away from their family and their home. Will he join me in wishing them a merry Christmas, making a commitment that we will always be a safe haven for them, and thanking people, such as Viktoriya Shtanko, who are leading efforts in the UK to make sure that they have a happy Christmas?
Luke Pollard
This Christmas is a difficult time, because we tend to think of family, those people we have lost and the people we miss. Not only have many of our Ukrainian friends lost homes and family members, but there is uncertainty about their friends and family members on the frontline and those who remain in Ukraine and occupied Ukraine. I thank everyone in our communities who have welcomed in Ukrainians. We will continue to support our Ukrainian friends at home and abroad. I wish all Ukrainians a very merry Christmas and, hopefully, a peaceful new year.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and reiterate Reform’s strong support, with all parties in this House, for Ukraine, its sovereignty and its independence against the dictator Putin. The Minister knows that I have spoken frequently about using the frozen central assets, and I am encouraged by his words today, but can I urge him to go further? Ukrainian friends of mine have reinforced the strength of the negotiating leverage of such assets. This Government therefore have the opportunity to show real leadership in the coalition of the willing by committing unilaterally to using those frozen central assets.
Luke Pollard
In the spirit of Christmas, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this effort? It is so important that we can, as much as possible, present a cross-party, unified voice. The steps that he has taken, especially to address the pollution of Russian bribes in his own party, are important steps forward. Hopefully, Russian bribes will never, ever again be taken by people in his party or anyone else’s.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of frozen Russian assets, and it is important that the UK moves with our international allies in this respect. That has been our approach from the start. I hope that we are nearly at the point where progress can be made. He is right to say just how important it is to use those assets as leverage in peace, as well as to use the value of those assets, and the interest from them, to support Ukraine in the fight against Putin’s illegal invasion.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
May I start by associating myself with the remarks from the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) regarding the loss of Lance Corporal Hooley this Christmas? Given the situation in Ukraine and the possibility of a Russian redeployment and reconstitution of its forces in the event of any peace settlement, the Schwerpunkt of any future Russian belligerence may be more difficult to fix than to strike. We clearly require some sort of continuous on-land deterrent to ensure that we maximise our sensitivity to effect opportunities across all domains, including space. What progress has he made in digitising our kill chain, developing our AI solution, getting inside Russia’s OODA—observe, orient, decide, act—loop, and ensuring the effectiveness of the eastern flank deterrence line? When will we see a tangible output?
Luke Pollard
I fear there will be more parliamentary questions based on that question coming at me very soon. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the integrated digital targeting web as a key part of our deterrence activity. The SDR was clear that we are moving to a situation, in a digitised battlefield, where any target must be able to be in the same decision-making process as any sensor to detect it, and any effector to prosecute it. We are piecing that together.
The early steps in the digital targeting web have been taken, with money being spent to develop the concept further. That will be reinforced in the defence investment plan. By using that technology, we hope to increase the lethality of our forces by having a greater flexibility in how we target and detect adversaries—that makes our Army, Air Force and Navy much stronger—and integrating space and cyber facilities in that combined effort. That is a good part of the SDR, and we are making progress on it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House today on this last day of Parliament before Christmas, which keeps Ukraine at the top of the political agenda, which is where it must be. I want to endorse thoroughly every word uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in his response to the Minister’s statement, as well as the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I make no apology for pressuring the Government to spend more on defence, and I know that secretly, in his heart, the Minister agrees with me. Will he think about coming back to the House early in the new year with a debate and a motion on a three-line Whip, so that we can thoroughly debate these matters with a much fuller House than we have this afternoon? That will enable us to lead the conversation that he so ably talks about.
Luke Pollard
I have no doubt in my mind that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed many of my hon. Friends sitting behind me, will also be making the case for defence. Both the Minister for the Armed Forces and myself, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, value the focus put on defence by cross-party debates. There will be opportunities in the new year to look at the defence investment plan and at how we deploy the increased defence spending that we have been allocated. In doing so, we must be mindful of how we implement the strategic defence review, which is the key strategic document that we are seeking to implement as a Government; it sets out how we will increase lethality of our forces and how we will renew our forces, retiring old gear and bringing on new technologies in order to do so. More debates on defence in this House are very welcome indeed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for reminding us of the commitment of the £1.6 billion deal announced this March for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles, which supports 700 jobs at Thales in Belfast, and indeed across the Province. This Government and this Minister are committing themselves, and I thank them for that.
The picture on the front page of The Times today shows two soldiers who had been on the front for 130 days. They look tired—they look like they need a break. They have now been sent to the rear to have a chance to recuperate. While their faces are tired, their eyes tell the real story: they show their courage and commitment. What has been done to ensure that all medical help and assistance is available to help the injured, both in mind and body, and to get them reinvigorated so that they can go back and continue to stand for Ukrainians at the front?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the lightweight multirole missile contract that we secured earlier this year in support of the production facility in Belfast. Defence is an engine for growth, and we can use not only the increased spending on our defence, but that in support of our friends in Ukraine to create more good, well-paid and decent jobs in every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; my sense of many Ukrainian soldiers on the front is that they are tired but undefeated. The courage that we see from them, and their innovative spirit in using new technologies to defend their country and their people against this illegal attack, should give us all courage and pride; it will continue to do so. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at Project Renovator, which is how we are supporting Ukrainian service personnel to recuperate and then get back on the frontline. As well as supporting that effort, we are providing those fighting forces with the equipment and innovative new technology that they need, especially in drones and air defence missiles, to ensure that we can keep Ukraine in the fight, as well as putting it in the best possible position at the negotiating table.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ajax Armoured Vehicle Investigation
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am updating Parliament before Christmas recess on the British Army’s armoured cavalry programme, known as Ajax. The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for me and for the Ministry of Defence.
On 26 November 2025, after around 30 service personnel operating Ajax reported noise and vibration symptoms during a training exercise, I confirmed to the House that I had directed a pause of the use of Ajax for training and exercising while a safety investigation is carried out. This safety investigation is ongoing. Service personnel who reported noise and vibration symptoms during Exercise Titan Storm were operating across 23 vehicles. All these vehicles have now undergone a 45-point inspection. 13 of the vehicles have undergone further inspections specifically relating to the potential cause of noise and vibration and the remaining 10 vehicles will undergo these tests. The outcome of these inspections will be reported to Ministers in the new year.
In the House on 8 December 2025, I confirmed that in addition to the Army’s safety investigation, a Defence Accident Investigation Branch investigation is also under way—this also remains ongoing. I also confirmed that I had directed a ministerial review be carried out. I expect the outcomes of this review very shortly.
On 8 December, I set out my intention to bring together an independent group of experts to add expertise and external challenge to our work, and we are making progress on this.
The pause on use of Ajax for training and exercising was implemented immediately. Reliability growth trials have continued at Bovington training area to provide data to inform the ongoing investigations. During the trials on 12 December 2025, one soldier reported vibration symptoms. The individual did not require hospitalisation and is being provided with the appropriate medical support. The vehicle involved was not one of the 23 vehicles whose personnel reported issues during Exercise Titan Storm, but was instead part of the RGT to establish a safety baseline for comparison. The vehicle was immediately removed from the trials and will undergo a thorough investigation.
This additional report of an injury is a serious concern to me, so out of an abundance of caution and to ensure the safety of our personnel, I have directed a pause on all Ajax trials. This is in addition to the ongoing pause for training and exercising. The pause to the trials will allow time for the individual’s symptoms to be investigated and for the vehicle to be thoroughly inspected. In the new year, I will assess if trials can be restarted.
The investigation teams are conducting their work thoroughly and at pace and they must be given the time and space required to ensure that all information and evidence is considered. Findings from the investigations into Ajax will be closely aligned to decisions in the defence investment plan.
I met General Dynamics last week and I continue to have regular meetings with the Chief of the General Staff, with the Army and with officials.
As I told Parliament last week, it is unacceptable for the safety of our personnel to be at risk. I will provide further updates to the House in due course.
[HCWS1212]
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The forthcoming defence investment plan has been informed by a range of inputs and perspectives, including those of service chiefs. These contributions have been critical in delivering on the strategic defence review and in enabling the transformation within defence that is necessary as we move towards warfighting readiness.
John Glen
I am a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have seen reports that service chiefs are drafting letters to the Secretary of State warning of their concerns about whether enough money is going into defence. When the delayed defence investment plan is produced, will it give clarity on when the Government will reach the critical 3% threshold? To be credible, the plan needs to distinguish between the start of the next Parliament, which will be in 2029, and the end of it, which will be in 2034. If the plan does not do that, no one will take the aspiration seriously.
Luke Pollard
I know that the right hon. Member has strong views on defence, as do I. As a Government, we are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget: it will be 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The strategic defence review will be implemented by the defence investment plan. That will set out what capabilities we are buying and how we can improve our warfighting readiness. He will have to wait a wee bit longer as the work continues to deliver that plan very soon.
Gregory Stafford
When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review was written on the basis of reaching 3%, and that is a key part of how we are increasing defence spending. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been given set lines by his party, but his Government cut defence spending. This Labour Government are increasing defence spending.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Government’s ambition to repair the damage that the previous Government did to our defence will be made clear in the defence investment plan. The roadblock to our safe entry will not change in reality, but to support our ambition we will need long-term financing vehicles that enable multilateral offers and help us to get the best value for public money so that we can protect this country against Russian aggression. Can the Minister provide us with any information about the work he is doing with other Departments to ensure that vehicles such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank are brought about?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of defence and security being a whole-of-Government endeavour. It is not just about the MOD, which is why we have a renewed and refreshed working relationship with the Treasury, working hand in hand to increase defence spending. The defence investors advisory group, which will publish its findings in the new year, will look at new financing methods to bring more investment into defence, just as we are working more closely with our colleagues across Government to increase our warfighting readiness, improve skills and make sure that defence can be an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In the Budget, defence received £25.9 billion for capital expenditure. In comparison, health and social care got £14 billion and housing got £9.6 billion. In the interests of democracy, I am going to put forward a different viewpoint from those we have heard so far. It is a fact that UK citizens are dying because of inequality and poverty, not the threat of another nation launching a nuclear attack against us; should that not be reflected in the prioritising of Government expenditure?
Luke Pollard
I disagree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the people dying in Ukraine—dying for Ukrainian freedom and for our freedom—because of a Russian war machine, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar loitering over our critical underwater infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the cyber-attacks on our defence infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. Our entire economy is supported by our national security, which is why the Government are investing in it, and we make no apology for doing so.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?
Luke Pollard
What a load of nonsense. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year. We are moving to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence three years before anyone thought it was possible. The defence investment plan will set out what we are investing in and how we are moving towards warfighting readiness and implementing the strategic defence review. If the hon. Gentleman’s Government had put in that kind of investment, we would not be sorting out the mess we are in today. But they did not, so we are.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have met Richard Parker and seen his passion and determination for driving more growth in small businesses located in the west midlands. There is a huge opportunity as we increase defence spending, and standing up the new office for small business growth in the new year will provide more opportunities for west midlands businesses to access defence contracts.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
As the space nerd in the ministerial team, I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in space. Working with Baroness Lloyd, the Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we have a real opportunity to renew our space strategy, because the strategy we inherited was out of date and ineffective and was not supporting our industry. We are seeking to support our industry to go further, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss space further.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this issue. We are moving towards an always-on munitions strategy, and we have allocated £1.5 billion to create six new energetics munitions factories. The first will start construction next year. I am happy to meet her to further discuss the potential options in Scotland.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The Government’s deal to build 20 new Typhoons for NATO member Turkey is welcome news for jobs in Lancashire, including for my Pendle and Clitheroe constituents who work at BAE’s Samlesbury site. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in this geopolitical environment, we need sovereign capability more than ever, so can he give us some more good news, back British workers and put in a domestic order for Typhoons?
Luke Pollard
Having seen the workers in Salisbury and in Warton, and the expert work they do, I know they were a key part of why Turkey opted for the Typhoon contract, helping to secure more work not just in those two plants, but in the nationwide supply chain. All defence spending decisions are made in the defence investment plan, but we are continuing to promote the Typhoon as an export product, and I hope it will provide further work for our brilliant UK workforce.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As we have come away empty-handed from the Security Action for Europe instrument, can we have the fish back?
Luke Pollard
Having been a shadow fisheries Minister when the botched Brexit deal went through, I know that much of the extra fish is paper fish that cannot be caught. The new restrictions that were put on our fishermen mean that it does not work. This Department is focusing on improving our defences and increasing defence spending—something the right hon. Gentleman never did when he was in government. [Interruption.]
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The recent Typhoon deal is welcome news in my constituency of Blackpool South, an area in the country where we see high levels of deprivation, but also high demand for jobs and apprentices. Can the Minister outline what more can be done? Could there be a domestic order? What other deals are we looking at internationally to create more of the jobs and apprenticeships that we need on the Fylde coast?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his constant championing of the workforce at BAE Systems and in the supply chain. They are absolutely vital. I have seen the new apprentices’ energy and enthusiasm. We are working with colleagues across Government to look at what further export orders are available and can be secured so that we can expand the international sales of the Typhoon fighter aircraft, securing not only our security and jobs in the UK, but our NATO allies’ security.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Defence innovation is harmed by a default America-first posture. Ironically, that is especially apparent in the so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which relies on US tech for fusing, firing, arming, neutron initiators, the gas transfer system and the mark 4 aeroshell. We can add to that the purchase of further F-35s for US-manufactured gravity-delivered nuclear weapons. President Trump will put America first, but it is difficult to understand why this Labour Government seem keen to do the same, while spurning the innovation opportunity of the £130 billion SAFE programme in the EU.
Luke Pollard
We have rising defence spending in Scotland and more jobs in Scotland, and we just hear moans from the SNP about no new jobs when we are investing more in British defence firms and more in Scottish defence firms. There is a new Scotland defence growth deal and more opportunities on the Clyde, in Rosyth and elsewhere around Scotland. That should be welcomed, but I am afraid the Christmas spirit has yet to arrive on the SNP Benches.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year I welcomed the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill receiving Royal Assent. Currently there is no such equivalent for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Will the Minister confirm the plan to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner for the RFA in the Armed Forces Bill next year, as set out in my ten-minute rule Bill? Can he report on progress with the RFA pay negotiations and collective bargaining agreement?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In view of the fact that Northern Ireland, alas, remains subject to much European Union law, including legislation on ozone-depleting substances, it seems that from 1 January the MOD’s fleet of Dakotas, Chinooks, Wildcats, Shadows and C-17 Globemasters, among others, may be unable to operate in Northern Ireland because their on-board fire extinguishers use halon, which will be banned in the EU from that date. What steps have been taken to deal with this ridiculous situation?
Luke Pollard
We have taken steps, and I am not worried about the fleet’s ability to carry on operating, but I am happy to speak to the hon. and learned Gentleman further in order to reassure him.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Given the recent further estimates putting the total cost of the war in Ukraine to the European economy at north of $1 billion a year, while the total allied commitment to Ukraine remains at about $100 billion a year, does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot but afford to go further in our support for our Ukrainian allies?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thales and Spirit in Northern Ireland are leading the way in cyber-security and engineering. What steps are being taken to fund a potential Typhoon supply chain programme in which Northern Ireland can play its part in contributing to aircraft production across the United Kingdom?
Luke Pollard
We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the Northern Ireland growth deal—one of five growth deals that will share £250 million to look at skills and at how we can attract more inward investment. When that concludes, I would be very happy to give a briefing to the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland colleagues on the progress that we are making.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment ultimately to spend 5% of GDP on defence—as we used to do in the cold war years of the 1980s—but not the target date of 2035. Do the Government really believe that there is no threat of attack from Russia on a NATO country for the next 10 years?
Defence Export Controls Agreement
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am pleased to set out that the UK has acceded to the agreement on defence export controls, to which France, Germany and Spain are existing parties. This represents another step forward in our support for the vital role played by UK’s defence industry in UK growth and defence and wider European security.
The UK’s accession to the agreement will reduce the administrative burden of granting export licences between our nations, open opportunities for UK businesses and help boost economic growth across the country. UK sovereignty and robust export controls on defence equipment exports will be maintained under the agreement. The agreement does not affect the UK’s export control regime or its obligations under international law, including the arms trade treaty, on the conditions for exporting of military equipment. The UK’s licensing authority will therefore continue to assess each licence application against the strategic export licensing criteria. Accession to the agreement will not change this approach.
The agreement establishes a framework between the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain to facilitate the licensing of defence exports within collaborative industrial programs. It creates an expectation that signatories consider joint exports favourably and aims to reduce the likelihood of signatories objecting to the export of joint Government projects and industrial joint ventures, subject to compliance with existing national and international legal obligations. This will mean more certainty for UK firms involved in multinational defence programmes and supply chains, while preserving UK sovereignty.
The strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy include an aspiration to see the UK becoming Europe’s leading defence exporter. UK accession to the agreement aligns with this intent and supports Government work to facilitate the UK defence industry’s role as an engine for skilled UK jobs and growth. The SDR also recognises that support for secure, interoperable and agile defence supply chains is central to sustaining the UK’s industrial capability and resilience, including through international partnerships. This agreement underlines the Government’s commitment to supporting industry through exports and comes on the back of our £10 billion frigate agreement with Norway and £8 billion Typhoon deal with Türkiye.
The UK is committed to reinforcing its leading role in NATO and Euro-Atlantic security in an increasingly volatile world. Strengthening our defence and industrial partnerships with European allies is central to the endeavour. By joining the agreement, the UK reinforces its commitment to responsible defence trade and strengthens co-operation with NATO and European allies on shared security priorities, making a positive contribution to UK national security and NATO, while maintaining robust standards under the UK’s strategic export control framework.
[HCWS1140]
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest developments concerning Ajax and other Army vehicles.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for tabling the question and Mr Speaker for allowing me to provide an update on the current situation, expanding on the written ministerial statement that I laid on 26 November.
As safety is the top priority for the ministerial team, prior to Ajax’s initial operating capability being announced, I asked for and was given assurances in writing by senior Ministry of Defence personnel that the system was safe. However, on 22 November, around 30 service personnel operating the Ajax family of vehicles reported noise and vibration symptoms during Exercise Titan Storm. In line with our safety protocols, the exercise was stopped immediately, and those affected received full medical care and attention. These personnel continue to be monitored. None of the symptoms are life-threatening and there have been no hospitalisations.
The safety of our service personnel remains a top priority for the Ministry of Defence. As such, and out of an abundance of caution, I directed a pause on the use of Ajax for training and exercising while safety investigations are carried out. There are three investigations currently under way: one by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch; another by the Army safety investigation team; and the ministerial review that I have directed to be carried out in addition. While investigations remain ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential outcomes or to speculate on the causes of the symptoms. However, I can confirm that officials have been meeting General Dynamics daily since the incident on Titan Storm, and I am meeting General Dynamics tomorrow to ensure a collaborative approach to the issue.
The safety of our people remains the top priority for me and the ministerial team. As such, we will take whatever decisions are required to end the saga one way or another. Where people have concerns around Ajax, I remind them that each organisation involved with Ajax has its own whistleblowing processes to ensure that any concerns are addressed appropriately and, importantly, confidentially.
On vehicle safety more broadly, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, on the issue of the MAN support vehicle fleet—Army trucks—which I mentioned in my recent appearance in front of the Defence Committee, I can confirm that an issue was identified with the vehicles, and that a mitigation and repair schedule was created, which is being rolled out. That is an example of a system working properly in relation to MAN SV.
James Cartlidge
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I state how shocking it was to hear of the Army exercise that took place on 22 November that resulted in more than 30 casualties among soldiers operating Ajax? There have been reports of symptoms ranging from sickness to hearing loss. As the Minister said, the priority must be the safety of our personnel, and we wish all those affected a swift recovery.
This matter is particularly disturbing for me, as the renewed incidents with noise and vibrations sound strikingly similar to the problems that I was assured had been resolved when I was the Minister for Defence Procurement. In the Defence Committee, the Minister confirmed that he received similar assurances when he agreed to announce that Ajax had reached the key milestone of initial operating capability on 6 November.
The Minister and I may have our political differences, but may I suggest that we have something in common on this issue? We have both been misled about the viability of the Ajax programme. After all, it is not just about the recurrence of extremely worrying noise and vibration problems; over the weekend, we have seen reports of serious allegations from anonymous General Dynamics employees suggesting systemic flaws with the Ajax platform. That includes a disgraceful incident in which a General Dynamics employee publicly belittled the injured soldiers. That is utterly unacceptable.
Given all that, and contrary to assurances given to and accepted in good faith by successive Ministers, including myself, surely the only possible conclusion is that the Ajax vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Does the Minister agree that the manufacturer, General Dynamics, must have been aware of that for years and must be held to account? As such, remembering that the procurement reform I launched in February 2024 stressed the need for a second opinion, will he bring in a completely independent organisation or company steeped in engineering excellence—from outside the Ministry of Defence, with no skin in the game—to pronounce on the one question that we all need answered: is Ajax viable without a fundamental redesign? If not, how much more will it cost to remedy?
On a personal note, I imagine that the Minister is as furious as I am at having been repeatedly given what now turn out to be false assurances by those responsible for the Ajax programme. Surely he is now left with a binary choice: fix it, or fail it.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and the tone in which he asked them. I too was disgusted when I heard the news of the injuries to our service personnel, especially after a point at which the vehicle was assured to be safe. It is for that very reason that I will not speculate—I hope he understands why—until the investigations have reported, so that we can understand the cause of the noise and vibration injuries. A decision can then be made based on that information. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I want to ensure that information given to Ministers—be it to me or any other Minister, in this Government or any other—is accurate and timely, so it is appropriate that we get to the bottom of this. I also share his concern around a particular issue with one GD employee, which he raised. I can confirm that General Dynamics has written to the Department to apologise for the recent social media posts from a member of its staff, and that was the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about an independent review of the platforms. As well as the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the British Army’s teams investigating, I have asked that an external organisation with experience of noise and vibration be brought in. We are building a team of experts from a number of organisations outside the usual GD production line to add expertise and external challenge to the work. Hopefully, I will be in a situation to say more to the House in my next update; I hope to table a written ministerial statement ahead of the Christmas recess to keep the House informed about progress.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for our service personnel. It is not good enough for our service personnel to sustain injuries in this fashion on a platform that they were reassured was safe, just as I was. That is why getting to the bottom of this issue is a priority for me. I await the reports of those three investigations to understand what happened and therefore what decisions we will take as a result.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What an absolute shambles. The Minister should be livid at how things have transpired, given the billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money that has been spent over the years on the Ajax programme and the injuries sustained by our brave service personnel. In addition to problems with Ajax, the Boxer mechanised infantry vehicle is years late into service, and the 6,000 or so MAN support vehicles are currently grounded due to broken parts. Is there a wider systemic problem with land vehicle procurement and sustainment? Where exactly does this leave us with the British Army’s readiness at a time of such increased international tensions?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as well as for the questions he asked me in front of his Select Committee last week, which gave me the opportunity to provide an update to his Committee and the public on the investigations.
The MAN SV fleet is a system that is working properly, in the sense that problems have been identified with a vehicle that is nearly 20 years old. When problems are identified, it is right that fixes are then identified and rectifications are put in place. That is what is happening with the MAN SV fleet, which should return to full capabilities early in the new year. In the meantime, duty holders have the ability to operate those vehicles within strict parameters, to make sure Army tasks can continue to be carried out. However, my hon. Friend will know that the defence procurement system we inherited is in need of quite significant reform. We have started that process already, but there is more work to be done, because we need to move to warfighting readiness—for all our forces to be able to deter aggression, and defeat it if necessary. To do that, we have to get on top of what could be quite significant issues with a number of platforms, and that is what we intend to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the service personnel injured in the recent training incident involving the Ajax vehicles.
The recent revelations about the Ajax programme raise questions that go far beyond this single family of vehicles—they go to the heart of how the Ministry of Defence manages major defence projects, our ability to meet our NATO obligations, and the safety of the men and women who serve so bravely. Meant to enter service in 2017, the Ajax is now getting on for nine years behind schedule, and after more than £6 billion has been spent, the Minister still cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that Ajax is safe to operate. Will he confirm whether the Department has prepared any contingency plan should the Ajax ultimately be deemed unsafe or unviable? If further delays or design overhauls are needed, what assessment has been made of the impact on our NATO commitments, particularly our contribution to the UK’s armoured capability? Our allies will be watching closely, as will our enemies.
Finally, given that this programme has been allowed to drift for so many years at eye-watering cost, is the MOD considering an internal investigation into how these failings were able to progress this far without detection? If that investigation were to be undertaken, could it be expanded further to touch on the issues already raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), about the Boxer tank, the Boeing E-7 reconnaissance plane, and other MOD acquisition failures over recent years? Taxpayers deserve answers and value for money, and our armed forces deserve equipment they can trust.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about our service personnel. Every one of them should know that the vehicles or equipment they have been asked to operate are safe, which is why it is important that we get to the bottom of what has happened. We await those reports so that we can provide confidence to our people about what we are asking them to do, albeit with the level of risk that both we and they know they carry.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the cost of the entire Ajax programme remains £6.3 billion—that price has not changed since 2014. We will be able to take next steps once we understand the cause of the issue, but the Defence Secretary has been very clear that we are bringing this saga to an end, one way or another. A decision will be made once it can be properly informed by the evidence of what has happened.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
To scrap the Ajax programme completely would be a very bold move, considering that the UK has sunk over £6 billion into it and it is nine years late. The vehicle is still making soldiers ill every time they get in it, even though Ministers both current and former have been repeatedly briefed that it is good to go. It is not good to go, but to decide that it never will be would be very brave. Considering that this Labour Government are the first UK Government since the cold war to increase defence spending, that they have a very ambitious defence reform agenda, and that finally confidence in the armed forces and the morale of serving personnel are going back up—certainly compared with way before I was in the military—does the Minister think we have enough confidence to take a bold decision like that?
Luke Pollard
I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. Taking bold decisions is the hallmark of this Government, because it would not be enough simply to tinker with some of the procurements we inherited, given the necessary increase in our capabilities to meet the threats that exist. When the defence investment plan is published, it will set out bold decisions, but it is really important in relation to Ajax that we get to the bottom of what happened during Exercise Titan Storm. The Ajax vehicle has completed 42,000 km of testing without such injuries, so we need to understand what has happened with the vehicles that have caused these injuries. Not all the vehicles on that exercise caused injuries, and that needs to be taken into account as part of the investigations. I am looking forward to those results when they come, so that we can make a clear and bold decision one way or another to bring this saga to an end.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I think the procurement Minister will know that I asked his predecessor whether the National Armaments Director would have carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to defence procurement. She answered from the Dispatch Box that not only would they have that ability but they would be held to account for so doing. Defence Committee members do not want them coming in front of us in a year’s time to say, “We wanted to change things, but they wouldn’t let us.” Now that the Minister is in his role, will he reassure us that the policy remains that the National Armaments Director, for their £600,000 a year, will be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement?
Luke Pollard
Rupert Pearce is already making substantial changes to how we procure and delivering a programme of change, with reform within Defence Equipment and Support and the wider national armaments director group that is essential if we are to achieve warfighting readiness. Not only does he have a clear policy steer in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, but I have witnessed quite impressive substantial change in the few weeks he has been in place. I hope that the Defence Committee will be able to hear from him shortly. There is a lot more work to do if we are to get on top of a procurement system that is too slow, too expensive and does not yield the results for our people that they need it to yield, but he is making a good start in that respect.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I am aware that the problems with the Ajax system have existed for years and that the Conservative party ducked the issues when they were in government. Given that the workers at the Oakdale site in my constituency are diligent and hard-working, and that Christmas is fast approaching, what assurances can the Minister give me that defence jobs associated with this programme in Newport West and Islwyn and across south Wales are safe for the long term?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. When I was in Merthyr speaking to the members of the General Dynamics team, I recognised the importance of the economic contribution that GD makes not just to Merthyr but to the wider community. It is really important that we look at what has happened and what lessons can be learned. As a Government, we are increasing defence spending and supporting businesses large and small across the country. I will be happy to meet her and her south Wales colleagues to discuss this further, if that would be useful.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome the cross-party tone that both Front Benches have adopted in these exchanges. This problem reflects a very long-term, systemic problem in MOD defence acquisition. While there are glimmerings of light and some brilliant people in the Department who want to do things differently—the response to Ukraine shows that we can do things differently—there is a need for a big culture change in the MOD to achieve that. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that people involved in defence acquisition are sent on the courses where such lessons are properly learned and that the change in behaviour and attitude actually takes place? If that radical organisational culture transformation is not implemented, no reform will work unless we throw out all the people and start again, and I suggest that is rather impractical. We must change how these people think and operate in order to change the system and avoid things like this happening again.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member. One of the hallmarks of a good defence debate in the House, certainly since I was elected in 2017, is that we have more in common across the parties and share a desire to get to the right solution. I am pleased that there is often less party politics in defence debates, because it is so important that we get to the right solution and do not seek to blame or attack. That does not mean that there is no party politics, but we are certainly united on this issue in wanting to get to the right solution.
On the hon. Member’s point about culture change, I entirely agree that it is not enough just to change the process. I speak frequently in the MOD about the necessity of culture change to adjust our processes and to learn the lessons from Ukraine to be faster and more agile. There are things that we can do and that we are undertaking, but there is more to be done. In respect of the senior responsible officer recommendations, which featured in particular in the Sheldon review into previous problems with the Ajax programme, those have been implemented, and there have been big improvements in the leadership provided on single programmes by the SRO reform, but I will not be able to speculate on what will happen here until we get the results of those investigations. However, I will update the House when that happens.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I fully recognise the seriousness of the situation and the need to fully investigate, which must be the priority, and I fully agree with the Minister’s comments about the need to keep our personnel safe. As he knows, Ajax are assembled at General Dynamics in my constituency, where more than 700 dedicated employees are working on the programme. I thank the Minister for visiting last month to mark the British Army initial operating capabilities ceremony, after many months and years of robust testing. I seek his reassurance that he will keep the employees at General Dynamics in his thoughts and offer them as much reassurance as possible. In addition, will he meet me, staff and trade unions at General Dynamics once the initial findings are known?
Luke Pollard
As we look into what has happened, it is important that everyone, including General Dynamics employees, has the opportunity to share any concerns. That is why General Dynamics, the British Army, Defence Equipment and Support and elsewhere in the supply chain have the appropriate whistleblowing structures. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and staff representatives, including the trade unions, which I met when I visited his constituency. It is important that we look not just at the Ajax, but at the other vehicles that are maintained in his constituency, to ensure that we learn the lessons appropriately, based on evidence. That is why I am deliberately not jumping to any conclusions at this stage; I am waiting for the reviews to come back. I know that many in his constituency will be eager to see the results as well.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, Lord West, who is also a former Labour security Minister, said in the other place that
“the Ajax programme, no matter how much one dresses it up, has been a complete and utter disaster.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2022; Vol. 826, c. 452.]
Does the Minister agree?
Luke Pollard
I always enjoy hearing Lord West’s unique take on defence policy; he has considerable experience, so I am sure he uses his words wisely. I am not going to jump to any conclusions about what happened in Titan Storm until I have seen the results of the investigations. I want to understand what happened with the vehicles that caused injuries to our service personnel and why other vehicles from the same family of vehicle, produced around the same time, did not cause injuries to other service personnel. That is being looked at as part of the review. Once we have that, I will report back to the House.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
These concerns are very worrying, no less so for those employed in the sector in south Wales. Will the Minister work with defence companies in Wales and with Welsh MPs to offer reassurances to the staff, and more widely to continue to ensure that Wales is at the forefront of retaining and growing job opportunities in the defence sector?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the staff. They can play an important role in helping us to understand what happened to the vehicles and why it happened. As a Government, we are committed to the defence sector in Wales. Indeed, we are in discussions with the Welsh Labour Government about a defence growth zone for Wales, which will take a share of £250 million. There are opportunities in south Wales, in particular using some of the floor plates and infrastructure around the General Dynamics site. I am happy to talk to her more about that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister knows that, as a former armoured infanteer, I have a keen interest in this topic, but I want to touch on the wider issue of Ajax as it relates to 3rd (UK) Division. If Ajax cannot be fixed, then potentially we will not have a formation recce capability. As it stands, we do not have one, because the vehicle is not deployable. If it cannot be fixed later on, that will be a longer-term issue, particularly as Scimitar is now out of service. Warrior goes out of service in 2027, and Bulldog goes out of service in 2030, with no replacement identified. The Ares platform is fundamentally not an infantry fighting vehicle, and although the Minister has assured us before that he is restoring the armoured infantry capability to 3rd (UK) Division, it is not a like-for-like replacement. Will the Minister look at the current ORBAT—order of battle—for an armoured infantry battalion and how the Ares cannot replace Warrior? A non-stabilised .50 calibre machine gun does not replace a 30 mm cannon. This urgently needs to be looked at, because the Army seems to be chopping and changing its mind and not to know what it wants from its armoured capability.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by saying that he has only a keen interest. He is by far the best parliamentary questioner of the Ministry of Defence, and that keen interest is felt upon my desk with 30 parliamentary questions every single day. I appreciate his keen interest in the area. He raises a serious issue. In reshaping the Army’s capabilities to increase its lethality, as the Chief of the General Staff is seeking to do, there is a necessity to replace old platforms with new and to adjust how the Army fights. That is in particular using a greater combination of deeper fires, drones and other capabilities. There is a role, though, for armour and the different variations of armour from light to heavy, and that will be what we buy, as will be set out in the defence investment plan that will be published in due course.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
More than 30 soldiers fell ill, so I place on record our thanks as a House to Army Medical. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the forthcoming defence investment plan, Army Medical, of which 2 Med Group is headquartered in my constituency, will stand to benefit from that plan and that we will learn the lessons from this Ajax incident?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for talking about Army Medical and 2 Med Group in particular. The strategic defence review set out how we need to invest in our enablers, and that includes Defence Medical Services, ensuring that as we move towards warfighting readiness, we maintain the ability to treat any of our personnel who may be injured or need medical attention. That work is ongoing, and he should expect to see investment in the defence investment plan.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This is not the Minister’s fault, but it is his responsibility. This issue has gone from Labour to a coalition Government to a Tory Government. It is now back with Labour, and we have a system that is nine years late, has cost £6 billion and has just injured a further 30 of our service personnel. GD is a US prime. Does the Minister think for one second that the US would allow themselves to get messed around by a UK prime in the same way? Does he have any indication that he can share with the House about defence contingency planning if he has to press the button to cancel this project, in terms of the CV90 or Rheinmetall Lynx?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is right that we need to end this saga. It has gone on for too long, and I am not happy with any of our equipment being used by our service personnel if it is not safe. Since I became a Minister, I have taken a number of decisions to pause the use of certain equipment because I had safety concerns about it. I did so again with Ajax, because the safety of our people is a priority for me. That is something I feel strongly, as a representative of a military city and coming from a military family. It is too early, until I see the reports, to look at what may happen next, but I reassure him that when we get to that stage, we will report to the House.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Ajax vehicle was ordered in 2014, and was due to be delivered in 2017. It has now been delivered eight years late, in a state of service that is completely unusable by our personnel. This is a catastrophic failure by MOD procurement. As we increase spending as we respond to the war in Ukraine, how is the Minister ensuring that MOD procurement is fit for purpose, so that we do not have another disaster like this?
Luke Pollard
It is important that we look at what in particular happened with Ajax and the Ajax family of vehicles, to see what lessons we need to learn and what decisions we need to take as a result. However, the wider point that my hon. Friend raises about defence reform is valid. Defence procurement takes too long. It is the system that we inherited in 2024. It is too expensive, and it does not allow for spiral development in the way it needs to. The procurement of Ajax was a novel form, where the platform was procured and brought into service, with iterations then retrofitted on to each platform. I am looking at whether that model and that type of procurement is right for the platforms we are looking to buy.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is hard to think of a comparable disaster without going back to perhaps the early 1960s and the cancellation successively of Blue Streak and Skybolt. I worry that if and when the decision has to be taken that this platform is not fit to be issued to our armed forces, there will be a huge legal stand-off between the MOD and the company as to who is responsible for picking up the bill. Has thought been given to sharpening the pencils of the MOD lawyers?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to speculate on what could be a decision made after the report comes back. The Defence Secretary and I are clear about the fact that all options remain on the table. We are looking into the causes and what lessons can be learned on the basis of the three reviews that I mentioned earlier. I hope that those who work in the sector and may be sharing information with members of the media will also share their insights and experiences with the ministerial review, so that we can take their concerns on board and ensure that when a decision is made, once the reviews have reported, it is the right decision for our armed forces and, perhaps most important, for the safety of our service personnel.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, and also for his unshakeable commitment to putting the safety of service personnel first. Can he tell us when the Ajax programme was last paused before this incident?
Luke Pollard
The programme was paused under the last Government when problems were identified in relation to noise and vibration, and I think it was right that they made that decision to pause it in order to understand what had happened. They then commissioned work to establish what had gone wrong and what mitigations were required, and it was on the basis of much of that work that I was given an assurance that the platform was safe. In view of the injuries sustained by our service personnel, we are looking at what has been provided to us, in terms of accuracy and timeliness but also to understand what has happened in relation to this incident. I shall be able to say more in due course, when the reviews report.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Under the last Government, the Conservatives signed a contract for £1.5 billion with Boeing to order five E-7 Wedgetail aircraft. The order reportedly circumvented the MOD’s established procurement system, and the RAF is still without an operational platform. The Ajax scandal has dragged on for even longer, and last week a General Dynamics manager used social media to ridicule Army leadership and those personnel who had suffered from excessive noise and vibration while using the Ajax platform. What is the Government’s contingency plan in case this £6.3 billion investment collapses, and, regardless, will they launch an inquiry into both platforms?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Wedgetail. There was a very good debate in Westminster Hall only a few months ago during which a number of the issues relating to the Wedgetail procurement were raised, and the first test flight happened shortly after that.
As for Ajax, it is right for us to take an evidence-based approach that involves looking systematically at the experience of both the vehicles that were potentially causing injuries and those that were not, so we can understand what has happened, and on the back of that we will make a decision on how to proceed. I think that that is the right approach, to be taken calmly and coolly but also professionally. I want the engineering reports to be the priority, and I want those who are working on them to have the time that they need to produce a thorough set of recommendations in respect of what has happened and what needs to happen next.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the action that he has taken on Ajax. As other Members have said, this relates not only to issues in that programme but to long-running issues in defence procurement, which, as I know from businesses in my constituency, is often too slow and too expensive and fails to deliver the effective kit that our men and women in uniform deserve. Once the investigations are concluded—as mentioned by the Minister—how will the lessons be taken forward into the implementation of the Defence Industrial Strategy and other action to ensure that our courageous service people get the right kit, at the right price, at the right time?
Luke Pollard
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are not waiting just for the output of these reviews to make substantial reforms to our procurement system. We know it is too slow, and we know it is too expensive. In the Defence Industrial Strategy that we published a few months ago we set out our ambition to cut our contracting timelines, to have more iterative development, to invest more in skills, and to deliver more of that increasing defence budget to British companies. We will of course look at what the reviews say, and I can reassure the House that if decisions are required, the Secretary of State and I will be making them.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Given the issues surrounding Ajax and the operational gap that this leaves in the Army, is the Minister confident that no capability and usability issues with Boxer or the Project Hunter alternative individual weapon system will come out of the woodwork? On Friday I met representatives of a local defence business who shared some of their concerns with me.
Luke Pollard
I thank my constituency neighbour for her question. If there is a local defence business in the hon. Lady’s constituency, it is not far from mine, and I would be very happy to speak to her about that. First of all, we are looking at what has happened, and then we will make a decision based on the evidence. That is the right approach here, but I am very happy to look at this issue. Boxer is a good platform that has not had the issues that Ajax has had. I have seen Boxer under construction in Stockport and Telford, and I have seen the dedicated workforce who are delivering that. There is the potential for more to happen there.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
While the problems with the Ajax programme are familiar, what we have heard today is quite extraordinary, because both the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said from the Dispatch Box that they have been misled by officials. That raises questions for this House, because we should be able to rely on what is said by Ministers in good faith from the Dispatch Box. Has the Minister discussed this issue with the Cabinet Secretary? I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi): Members from across the House do not think that these problems apply only to this programme; they are more systemic. What the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said is extremely important to how this House operates and whether individuals are held to account. What action will the Minister take with the Cabinet Secretary to address that?
Luke Pollard
I deliberately did not use the same words as the shadow Defence Secretary because I have not seen the evidence of what has happened in this case. I am reserving judgment about the advice given to me, but I am asking for a review into the accuracy and timeliness of it to ensure that the information given to me is right. However, I am aware of the Sheldon review, which highlighted concerns in the past. I have spoken to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I shall seek to speak to further Members from across the House and, indeed, to former Members who have experience in this area, because it is vital that we can have confidence in the equipment that we are asking the men and women of our armed forces to use. In order to make a decision on the use of that equipment, we need to have absolute certainty that it is safe. That is the decision that I will be taking with the Secretary of State once we have seen the reports, but I am very happy to have further conversations on a cross-party basis to understand the concerns and to make sure that our defence procurement system is accurate and timely and, importantly, keeps our people safe.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Defence innovation is vital in adapting our armed forces to the drone age and the war in Ukraine, but also to the Government’s economic strategy. What confidence can the country have in the MOD’s ability to deliver, given the debacle with Ajax?
Luke Pollard
Every single day, brilliant people in defence companies large and small deliver incredible capabilities for the UK’s armed forces. In many cases, we are using faster procurement and new permissions for our friends in Ukraine. There are lessons that we are learning from the experience of supporting our friends in Ukraine, including on speeding up the delivery of systems. We are also looking at how we can reduce the contracting time and enable platforms to be spiral-developed faster than what we have today. There are lessons to be learned, and the defence industrial strategy sets out a number of them. We will look carefully at the reviews to see what lessons can be applied to the Ajax platform, and if there are wider lessons that need to be learned, we will take them seriously.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Civilians talk tactics and veterans talk logistics. Although the MAN trucks might not be as sexy as Ajax, their loss, however temporary, will be keenly felt. Can the Minister outline what practical steps are being taken to make sure that the wheels are not coming off—so to speak—any other mission-critical equipment?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of logistics. I am reminded that without Colonel James Sunderland—a logistics colonel who sat on the Conservative Benches—the House is slightly light on that expertise at the moment. It is important that we look at whether the system is working properly. When faults were identified in the MAN support vehicle, the correct mitigations were put in place and then rolled out. I make a clear distinction between understanding what has happened and knowing what mitigations are required and how we will roll those out. That is how the system should work, but with the Ajax we are not yet certain what has happened. We have a number of investigations that will hopefully soon provide us with the clarity and the answers that we require.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and for his clear commitment to do better and to solve the problems. We appreciate his honesty in this House. It is understood that some 6,000 vehicles, some of which have been in service for two decades, are being fitted with replacement parts and that some were fitted incorrectly. These vehicles are used to get food, fuel and supplies to the troops. What steps will the Minister take to look at other Army vehicles to ensure that there are no improper parts in them, so that this does not create a knock-on effect on essential supplies getting to troops in the battle zone?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Army has a number of vehicles that, as we have heard in this discussion, have been in service for a long period. In refreshing our capabilities, it is not just the Ajax platform that we as a nation are seeking to update, but the Land Rovers and a whole host of other platforms. We are seeking to do so to provide the men and women in our forces with the equipment they need to increase our warfighting readiness.
Sitting behind that, we need to have systems that procure faster and better than we have seen in the past, and that provide more value for the taxpayer, even though we are spending more on defence than ever before, because I want to see increased value for the taxpayer. We are making sure that we deliver a safe working environment for all our service personnel, because when we ask them to do extraordinary things, I want to have confidence that the equipment and vehicles I am asking them to do those things in are as safe as they possibly can be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses.
Armed Forces: HIV policy
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am pleased to announce to the House that the UK is now the first NATO nation to allow people living with HIV to serve and fully deploy in all roles—supporting the UK Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and our goal of ending new HIV cases by 2030.
Following a comprehensive review, Defence is lifting restrictions that previously prevented people living with HIV from working in military aviation as aircrew or controllers across the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force, ensuring they can pursue any career path within the armed forces based on their skills and abilities.
Personnel and all those wishing to join the military who take treatment for HIV, and whose blood tests show no detectable virus, have been recognised as able to serve in almost all roles since June 2022. Today’s policy update now includes the remaining three professions: aircrew and air traffic controllers in all services and Royal Navy divers.
The review, conducted in partnership with the Terrence Higgins Trust and the British HIV Association, has resulted in policy changes across all three services:
Royal Navy: The review confirmed that military divers face no HIV-specific additional barriers, with no evidence of discrimination.
British Army: Defence policy has been updated to remove the indirect medical restriction on people living with HIV serving in the Parachute Regiment and airborne forces.
Royal Air Force and aviation: Restrictions in place for people living with HIV have been lifted for both current and potential aircrew and air traffic controllers.
I want to thank people living with HIV, Terrence Higgins Trust and the British HIV Association for their partnership in this review.
This is a landmark moment for our armed forces and for equality in military service. By lifting these final restrictions, we are ensuring that anyone living with HIV can serve their country in any role they choose, based on their talent and dedication, not on outdated policies.
This change is not just about updating policy—it is about changing culture, challenging stigma, and ensuring our armed forces remain a modern, inclusive employer that attracts the best talent from across our nation.
Four years ago, we became the first NATO nation to welcome people living with HIV into uniformed service. Today, we are leading again by becoming the first to allow them to serve and fully deploy in all roles.
[HCWS1127]