5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Q8. The world is becoming more dangerous every single day. The Ministry of Defence has said that it needs an extra £28 billion to keep us safe. Well, I know where the Prime Minister can find it: stop this nonsense Chagos islands surrender policy, and spend that money on protecting the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister commit to that, or will he continue to put the interests of foreign Governments and countries above our own?
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate today. As has already been laid out, the Ajax programme has been a disaster. It has been repeatedly delayed and enormously expensive. We have known for years about problems with noise and vibration. It is mystifying how these vehicles were signed off as safe, despite so obviously not being so. British soldiers have been permanently injured as a result. Clearly the problems with Ajax did not begin under this Government; the vehicles were expected to be combat ready by mid-2019. However, the decision about what to do with the programme now does fall to this Government. Whatever they decide, this debacle cannot be allowed to continue. The programme’s consistent failure sends a clear signal to those who have committed their lives to serving our country that, while they may be doing their duty to this country, the British Government are not performing their duty to them. How else are our armed forces personnel supposed to interpret a programme that has been repeatedly delayed, has racked up enormous costs and, as we heard last year, poses a direct risk to soldiers? When we ask people to put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, the very least we can do is provide them with functional equipment, on time, that does more harm to the enemy than to our own troops. The Ajax programme does an appalling disservice, not just to Britain’s armed forces—although that is awful—but for British taxpayers. The programme has a budget of £6.3 billion, enough to pay for the running of every court in England and Wales for two years. It is £6.3 billion of people’s hard-earned money. These vehicles do not work, and I would like my money back. If Ajax was the only failure, that would still not be acceptable, but it might at least be written off as an aberration. However, the pattern of the British Government failing their duty to the armed forces is, sadly, far more widespread. In March 2024, a former armed forces Minister told the House of Commons that the British Army’s ammunition stockpile would be exhausted in just 10 days of warfare. The Ministry of Defence has said it believes we will need to spend an additional £28 billion to meet its costs over the next four years—yet at the Budget just two months ago, defence spending rose by £500 million less than was projected in the summer. The Government have not just failed in supplying our armed forces with the tools they need to keep us safe. In repealing the protections put in place by the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, for example, they are opening the door to another wave of prosecutions against those who have previously served. How can all of that be the right way to treat those who have risked their lives to keep us safe? What message does it send to those who might consider enlisting in the future? What other country would treat its former service personnel with such disregard? Ajax does not tell the whole story, but it is one recent and important example. How the Government choose to proceed from here will send a signal to those who are serving, and those who might serve in the future, about whether their Government intend to uphold their side of the bargain. Regardless of political party, we should all want our armed forces to know that we support them, not just with words, but materially. I hope the Minister will provide some clarity on when we can expect a final verdict on Ajax, and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that future procurement is faster, more cost-effective and safer for those who are serving. That is the very least that our armed forces deserve.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing this debate and bringing parliamentary attention back to a subject that has not been properly considered for some years: the role of science and discovery centres within our tech and science ecosystem, the pressures they face, and the contribution they continue to make. I enjoyed hearing about the hon. Member’s connection to the Centre for Alternative Technology, which clearly has such personal resonance given his father’s link, as a founding member in the 1970s. I knew the hon. Member was a teacher, but I did not realise he was a drama teacher, which perhaps explains why he is so fantastic at carrying his voice in this Chamber and speaking with such incredible passion. I confess that I had not appreciated how extensive the network of SDCs is. The Eden Project, which I visited again last year, is just one of the 28 science and discovery centres spread across every part of the UK, and it is a perfect example of what these institutions do so well. It is a major visitor attraction, it is deeply rooted in its local economy, and it has scientific discovery and public engagement at the heart of its mission. These centres are not arms of the state; they are independent, agile and largely self-sustaining organisations, generating income through admissions, partnerships and commercial activity. Many SDCs were established around the turn of the millennium. Indeed, my first visit to the Eden Project was back in 2000, on my very first girls’ holiday. We did not, as Essex girls, choose Marbella; we chose Cornwall and Devon—very rock and roll. But the Eden Project really embodies the optimism of that moment. It is an old claypit, turned into a very future-focused and futuristic-looking plant wonderland with a scientific mission at its core. While there were early Millennium Commission grants and support, that funding rightly came to an end, and these centres have now operated for many years without routine public subsidy. That independence has been a strength, allowing them to innovate and respond quickly to new scientific developments and to retain the trust of the communities they serve. But there was always an understanding that the materials in the buildings designed for the SDCs would require renewal after around 25 years, which is now. Many centres have now reached that point and face major capital projects at exactly the same time in a far more difficult operating environment. SDCs are a distinctive part of our national infrastructure. They are the only places where cutting-edge science, public engagement and development of essential STEM skills come together under a single roof. Collectively, they reach more than 5 million people every year, and they have engaged with over a third of UK schools in the past two years alone. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) talked with beautiful passion about the role of science in his own life, having been fired up by an early visit to a planetarium. It was the same for the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). We also heard from the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about his connection to the Look Out; as he was speaking, I thought back to the time I was hit by a Segway in Bracknell forest, and I started to get PTSD. As SDCs rely on their own income rather than public subsidy, they have been particularly exposed to recent shocks, such as the pandemic and the energy price surge after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although Government support schemes helped many organisations through that period, SDCs fell between several stools. They were not eligible for cultural recovery funding, and they did not have national lottery support either. They survived those challenges, but they did not anticipate facing simultaneous capital renewal pressures alongside the impact of the 2024 Budget. We have all spoken to hospitality businesses in our constituencies about the sharply rising costs, particularly when it comes to employing people, given the national insurance and business rates issues coming through. Those pressures are now pushing some of these science and discovery centres towards a tipping point. Two of the largest in the UK have announced significant redundancies. One set of accounts explicitly cites the inflationary impact of the Budget and increased national insurance costs, and 75 jobs have already gone at one centre. Some centres have warned that, without intervention, closures within the next 12 to 18 months are a real possibility. All of this matters because the mission of science and discovery centres is to make science, technology, engineering and maths more accessible, engaging and relevant to people from all backgrounds. They provide trusted spaces where the public can explore new technologies to understand their applications and build confidence in engaging with them—a recent example is a project to demystify AI. The hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) mentioned how these centres play a critical role in the skills pipeline. Glasgow Science Centre’s learning labs programme has worked with thousands of teachers and reached over 100,000 pupils. That shows how these centres complement formal education and help young people to see themselves as future scientists, engineers and innovators. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about the importance of SDCs in challenging anti-science narratives. I congratulate him on his recent nuptials—I am sure Le Petit Château had a very lively night over the new year. Ministers have recognised all these strengths. The Secretary of State herself has spoken in this Chamber about the National Space Centre, which is in her own city of Leicester, and the role it plays in future jobs and prosperity. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is one of her Ministers, neighbours the amazing Dynamic Earth SDC. I know his constituency is not close to Montgomeryshire, but I am sure he does not want to take on and disappoint the Welsh mafia, if I may say that, in this Chamber by not backing SDCs very fully. That touches the heart of the problem. These centres need a Department to recognise them, engage with them and champion them, and DSIT is their obvious home. These centres were born of a Government-led vision to create trusted environments for public engagement with science and tech, and they have built strong partnerships with universities, industry and local communities. They are ready to support national missions, but they need the Government to show them that ownership. I have a number of fairly straightforward questions for the Minister, which are reflective of the very disciplined briefing behind the scenes by the Association for Science and Discovery Centres. I would be grateful if he could let us know whether DSIT will formally accept responsibility for the sector and act as its champion across Government. Will Ministers meet SDC representatives as a matter of urgency? Will the Department consider whether underspends can be directed towards the £20 million that the SDCs believe is essential for capital upgrades, which they are confident they can match-fund through partnerships? Will Ministers engage directly with DCMS colleagues on opening up access to national lottery funding for science and discovery centres? Finally, will the Minister make representations to the Treasury about the wider impact of current tax and business rates policy on SDCs, which runs directly counter to what the Government say they wish to promote when it comes to science and technology? SDCs are a quiet success story. They are independent, entrepreneurial and deeply embedded in communities. They support public understanding of science, they develop future skills and they are inspirational to future generations. They are not asking to be taken over or paid for, and they know what to do when it comes to continuing their great work long into the future, but they need help with short-term challenges that are not of their own making. They are asking to be recognised, engaged with and enabled to continue doing what they already do well for the benefit of science, society and the economy.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In Buckinghamshire there are many single-lane country roads, which is where many of the accidents occur. It would be wonderful to highlight that and how to address that moving forward.
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? She started the statement by saying that people are sick to the back teeth of Westminster politicians promising the earth and delivering absolutely nothing—and then she did exactly that. We on the Opposition Benches know what the right hon. Lady’s statement marks today. It is not a strategy for the north or a genuine commitment to a project costed at £46 billion back in 2019, as the current Prime Minister then promised; instead, it is a flagrant attempt to silence their party’s restless northern mayors, while Labour Ministers, who came into office with no plan to deliver on their promises, butcher the Budget. Let us get straight to the point. The Secretary of State can bluster all she likes, but where Northern Powerhouse Rail is concerned, we have no construction start dates, no completion dates, no published or costed route map, no sequencing, no idea who will pay, or by how much, and no certainty at all, except that it will not be what Labour promised ahead of the election. She says that this is a generational commitment. Well, at this rate it will turn out to be a multigenerational commitment. If the Prime Minister wanted to deliver what he actually promised in opposition, he knows that he would have another black hole of billions, such is the genuine uncertainty caused to the sector by this announcement. What we have is a commitment to fiddling with the paperwork without any secure investment for the actual project, yet the right hon. Lady expects this House to believe that this is some sort of investment in the north. She and her Ministers must be delighted that the Mayor of Greater Manchester overplayed his hand at the Labour party conference last year. Today he feels constrained to profess loyalty to the Prime Minister, perhaps with wonderment at his generosity—that is in public, but we all know what he is doing in private. Does the right hon. Lady take this House, her own Back Benchers and the voting public for fools? Whether she does or not, the Prime Minister certainly does. He wrote in The Yorkshire Post, with some gall, that this announcement is “a serious plan backed by billions of pounds of investment”, when we know from this statement that it is not. Can the right hon. Lady confirm how a £45 billion cap on a scheme costed as being way more expensive than that back in 2019 can possibly deliver projects already estimated to cost so much more than that value? What guarantees exist that schemes will be completed in full? When will this House finally be given the detail that it deserves? Perhaps she ought to remind the Prime Minister what he told The Yorkshire Post back in 2019, when he promised to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. Today’s announcement offers nothing better than dither, delay and a further decade away from spades in the ground. How can the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister pretend that this is the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail when it is anything but that? By their own admission, no budget has been set out. The cap in funding gives no confidence that funding that will have to be raised from the private sector or through local taxes is in place. Can the Secretary of State tell the House which local taxes will have to rise, and by how much, to fill the gap created by her own £45 billion cap? I know that the Secretary of State, like me, cares deeply about ensuring that Parliament is told the whole truth, but perhaps on this occasion it is the Prime Minister himself who should be lauded. He has said, time and again, that the cuts and downgrades that this Government have foreshadowed today represent nothing more than “a betrayal of the North”. Is it not the case that this is a strategy from a desperate Government to make a cut appear to be an investment, and to attempt to save face with the British public? Spending months and months hiding their mealy-mouthed plans, only to reveal them with bluster and misplaced confidence, is a sad indictment of a sorry Government. To come to this House today without dates, budgets or a plan for how to raise shortfalls after the cap is, frankly, pitiful. To spin this as a plan for the future is a disgrace, and one of which the Secretary of State should be ashamed. She cannot escape the fact that her party came into power with no plan on how to deliver on its promises, and its complete ineptitude in managing the public finances means that it is now having to U-turn on those promises. If the metro mayors and Back Benchers had any backbone, then rather than gelatinously jostling for position under the next Labour leader, they would acknowledge the truth in what I have said and call out this betrayal.
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for securing this important debate and for his wider efforts on this issue, including his private Member’s Bill and his early-day motion, which 44 Members from right across the House supported. That is the gold standard for how to champion an issue in Parliament, and credit is due to him. This campaign came across my desk for tragic reasons, as it will have for many Members here today. Last autumn, I met Maddy Tinton, the 15-year-old rider of Blaze, her mother, Jane, and Coral Sheldrake, the owner of Beaumont Stables in Old Windsor in my constituency. Last August, Maddy was riding Blaze on Priest Hill, a road that must be used to access Windsor Great Park from Beaumont Stables, when the pair were hit following a two-car collision. Disgracefully, the driver involved was travelling at 80 mph at 6 o’clock on a Wednesday morning. Thankfully, Maddy came out of the incident relatively unscathed, but we should be in no doubt that it could have been far more serious. Blaze was not so lucky and had to be put down. So often, the horse comes off worse, suffering the full force of a collision and often saving their rider in the process. I know from speaking to Maddy, who absolutely loved Blaze, the emotional toll that Blaze’s death has taken on her. It is clear to anyone who hears Maddy and many other riders talk about their beloved horses that we are dealing with a truly unique connection between human and sentient animal. That connection should be reflected in how horses are treated on our roads, in culture, in law and in practice. They are not inanimate objects; they are our friends. I welcome some of the changes that the previous Conservative Government made on the hierarchy of road users, and I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my letter at the time of the incident. I wonder whether she could develop that in her response to the debate, especially given the wider objectives of the hon. Member for Newbury and the Government’s recently published road safety strategy.
Putting money back into people’s pockets is vital for economic growth, but today the Government have signed the country up to the highest energy bills for offshore energy for the next 10 years, and to bills that we will be paying for 20 years. Can the Secretary of State explain how this will put more money into people’s pockets for them to spend in high streets, rather than just spending it on higher bills?
The Secretary of State mentioned the rollercoaster of prices. We obviously understand that gas prices go up and down, but they do come down. We are now stuck at the top of the rollercoaster he has talked about for 20 years. How is that going to reduce bills?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Too often when we talk about rural activities, too many dismiss them as relics of a bygone age. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know that nothing could be further from the truth. Horse riding remains a vital living part of rural life, deeply embedded in the culture, economy and daily rhythms of our communities. That reality makes it all the more important that we take seriously the safety of the horses and riders on our roads. My constituency is overwhelmingly rural—home to many stud farms, riding schools and equestrian centres that rely on local road networks as part of their everyday operation. Riders frequently use narrow country lanes, often with no pavements, limited passing places and little room for error. Such roads were not designed for modern traffic speeds or volumes, yet they are shared by horses, cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. For less experienced riders, these interactions can be especially intimidating. Horses can be easily startled by sudden movement or noise, and situations can escalate quickly if drivers approach at speed or pass too closely.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right and I wish her a speedy recovery from her own horse-related incident. What might seem a minor lapse in judgment from behind the wheel has serious and sometimes devastating consequences for riders and horses, given that the rider has limited ability to control a frightened horse. A further recurring challenge in rural areas is poor visibility. Constituents have contacted me about near misses on lanes with high grass verges and dense hedgerows, especially during the spring and summer. Such conditions can severely restrict sight lines, meaning that horses and vehicles may appear suddenly, giving drivers little opportunity to reduce speed or pass with the care that safety demands. I was pleased to see that Buckinghamshire council, a council I know the Government are keen to learn from, has worked constructively with the British Horse Society to introduce simple and effective measures in partnership. Horse riding is far from a niche pursuit. The British Equestrian Trade Association estimates that more than 1.8 million people ride regularly, with around 3 million participating overall. For many rural communities, riding is a source of wellbeing, fitness, employment and social connection. Yet all that is undermined when riders and their horses feel unsafe simply travelling on the road. One death is always one too many, and although departmental data records a relatively small number of fatalities in recent years, there remain far too many serious incidents. The British Horse Society’s “Horse i” app recorded that 58 horses were killed in equine road-related incidents, with more than 3,100 incidents in 2024 alone. Many of those involved drivers passing too closely, with devastating consequences. It has been said in this debate that changes to the highway code under the previous Government significantly strengthened protections for horses and riders. The introduction of the hierarchy of road users was important, but the reforms went further, including clearer guidance on passing distances and how drivers should behave when encountering horses at junctions. Although the current Government have published their road safety strategy, it is difficult to see horse riding as a clear priority within it. Despite describing the strategy as being “for everyone”, horses receive only limited mention and there were no references at all in the consultation to proposed changes to motoring-offence penalties. That raises fair questions about how the Government intend to strengthen protections for riders in practice. I would welcome greater clarity from the Minister on that point, as well as an explanation about why the THINK! road safety campaign budget was cut by £1.2 million last year. Could the Minister set out what specific campaigns the Government intend to introduce to make sure that drivers are aware of their responsibilities when encountering horses—particularly in rural areas, where these interactions are most common? Ultimately, rules are meaningful only if they are understood and enforced. Dangerous driving that intimidates or endangers horses and riders must be taken seriously, and penalties should properly reflect the risk posed by such behaviour.
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We are looking at around three and a half minutes each.
I will be bringing in the Front Bench speakers at 10.28 am.
I thank colleagues and congratulate them on their discipline. Last but not least, Chris Evans.
I will call Graham Leadbitter to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister—you need both. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. We are trying to bring this debate swiftly to a close in order to allow the proposer to reach Scottish questions.
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from Tatton constituents concerned about careless drivers on country roads and the dangers they pose to horses and riders. Does she share my concern about the changes to planning rules by this Labour Government—a Government who show so little regard for the countryside, as we saw with the family farm tax—under which green belt will disappear and cities will bleed into the countryside, making the roads even more dangerous, city dwellers not understanding the etiquette of country roads?
It is right that we recognise, despite the ups and downs in the relationship between our two countries, that the interaction of their histories and cultures has made them what they are today. However, relationships take work, so will the hon. Gentleman—I do not think he will have to declare an interest as a former distinguished diplomat in Paris—join me in paying tribute, as I hope the Minister will, to the fantastic diplomatic team that we have in our Paris embassy, and that the French Government have in their embassy here in London, both of which build and strengthen the relationship between our two countries, often behind the scenes?
I congratulate both the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and the British Horse Society for their work on this hugely important issue. The demand to speak in the debate shows the importance of this issue to so many hon. Members and communities. It is especially important in rural constituencies such as mine, which has a very large number of riders and horses, and is home to the Defence Animal Training Regiment at Asfordby. It is rare to be out and about in the constituency and not see people out riding in the Vale of Belvoir or other places; it is an activity that appeals to people of all ages and backgrounds. BHS stats suggest that there were only 21 incidents in the Melton area out of 234 in Leicestershire between March 2021 and the end of 2024. That is possibly because it is a very rural constituency, and many drivers are horse-aware and seek to pass sensibly—slowly and at the appropriate distance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for rightly highlighting the work of Leicestershire police and Leicestershire fire and rescue service, but of course every incident is one too many, and we do not know how many incidents go unreported. There is a strong bond with horses in rural communities, as there is a strong bond between horse and rider. I have been in the Minister’s place, on the receiving end of campaigns by campaign groups, and I have to say that some are challenging to agree to, but the BHS is very measured and pragmatic. What consideration are the Government giving to clarifying highway code rule 215 on treating horse and rider as a single unit, rather than as a person and property? What more can be done to improve communications and awareness? I suspect that many incidents arise from ignorance, not intent. Will she take the opportunity offered by the road safety strategy to improve safety for riders and horses, and indeed improve access to safe routes?
Q10. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy, but I and many others have concerns about stigmatising young boys, men and masculinity as inherently toxic, especially when suicide is the No. 1 killer of young men. Is it about time that we had a Minister for men and boys? This is about women and men, not women or men.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has already seen the chaotic, last-minute pulling of today’s consideration of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which has been moved to next week. The House will know that the convention is that the Government lay their own amendments ahead of amendments from the Opposition in order to give us time for consideration. The Government pledged to make us aware of their amendments before the House rises today so that we would have at least an hour, perhaps, to consider what we might put forward, but we are still no closer to seeing what the Government wish to amend. On top of that, we were offered a briefing on Privy Council terms, to be attended by myself and a colleague, which was cancelled at the last minute. The handling of this Bill, which relates to matters of national security, is chaotic. How can we ensure that the House is in a position to lay amendments that respond to the Government’s own amendments?
Four years ago, when Putin invaded Ukraine, people around this country opened their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian people, and I thank them for their generosity. I particularly thank those in my constituency who welcomed people to their homes, supported them, and continue to support them to this day. According to the latest council figures, there are just over 1,000 people from Ukraine in Lincolnshire, and I want to focus on them. Just last weekend in Sleaford, I met a group led by Kelly Breislin and Betty Berthebaud. I thank them for their work in trying to bring the Ukrainian community together, and in helping them to navigate the various different systems within the British state. I met women, predominantly, and children. I also met an accountant, a doctor and a dentist, and I met a masseuse who had set up her own business in my constituency. They were grateful first to the British state and to the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for supporting them and their country, but they were also thankful to the people who had supported them as their hosts. The Ukrainians told me of their trips out of Ukraine and the fear that many of them felt. I met two young ladies, who were just 18 when they left, as friends together, to come across to live with a family in Ruskington. I thought of my own daughter at a similar age, and how it would be to let her go to an unknown country, to live with an unknown family, in such circumstances. They told me about the cultural and language challenges they had. One of them told me about her recent visit to Ukraine at Christmas and the five days of power outages she had there, as well as about the difficulties and fear she had going back for that short period. One lady explained about how her life was on hold. When the Ukrainians first came here, they were quite content just to be safe and to have no fear of bombs. However, as time has gone by, they think of the jobs and careers they had, the futures they want to have and the difficulties they have in progressing them. For example, one young lady talked about the training challenges. She cannot do an apprenticeship because her visa does not last long enough for that, and if she wants to do a university course or a training course, she will have a similar problem. Someone wanting to stay has to apply for a new visa, and they cannot apply until 28 days before they are due to leave, but that causes problems with employment, and they are all very keen to work. I want to ask the Minister specifically about Ukrainians in the medical profession, because it seems to me that we have a shortage of both dentists and doctors. For example, the cardiothoracic waiting list went up not just last month, but over the last year, and it is higher than it was when we left office. Yet there is a cardiothoracic surgeon in my constituency who is currently unable to practise, and is instead working in a factory. I appreciate that time is very short, so I am not able to go through all the examples I would like to give, but could he or the relevant Minister write to me with the various schemes available for people with such skills to be able to use them to the fullest while they are in this country?
To start, I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made in his opening speech: we are at a major crossroads in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. On the line is Ukraine’s sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of Europe—in truth, the security of all of us. It can be easy in this House to speak in abstractions, such as the rules-based order, hybrid threats or deterrence, but the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain on the eastern flank; they spill into energy markets, cyber-attacks, disinformation and sabotage. Most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the west will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us and we must therefore be prepared for long-term tension. The outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat. I will touch on a number of the points that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, kicking off with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) spoke powerfully about the lion heart and resolve of the Ukrainian people, talking about their day-to-day life and how they have been attacked repeatedly by the brutal regime in Russia. She talked about energy and the barbaric nature of Putin’s regime and what it is forcing on the Ukrainian people, which needs to stop. She also raised a number of points about the shadow fleet, which I will comment on later. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), raised an important question about deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) spoke of an almost unified position across the House, with the exception of a few parties. I really hope that the parties that do not support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they are actually on. I want to align myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words about former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who played a decisive role in the early few years of the Ukrainian war. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), made the point that Ukraine’s fight is our fight—a point that we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. To put that into context, that is 20 schools-worth of children who have been taken over the Russian border. It is a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what Putin’s regime has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times over the past few years; I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. He raised the diplomatic efforts that Russia is now trying to push along, which are so intense because, I think, it has worked out that militarily it cannot win. We know that is the rule of the game now, so we must increase pressure on the Russians and play them at their own game. The chair of the Ukraine APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), talked about the pressure that the Ukrainians are currently under, again referring to heat and energy. I thank him for the work he has done to connect Ukrainian MPs with Members across this Parliament. I know how cold it gets in Arbroath, so when the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) talks about it getting down to minus 20° in Kyiv and says that it is a bit nippy, I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a number of important points about the fact that we all want peace, but that it cannot be peace at any cost. That is a point that we must continue to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised really important questions about the nuts and bolts of the politics. I will discuss troop deployments later in my speech. There were valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker); from my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley); from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done a great deal for Ukraine over the years; and from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the generosity of her constituents who had welcomed Ukrainians into their homes—a story we have heard across all our constituencies—and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who is also my constituency neighbour and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, talked powerfully about Russian intent. We all thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) very much for his service and his willingness to deploy if there is a deployment to Ukraine. Lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about war crimes. We need to remember that and enforce the law once there is peace. We all want this war to end, but we have seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace—a familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers: pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open. As Churchill warned, “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” It is important to state that if a weak settlement is reached, it simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop. As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace under its terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened. Conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe. Nor should Putin’s regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as if this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine. That brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine taken from profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I believe we need to go further—a number of points were made on that today. Several points were made about the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the reports that the Government are exploring a clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve. Sanctions that are not enforced are not sanctions at all; they are merely suggestions. As the Minister for the Armed Forces and I know all too well, Britain has world-class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations. We should be working with allies to deter, disrupt and degrade the Russian fleet. A number of unfolding situations are linked to Ukraine. The regime that is currently in power in Iran has been funding the Ukrainian war. Will the Minister say a few words on the unfolding situation in Iran and on UK troops being taken out of middle-eastern bases? I visited the United States shortly before Christmas, and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital: Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security. The gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. We have heard comments today from the Chief of the General Staff about the separation between the strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending. We must now match moral clarity with seriousness. Putin will not stop because we ask; he will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure that Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.
The Secretary of State will know that the Borderlands inclusive growth deal is an important factor in driving growth in the south of Scotland, and I am looking forward to speaking to the Minister next week about the deal. With such deals, the important thing is getting the money out the door. Over the years, a number of projects originally identified will not now go ahead. Does the Secretary of State agree that new projects should be brought on board, including replacing the bridges at Annan, which have been damaged in storms over recent years?
Among the catalogue of failure here is the news that the decision was partly made on the basis of a hallucinated AI report about an entirely fictitious football match. What assessment has the Home Secretary made on the extent to which AI is being used by police forces across the country? Does she know of any other consequential decisions that may have been made using unverified AI? Finally, last month, after two months my Select Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, finally received a response to our letter on this issue from the assistant chief constable Mike O’Hara, who said that he was “satisfied that the policing operation conducted with communities and partners was effective, proportionate and maintained the city’s reputation as a safe and welcoming place for everyone.” What is the Home Secretary’s message to him?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. What the Secretary of State has done today has given a massive boost to the profits of multimillion-pound energy companies, but will be paid for by consumers through their bills. What do the prices show us? First, wind power is not getting cheaper as promised. These are the highest prices that we have seen in a decade. Today’s strike prices, in a like-for-like comparison, are much higher than last year’s prices. If we use the Secretary of State’s own figures on the worth of the contract extension—he extended it to 20 years—the prices are 24% more expensive than last year’s. That is an enormous year-on-year increase, which is much higher than inflation. Can the Secretary of State explain why building a wind farm has suddenly got so much more expensive? Well, I can. It is because by setting himself completely unrealistic targets, he advertised to multimillion-pound wind developers that he would be buying whatever they were selling, no matter the cost. He flexed all the rules, he extended their contracts, and he gave the wind developers everything they wanted, and they repaid him with the most expensive prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade. The Secretary of State wants us to celebrate the fact that he bought a bumper round—in his own words, the “biggest in history”. Let us take his key argument on levelised cost of electricity. If he had looked at or replied to any of the letters that I have sent him, he would know that I did not agree with using a LCOE to compare wind power and gas power. He will know that I started—[Interruption.] He might want to listen to this; he might learn something. He will know that I started a full systems cost, which he cancelled, even though I urged him to continue it. That is because the full cost of these contracts to the consumer is £95 in today’s money, plus inflation and the extra costs that come with wind, such as turning off the turbines when it is too windy, having a back-up gas plant when it is not windy enough, and connecting the turbines to the grid. He has underplayed the true cost of wind in people’s bills. By the way, it is not just me saying that this is how we should look at cost; wind developers say the same. Sir Dieter Helm and senior economists say that we should look at the full systems cost. When the Secretary of State talks about the comparison with a new gas power plant, he is wilfully ignoring the fact that he needs to build new gas plants anyway. What does he think will power the country on wintry days when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow? Even his own plans acknowledge that it is gas power. In his plans, he will build the same amount of gas plants anyway, but he will just run them 4% of the time. Would anyone here buy a house that they use 4% of the time? Well, I guess out of all of us, it is probably the Secretary of State who would. Here is the problem: the Secretary of State is having to build more and more capacity, lots of which will sit idle most of the time, which means higher costs for a less productive energy system. These are all costs that the Secretary of State is choosing to ignore, but even if we use the figures that he is quoting today, which underplay the cost of wind, the truth is there. If we take out the carbon tax that he is choosing to impose, the cost of a gas power plant running fully is roughly a third cheaper than offshore wind. That is written in black and white on page 33 of the report, if hon. Members would like to check. He is hoping that Labour Members will not read what he has published today, but I hope that they do, because it should be facts, not ideology, that drive the decisions that we make for our energy system. People out there are at breaking point. They get up every day, they go to work, and everything they earn is being eaten up by Labour’s taxes and their bills. Last time we spoke across the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State tried to tell me that people’s energy bills are going down, not up. Nobody out there believes him. Energy bills have gone up five times under him because of his policies, and now he is celebrating this botched wind auction that has seen him sign up to the highest prices for wind power for a decade—prices close to 20% higher than the cost of electricity. The question is: how on earth can the Secretary of State bring bills down with these higher prices? That is what people were promised. This will be the private finance initiative of the energy system, and it will be in place long after he has gone from this place. I warned him that if he set himself completely unrealistic targets, the wind developers would have him over a barrel, and that is what has happened. He talks about fossil fuel spikes, but he does not talk about the ongoing de-industrialisation of this country because of uncompetitive electricity prices—prices that he is locking us into for two decades. I have three simple questions for the Secretary of State. Will he finally publish a full systems cost of clean power 2030? Will he confirm that he will still need to build gas power plants for dispatchable power? If that is not his policy, what will keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? Does he have a forecast for the constraint payments, and how much does he expect to pay wind developers to turn off when it is too windy?
This is a shameful episode. West Midlands police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let us call that what it is: vicious antisemitism. We cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country, yet that is exactly what West Midlands police, through weakness and fear, allowed to happen. The force should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, it should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred, as Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. Instead, the force capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans. But it gets worse. The West Midlands police force then tried to hide what it had done. The police fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed that a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. That claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed that West Midlands police simply made the whole thing up. The chief constable must be fired. A moment ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that, she as Home Secretary has the power to direct the police and crime commissioner to do things—including dismissing the chief constable—where “any part of a…force is failing to” act “in an effective manner”. That test is clearly met: part of the force—the chief constable—is indeed failing to act in an effective manner, by the Home Secretary’s own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with that legislation, I have a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act. We now come to the role of the Home Secretary in this scandal. In a briefing to the BBC on 17 October, a source close to the Home Secretary—we all know that means her special adviser, acting with her authority—said that the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban on 16 October, the previous evening. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee last week, and from the Home Secretary’s own admission just now, we now know that Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned, and that that was the police’s recommendation. Will she apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on 17 October? The Home Secretary must now answer this. She knew on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned. That was over a week before the final decision was taken on 16 October, yet in those critical eight days, it appears that she did nothing to investigate further, or to try to stop the ban. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the chief constable said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October about the likelihood of the ban, she merely “noted”—that was his word—what he said; she did not ask further questions, or show curiosity about what she was being told. She did not personally convene any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on 16 October, by when it was too late. She was asleep at the wheel at the critical time. Given the disgraceful events that followed, does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions—officials may have done, but she did not—between 8 October and 16 October? Does she accept that it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? By the time she did take action—after 16 October—it was too late. By standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the ban to happen and let the Islamists win. Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? Will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner to dismiss the chief constable?
Order. There are still 12 Members who wish to speak. I was not going to propose a formal time limit. Perhaps, before I do, Members could restrict themselves to about five minutes and learn from each other’s examples?
Members will be interested to know that I will call the Front Benchers at 6.40 pm. There are four more speakers, with a total of 12 minutes.
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Order. The hon. Gentleman will not speak about Grangemouth. The debate is about the Lindsey oil refinery, and interventions must be brief.
Order. The Minister will know that we do not refer to our colleagues by their names.
This has been a dark moment for policing in the west midlands. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for putting on the record her belief that the chief constable of the force should go. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with her. This has always been about the police being able to fulfil their role objectively without fear or favour. Repeatedly, the Jewish community are made to feel that they are the ones who are the problem. That cannot go on. We have seen in this instance that the police have surrendered to the pressure placed on them by an Islamic community that sought to create a no-go zone for Jews within the west midlands. That is not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to flush out antisemitism across public institutions and society at large? If she has not got time to expand on that today, will she come back to the House and give a statement as soon as possible?
I welcome the tone and content of the Home Secretary’s statement. She will be well aware that when Maccabi were drawn to play at Villa Park, there were attempts by extremist elements in the community to prevent the fixture from taking place at all. When those attempts failed, they moved on to trying to get fans banned because the club comes from Israel and the fans are Jewish. I have been to Villa Park on multiple occasions. It would have been perfectly possible for those fans to be escorted by coach from the airport to right outside the ground, and then away from the ground immediately afterwards. It was clear that Aston Villa fans were not going to attack Maccabi fans, but extremists elements in the community were. It is clear, then, that the police concocted evidence to support that case. Although I completely agree with the Home Secretary about the chief constable, the senior leadership of West Midlands police also have questions to answer about who fabricated that evidence and whether it was done under orders. If the chief constable has to go, surely they have to go as well.
Can the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that not a single offshore wind project procured in this round will be built with technology made by Chinese slaves?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of the Ajax Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. This debate has been a long time coming. Such is the Kafkaesque procedure for selecting debates that this application was granted only at the eighth time of asking; I had first requested a debate on this subject on 1 September 2025—over four months ago. Since then, the Ajax programme has gone from on track to throwing a track, and the outlook for the programme and our armoured capability, the future of armoured infantry as a concept and the current deployability of 3rd (UK) Division are now all very much under the microscope. In this debate, I am not seeking to apportion blame, point fingers at individuals or orchestrate a witch hunt. It is clear that the Ajax programme has been failing for a number of years, although I will go on to question some of the recent specific decision making regarding the programme. Accountability sits with successive Ministers. The slow progress on delivery appears to be an issue between the Army, the Department and General Dynamics. We can skip over the potted history of the Ajax programme—others will cover that—but, to paraphrase Rodgers and Hammerstein, “How do you solve a problem like Ajax?” Although it was based on an existing General Dynamics platform, the Army made so many additions and revisions to the existing capability that it is now considered to be bespoke technology. We are talking about a staggering 1,200 capability requirements for each of the six vehicle types under the Ajax umbrella. The March 2022 National Audit Office report on the Ajax programme details the fact that neither the Department nor General Dynamics fully understood some component specifications or how they would be integrated on to the Ajax vehicle, leading to consequential changes to the overall design, disputes between the Ministry of Defence and General Dynamics and, inevitably, programme delays. Both the MOD and General Dynamics have been criticised for underestimating the scale of the work, the technical challenge and the sequencing of the work. General Dynamics blamed the MOD for not having fully defined acceptance criteria; the MOD blamed the General Dynamics safety documentation. The contingency within the programme was quickly used up and the programme was suddenly four years behind schedule. Noise and vibration issues were recognised in mid-2020, with a stop notice issued in June 2021. All dynamic movement and transition activity was halted while the programme underwent a significant reset. The Army resumed training on Ajax in 2023, but paused again in November 2025. The programme’s issues from 2020 to 2021 are well documented. Those issues are a failure to establish effective governance, complex assurance arrangements, high turnover of senior staff, an ineffective programme board, weak project controls—the list goes on. The most stark, however, was “an over-emphasis on achieving its IOC”— initial operating capability— “target date, which meant that it prioritised time and cost over capability. As a result, it pressed ahead with the programme without resolving performance issues.” Given what we know now and the issues encountered less than three weeks after IOC was declared, I would like to hear an assessment from the Minister as to whether he believes that that is still an issue today. Initial operating capability for the Ajax programme was declared on 5 November 2025 by the Government; I stress “by the Government”, because several stages to that process were not made public until last month. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me: “All criteria for Ajax Initial Operating Capability…were met on 23 July 2025 and following a period of review, IOC was declared by the Army on 15 September 2025.” We know that only because it was written on a cake in a General Dynamics promotional video of the Minister’s visit to Merthyr Tydfil. Additionally, he confirmed: “Before declaring Initial Operating Capability, I received written assurances from the Chief of the General Staff and the acting NAD”— national armaments director— “that the vehicle was safe to operate. Within the letter note AJAX the vehicle was described as ‘demonstrably safe to operate’.” The Minister added that “prior to Ajax Initial Operating Capability being announced, I sought assurances in writing from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the National Armaments Director that the system was safe to operate, which I received.”
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. I was not going to cover it in my speech, so it is definitely worth adding to the record for the Minister to address in his response. The interim National Armaments Director, the new National Armaments Director, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff represent our most senior leaders within defence. It is hard to believe that they all would have signed off a vehicle platform that was inherently unsafe or where it was a sketchy 50:50 decision. How did we reach a point where four-star senior officers and equivalents had the confidence to sign off the vehicle’s initial operating capability, which then received ministerial approval, only for it to blow up in everybody’s face weeks later like a Wile E. Coyote Road Runner trap? The March 2022 National Audit Office report states: “The Department believes that the contract also incentivised GDLS-UK to prioritise production milestones over the quality and performance of the capability.” It goes on: “The contract incentivised GDLS-UK to achieve production milestones resulting in it continuing to manufacture vehicles while technical issues remained unresolved.” Can the Minister give any clarity on whether that is still the case today, given that General Dynamics signed off achieving all the criteria required to meet initial operating capability, only for the entire programme to collapse less than four months later? Initial operating capability was also signed off by the Army on 15 September, before ministerial sign-off was granted on 5 November. Last year, the then Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry stated that “The Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) is projecting the delivery of over 180 operationally deployable platforms by the end of 2025.” Despite the various travails of the Ajax programme, production has continued throughout the training pause. As a result, we know that the Army has received just under a third of all Ajax platforms across all variants. It should be noted that the 2022 National Audit Office report highlighted that the compressed programme schedule flagged that there would no longer be time to validate the design of capability drops 3 and 4 before manufacture. Given that we are now in capability drop 3, can the Minister confirm whether the designs were validated before these vehicles were assembled and delivered last year? The Minister also confirmed that “It is anticipated that a further 110 platforms will be delivered in 2026, with the remaining 297 platforms delivered by 2028.” With 180 Ajax platforms delivered, a similar number still to be accepted by the Army and all 589 hulls having now been completed in Spain, on current timelines the complete production run will have been completed by mid-2027. I believe that includes bringing all vehicles up to capability drop 4 standard. Assuming that any resolution to the current training pause does not involve the mother of all factory recalls, there could potentially be an idle factory in Wales. What plans are there for the Merthyr Tydfil factory beyond the middle of next year? With only 18 months’ work left to complete, can the Minister assure General Dynamics employees in Wales that they will have a job once Ajax production is complete? Can he assure those employees that there will be no redundancies, given that we have no plans to purchase any more vehicles and that export plans are yet to materialise? While I appreciate that UK Defence and Security Exports sit within the Department for Business and Trade, can the Minister confirm what progress UKDSE has made regarding any potential export sales? One of the main reasons why we are debating this topic today, and the reason for such media interest, is the social media content that has emerged from the factory and from Army personnel regarding the workmanship on the vehicles. To that end, I would like to recognise the efforts of Alfie Usher, aka Fill Your Boots, who has been instrumental in putting heat and light on this issue on behalf of service personnel. For obvious reasons, I am no trade unionist, but he has been the unofficial secretary-general of the unofficial armed forces union for some time. I know that the Armed Forces Minister has previously liaised with Alfie on issues, and—I say this only partially in jest—perhaps the Government should reconsider his application to be the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Government are struggling to fill the role. Alfie’s application got binned back in August, but he has been doing the job unpaid since then anyway. For those who do not follow Alfie’s account—any politician with an interest in defence really should—I should say that between the exposés and topical memes, Alfie has been the bête noire of General Dynamics and the Army, operating as chief whistleblower and ensuring that the voice of those on the ground can be heard. There have been multiple examples of concerns shared by him via social media on behalf of service personnel tasked with prepping newly delivered vehicles. A variety of issues have been highlighted and I ask the Minister, if he has not done so already, to include Alfie within the scope of the ministerial-led review to ensure full transparency and the inclusion of service personnel. They are the end users of this vehicle, and too often we ask our personnel to put up and shut up. An organisation that dines out on moral courage and pretends that it values 360° feedback should make sure that it listens to our soldiers, irrespective of how refreshingly blunt their views might be. The evidence shown by Fill Your Boots has put heat and light on the production and assembly issues upon which blame has been placed. During the first pause in 2021, the MOD and General Dynamics did not agree on whether the levels of noise and vibration of Ajax vehicles breached contractual requirements. Given that the same noise and vibration issues potentially remain unresolved six years later, can the Minister clarify what does constitute a contractual breach? Through 2020-21, General Dynamics undertook a supposedly in-depth review of the Ajax programme to confirm the root cause of noise and vibration issues, identify solutions and then validate them through extensive testing. They identified that noise and vibration issues were caused by the track, suspension and running gear; the engine and its mounting in the vehicle; quality issues including bolting, cable routing and welding; and performance and integration of crew headsets. The vehicles were thoroughly assessed using a noise and vibration calculator, whatever that is, to determine “the safe operating envelopes for the platform across different speeds and terrains.” The noise and vibration calculator provided by General Dynamics did not measure noise and vibration, which the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory raised concerns about. It estimated the maximum safe exposure time on Ajax vehicles for given conditions based on measurements from early trials. In August 2020, the first noise-induced hearing loss symptoms were reported by soldiers. In September 2020, DSTL discovered an error in General Dynamics’ measurements, which meant that vehicle crews might have been overexposed to noise and vibration. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has told me: “Whole Body and Hand Arm Vibration Levels were well understood, and effective mitigations were in place.” But they cannot have been effective, or why would personnel still be suffering from noise and vibration-related sickness? Will the Minister confirm that any analysis of the root cause of the current noise and vibration sickness does not use the General Dynamics noise and vibration calculator, and instead seeks to use a metric that does not raise concerns with DSTL? The measures implemented by General Dynamics included the implementation of an effective hearing protection and combined communication system, an improvement to the overall Ajax build quality, a review and amendment of build tolerances for key crew interfaces, changes to seat structures to provide greater vibration attenuation—that sounds very much like new seat cushions—and improvements to track tensioning procedures to ensure correct track tension, which reduces vibration. On the track tension, I am aware that composite rubber tracks are now mature enough to be viable for a vehicle the weight of Ajax. Although there are still issues regarding track replacement, given that the whole track has to be replaced rather than a single track link, I note that the General Dynamics Ajax Blackjax demonstrator vehicle at DSEI had this fitted. I ask the Minister what assessment his Department has made of the feasibility of switching to composite rubber tracks as a potential solution going forward? The 2022 National Audit Office report outlined that there were 27 limitations of use on Ajax vehicles in September 2021; 22 were safety-related and 11 were critical to achieving IOC. Can the Minister give the House assurances that those 11 limitations were resolved prior to initial operating capability being declared in 2025? Could the Minister also confirm what contractual payments were made to General Dynamics on the achievement of the criteria for initial operating capability in July 2025 or the formal declaration of initial operating capability on 5 November 2025? What is the total amount paid to General Dynamics as of today, and how much still remains to be paid? What delivery milestone will trigger the remaining payments? With those resolutions to the previous issues identified in mind, we know that three exercises took place between IOC criteria being achieved on 23 July and ministerial IOC declaration on 5 November. We have not heard of any instances of noise and vibration sickness occurring among vehicle crews during those three exercises. Will the Minister confirm that there were no noise and vibration sickness issues among crews during those three exercises? I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry what discussions his Department had had with General Dynamics, the senior responsible officer and the British Army regarding the Ajax programme between 23 July and Exercise Titan Storm in late November. Instead of a response, the Minister told me: “I have directed a Ministerial review that covers elements of his question. I will update the House in due course.” The Minister was happy to tell me that he met with key stakeholders, including meeting General Dynamics after the programme was paused, but, much as I have tried, the Government have scrupulously avoided disclosing any information about what ministerial discussions have taken place with stakeholders between 23 July and 5 November. On 1 January, I asked a named day question for answer on 7 January 2026. I asked: “how many noise and vibration injuries were sustained…between 23 July 2025 and Exercise Titan Storm”. Strangely, I have not received a response yet, a week after one was due—it is almost as if this is an issue that the Government do not want to disclose. Will the Minister clarify the answer to written question 101920 and put on the record how many noise and vibration injuries were sustained between the achievement of initial operating capability criteria by General Dynamics and the start of Exercise Titan Storm? The March 2022 National Audit Office Report states that the Department “knew of noise and vibration issues before soldiers reported injuries but was not aware of the severity of potential problems. Reporting of issues identified in trials was limited and slow, meaning that safety concerns were not shared or escalated by the Army or…DE&S”. Has that culture been addressed? Concerns were first raised about noise and vibration by the Army trials team in late 2019, but did not appear in quarterly programme reports until March 2021. To what extent have we seen the same issue repeat itself last summer? In December 2025, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me that “Of the 61 vehicles of all AJAX types involved in the exercise, 23 AJAX Vehicles were linked to soldiers suffering from noise or vibration injury.” I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed where those 61 affected vehicles were manufactured. Were they part of the first 100 Ajax vehicles manufactured and assembled in Spain, or were they later vehicles whose hulls were manufactured in Spain but were assembled at the Merthyr Tydfil facility? Can he also confirm whether the early production vehicles from capability drop 0 to 2, which were identified as not being fully compliant with requirements, have now been retrofitted and what capability drop are they currently equipped to? The Minister also confirmed that “On 22 November…during a routine training exercise, around 30 soldiers operating in Ajax reported being affected by noise and vibration exposure.” For 30 soldiers to be affected by the same noise and vibration sickness, with identical symptoms, as a result of a known issue supposedly resolved by 2023 is simply unacceptable. It is incredibly important that we are able to understand whether there were any instances during the three exercises prior to Titan Storm and indeed to identify whether there have been any instances of General Dynamics employees affected by noise and vibration exposure during the same period, prior to or after the 23 July IOC criteria achievement milestone. In November, I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry how many compensation claims related to noise and vibration symptoms incurred during the use of Ajax variants had been made since the start of the armoured cavalry programme. The Minister informed me that it would take time to collate and review the information needed to answer the question, and that he would write to me. It is now mid-January and I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide that information in his response. It should not take two months to work out how many compensation claims have been made relating to Ajax. If I were Minister, I would have a close eye on the running tally, particularly in preparation for this debate. On 8 December the Minister confirmed: “We are currently undertaking reviews into the medical injuries sustained by Ajax crews, and more details on the findings will be published in due course.” Will the ministerial-led review he has commissioned or the report from the Defence Accident Investigation Branch contain the details of those findings? In that review, will he confirm how many service personnel are undergoing treatment or have been diagnosed with hearing loss following audiometry protocols after operating within an Ajax variant? Regarding when the vehicles will be able to recommence training, any decisions on the pause are to be made by Ministers after the investigations by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch have concluded. That suggests that the pause will be lifted after the investigation but before the conclusion of the ministerial-led review. Will the Minister clarify the timeline for the investigation, which he previously stated would take at least two weeks and so should be approaching conclusion, and the ministerial-led review, for which we are yet to see the terms of reference, which were due before Christmas? I appreciate it will still be autumn until the defence investment plan is published in March. Will the pause on the use of Ajax be lifted before the conclusion of the Minister’s review, given that the noise and vibration issues may not have been identified, let alone resolved? This debate is about the future of the Ajax programme. Although the near future revolves around the resolution of the immediate issues that followed Exercise Titan Storm, beyond that the programme will need to achieve full operating capability, but crucially, it will be the tip of the spear in our armoured doctrine. So, a good start would be to have an armoured doctrine that is coherent. In 2014, we ordered 589 vehicles out of an optional 1,328—below the Army’s required fleet size at the time of 686. Although that was not necessarily a defining error at the time, subsequent decisions, even as recently as last summer, have compounded the issue, bringing us to a situation where our armoured fleet is now completely unbalanced—increasingly so given the evolution of modern conflict since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the ubiquity of drones at all levels, and the current global arms race. When Ajax was commissioned, we were still undertaking combat operations in Afghanistan. Since then, we have had multiple defence reviews, and changed our focus to the Indo-Pacific and now to the High North, and now we are talking about putting troops in eastern Europe as a deterrent to a belligerent Russia. The irony is that we still have much of the same armour designed to do that job the first time round. The original plan was for Ajax, alongside Boxer and Challenger 3, to provide the backbone of the Army’s armoured capability within Integrated Force 2030. March 2021’s “Defence in a Competitive Age” outlines how the Army would use Ajax in its two close-combat armoured brigade combat teams, and as part of its deep reconnaissance strike brigade combat team—formations that are now putatively in place. We cannot discuss the future of the Ajax programme without discussing how the Army plans to use Ajax within those brigade combat teams. As somebody with a background in armoured infantry, who formerly held an admittedly niche specialisation in anti-tanks, I have more than a keen interest in the future of our armoured capability. Being something of a tank-spotter, I note some glaring capability gaps based on the information provided by Ministers over the past year or so. Let us start with the basics. In December 2024, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement and Industry, stated in a written answer to my question: “On current plans, Boxer will be delivered to four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions and Divisional Enablers.” Seven months later, however, on 15 July, she stated: “The Army intends to reorganise its Heavy Forces units in 3 Division, such that all four would become Armoured Infantry Units based on the Ajax and Boxer family of vehicles.” She subsequently went on to state: “The Army intends to equip the Regular Infantry Units within 3 (UK) Division with Ares in the infantry troop carrying role: 1 Mercian, 1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 1 Royal Welsh and 5 Rifles.” What happened between December 2024 and July 2025 that saw such a fundamental change to the future of the infantry, and indeed our entire armoured capability? The number of Ares platforms to be provided has not changed since 2014: just 93. For reference, the current land equipment table shows that we currently have 604 Warrior. Ares’s role was originally “protected mobility reconnaissance support” and latterly to “deliver and support specialist troops”. It has never once been earmarked as an infantry-fighting vehicle. The present Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), then gave this written response to my question: “The Ares variant of Ajax is designed for mounted close combat and is being delivered to the Field Army. The decision to field Ares with Infantry Battalions was taken after a considerable assessment programme.” I would be interested to know whether the aim of the Ares assessment programme was simply to justify the existing total of 589 vehicles, or actually to highlight the capability required, because whichever question the Army asks, the answer always appears to be 589 Ajax vehicles. I asked to see the outcome of that assessment programme but was told that its disclosure would “be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces”. I suggest that, given the enemy knows that Ares does not have any armour-defeating weapons capability, the issue around prejudicing capability lies elsewhere. Let’s walk that back a step. In my opinion, the Ares variant is not designed for mounted close combat. It is equipped with a remote weapon station that can mount a 50-calibre machine gun at the heaviest. As someone whose specialisation in the Army was armoured infantry, I know my way around a 30 mm canon. A 50-cal cannot defeat armour; it is no substitute for 40 mm APFSDS, which is the round that its Ajax brother uses. In September, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport stated in a written answer that Ares would be, “used to deliver and support specialist troops across the battlefield. The term ‘specialist troops’ is used informally, and in this context refers to Anti-Tank Javelin Teams, Snipers and Support Troops.” But by November that had changed again, with the same Minister contradictorily stating: “Anti-tank platoons within Armoured Infantry units will be equipped with Boxer variants”. So which is it: Ares or Boxer for Javelin platoons? Will armoured infantry battalions be tracked or a mix of wheeled and tracked, with the logistical implications of that? Will Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments have both Ajax and Boxer repair and recovery variants? Where are we going to keep the additional vehicles? What is the training burden of mixed armoured fleets, thereby doubling driving cadres, maintenance training, and vehicle commanders’ courses? Have we even bought a recovery variant of Boxer yet? The Army’s own website suggests it is not one of the variants within the 623. This approach is incoherent and suggests that the Army does not really know what to do with the capability it will shortly have.
I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend that Boxer is a vital capability—even more so, given the training pause that we are now encountering with Ajax—and we need to get Boxer into service as quickly as possible. I welcome the speeding up of that process overall. Meanwhile in October, the then Minister for the Armed Forces had stated: “Currently ARES will be fielded to Training Regiments, Armoured Cavalry units and Armoured Infantry units.” As I said, we have ordered only 93. For reference, in order to reflect the establishment of an armoured infantry battalion, we would need 45 Ares to replace the capacity of the Warrior FV510, notwithstanding how many Athena variants we would need to cover the 511 command variant. Where is the capacity to have vehicles at training regiments and armoured cavalry units? There is no redundancy built into the current vehicle fleet. The 93 Ares platforms equate to just 23 per battalion with no spare capacity, which is not even enough to replace three rifle companies’ worth of the Warrior FV510 variant. Can the Minister explain what the future establishment of these armoured infantry battalions will be? I appreciate that he will not have that information to hand—I do not think the Army knows yet—but will he write to me and explain how an armoured infantry battalion will be structured using Ares and Boxer? The demise of Warrior leaves a yawning capability gap that will be difficult to adequately replace without a new IFV. The then Minister for the Armed Forces stated that, “there is no direct replacement for Warrior”, and: “There are no plans to extend the out-of-service date for Warrior beyond 2027, and as such an extension is not under consideration.” The then Minister also stated: “As the ARES platform is delivered into service, tactical doctrines will be reviewed accordingly.” I do not expect the Minister to answer the question or to know the ins and outs of armoured infantry doctrine, but he should raise the question with the Land Warfare Centre, and with the infantry battalions that will receive Ares, to ask them how the platform will be used and what capability will then be lost. By removing a main armament from the armoured infantry’s firepower we fundamentally change the way that the vehicle is fought. It changes the way the vehicle can move cross-country, effectively removes the option to move in bounding overwatch, and means it can never engage enemy armour. Doctrinally, it turns the armoured infantry into mechanised infantry. Doctrinally, Ares is more akin to the Mk3 Bulldog. Despite that, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry this week informed me that Ares “is more suitable to be employed in the direct battle, rather than in the close support role”. Given the glaring absence of a main armament on Ares, I would dispute that assessment, which seems convenient rather than well thought through. Bulldog itself is due to be replaced in 2030, so what progress has been made in procurement of the Patria 6x6? Crucially, in December, the same Minister stated: “There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.” With that in mind, and given that the entire Ajax fleet is grounded for an unspecified length of time pending an investigation by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch, with support from the Army Safety Investigation Team and General Dynamics, can the Minister state how the armoured reconnaissance capability of the British Army is currently being provided given that statement, and therefore what is the deployability of 3rd (UK) Division without any formation or armoured reconnaissance capability, or even the deployability of an armoured battle group from within 3 Div? The parlous state of the British Army’s armoured capability is on the cusp of being thrust into stark relief by the Prime Minister’s announcement last week that we had committed troops to the multinational force for Ukraine. While any detail on that force structure is currently pure speculation, it was reported by The Times that those troop numbers would not exceed 7,500. On a three-form cycle, that is circa 22,000 troops—the majority of the field army. If they are to be more than a speed bump for the vanguard of the Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, they will need capability that they simply do not have today. Challenger 3 has no timeline, with manufacturing due to commence only once the tank’s performance has been proven in the demonstration phase. It is not going to appear anytime soon. The Government have no plan for the remaining 140 Challenger 2s that are not due to be upgraded, and not even a promise that the plan will be outlined in the mythical defence investment plan. That is against the backdrop that the defence investment plan is unfunded, with a black hole of somewhere around £20 billion, give or take an Ajax programme budget. There will be cuts, and there will be delays. Out-of-service dates are going to be stretched to their limits. Bulldog is already 63 years old, and I am sure that it is no coincidence that it will be 67 when it reaches its out-of-service retirement date. The Chief of the General Staff wants to implement the 20-40-40 land warfare concept, of which Ajax is a key part, working in tandem with Project Asgard. That is the capability that could and should provide a continuous on-land deterrent along the eastern flank defensive line, reduce our sensor-to-effector time, and achieve the nebulous tenfold increase in lethality by reducing the kill chain to well inside the sub-seven-minute timeframe that defines the current frontline in Ukraine. Ajax cannot be scrapped. The Army needs it. There is no plan B, and given that it is a fixed-price contract, scrapping it will save no money anyway, despite Ministers confirming that the Government have sought legal advice from the Government Legal Department. The Government have not even considered a viable alternative option in CV90, and starting that process from scratch will take the best part of a decade before we even see a vehicle, based on current queues. Put simply, Ajax needs to be delivered, primarily because the Army needs to restore its armoured reconnaissance capability. Additionally, there is a second order effect: confidence. The British Army badly needs to restore faith in Ajax as a platform. For all the negative stories and press, the Army and the Government must work out how to rebuild confidence in their ailing platform. I know what it is to be given kit that I do not have confidence in, and to have to use it on operations and wonder whether it will let me down, or worse. I know that the Minister can sympathise with that view. We must restore faith in the platform, not only for the soldiers expected to operate with it, but for its appeal from an investor and export position. The long-term future of Ajax depends on the ability of General Dynamics to sell it overseas. The most advanced armoured fighting vehicle in its class should be an easy sell to the nations currently in the process of rearming and upgrading. We have a history of exquisite sovereign capability that nobody else really wants: Challenger 2, Warrior, even the SA80. Each of those has suffered from a lack of development over its life cycle, too often a day late and a dollar short.
I thank my hon. Friend again, and I absolutely concur. With the delays to Ajax, we can no longer afford to fail to upgrade Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. The fact that the timeline of that has slipped to indefinite is a serious concern for our armoured capability. A successful export programme would fuel development of the platform and allow it to improve over multiple iterations. It would enhance our own capability, and allow us to benefit from the first-mover advantage of adopting a common vehicle platform that can be expanded with the addition of an IFV and a mortar variant, putting us in the vanguard of armoured development in the drone age. But that cannot happen without the vehicle proving its capability—first with the soldiers, then with our allies. In a crowded field, that should be a top priority. In “The Iliad”, Ajax loses a competition to Odysseus and, distraught by the result and conquered by his own grief, plunges his sword into his own chest, killing himself out of shame at his own failure. The irony should not be lost on any of us. Fix Ajax, and fix it quickly. There is a war coming.
I thank everybody who participated in this very detailed debate. The Welsh Members who spoke represented the workers at the factory in Merthyr Tydfil extremely well; it is important that their voices are also heard in this debate. From my perspective, it is very important that we focus on how to deliver Ajax as a capability. I appreciate everything that the Minister said about the changing character of conflict and the changing nature of warfare. Ukraine has certainly moved the dial, particularly on armoured warfare and the survivability and lethality of armour going forward, and I know that the Chief of the General Staff has a very detailed view on how he wants to progress our lethality across the Army, particularly with regard to what that looks like going forward. Ajax is in danger of being superseded by events; indeed, there is a potential that it is almost out of date. It is important that we consider how to make it relevant for the future, given that it has had a significant investment. Yes, it is late, but we can still utilise it, if we can harness its capability. I spoke to soldiers who have used the platform successfully—there are some—and they were positive about the capability of the vehicle. The wider issue is that we do not have an armoured capability that backs that up. It is the tip of the spear, but the handle of the spear is not up to standard. There are some serious concerns around how we maintain the capability of Challenger and what the armoured infantry looks like in the future. I would like to thank everybody for participating in the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of the Ajax Programme.
Q15. Ahead of the forthcoming consultation on local government reorganisation, last month Huntingdonshire district council voted for option E, a Huntingdonshire unitary council. That was a cross-party view, and the Prime Minister’s own Labour councillors voted in favour of it. There is a suspicion locally that the Government favour option D, proposed by the Labour eastern regional office, which would see Huntingdonshire, and my constituency, split in two and combined with Peterborough. Will the Prime Minister offer assurances to my constituents and people across Huntingdonshire that the decision is not already a done deal, and that the democratic will of Huntingdonshire district council will not be overridden to satisfy an unelected Labour regional office?
While we are on the subject of Russian war crimes, James Scott Rhys Anderson is one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried—the Foreign Office believes on false charges—and charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia. He was sentenced to five years in a Russian prison, and will then be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. What progress has been made on securing his release?