Ajax
Programme
(Warley) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Ajax
vehicles programme. (900422)
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
I think that Question 13 was not grouped with this one to give
the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) a whole theatre
of his own to ask his question. I will be first to support that
when we come to it.
We have been clear that this is a troubled programme, and we have
not paid a penny to General Dynamics under
the Ajax contract since December 2020. Ajax will be a formidable
capability. We want it to work and for General
Dynamics to deliver it, but we will not take a vehicle into
service that is not fit for purpose. We benefit from a robust
contract and will make use of it.
But look, the Secretary of State has effectively admitted the
failings of the Ajax programme, which are very public and have
been comprehensively exposed by both the Defence Committee and
the Public Accounts Committee. Unfortunately, since then, we have
not had any indication—not even in his reply—that the fundamental
problems have been resolved, and the Army is facing a dangerous
gap in capacity. Will he either announce that he will scrap the
failed programme or give us an early, fixed and firm timetable
for such a decision? Stick or twist, Secretary of State?
Mr Wallace
The Ajax programme is a troubled programme. We agree with many of
the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee’s report. We
are independently testing a number of the issues arising with
that programme and we must ensure that, when we take another
step, it is evidence based. As I said, we are clear to make sure
that we bring it into service. In the meantime, we have withheld
payment—a considerable amount of money—since December 2020. That
is really important. General Dynamics wants
this resolved, and we want it resolved.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned that the MOD did
not pay General
Dynamics throughout 2021; by December 2021, it had paid £1.1
billion less than scheduled. However, the position is not
sustainable in the local economy or in the Welsh economy as it is
causing real anxiety among the workers, the wider economy and the
local supply chain. When will the Government give an answer on
what they will do about Ajax? I agree with my right hon. Friend
the Member for Warley (), who mentioned the report by
the PAC. Anybody who has had anything to do with Ajax will say
that, after 12 years, enough is enough and a decision must be
taken.
Mr Wallace
I understand the hon. Member’s frustration and that of the
workforce in Wales, who had hoped and wanted to produce a vehicle
that was fit for purpose and would add to the British Army’s
important capability. We have to proceed based on science and
evidence. Like General Dynamics we
are bound to a contract, and I do not want to say anything that
would jeopardise those positions. We have done independent trials
and, when those results are forthcoming, we can have a further
discussion. I recently met the head of General
Dynamics and made my position on the next steps very clear.
As I have said from the beginning, we will not accept into
service a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.
Ajax
Programme
(North Durham) (Lab)
13. What assessment he has made of the initial outcomes of the
trials for the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme.
(900429)
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
But not the same questioner, Mr Speaker.
General Dynamics has proposed changes to Ajax to address noise
and vibration problems identified in the vehicles. The changes
have been assessed by Millbrook independently, and we expect to
receive its final report shortly. We will not proceed without a
high degree of certainty, and we will not accept a vehicle that
is not fit for purpose.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley () said earlier, it is nearly
two years since the MOD had the problems with Ajax and no fix is
in sight. In December last year, the Minister for Defence
Procurement said that if the contract is cancelled,
“There is a parent guarantee in place between GDUK…and the parent
company”—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; Vol. 705, c.
1090.]
Is that specific to this contract or is it just a gentleman’s
agreement?
Mr Wallace
Given the legal weighting of that question, I think it best if I
write to the right hon. Gentleman with the detail. I would not
want to say anything at the Dispatch Box that would either cause
the taxpayer to suffer unnecessarily as a result of any legal
remedy or jeopardise a very important programme as we are trying
to fix its problems and roll it out.
