The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it has sought legal advice from the Government Legal Department on the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle programme, following a direct question from Mark Francois MP.
In a written parliamentary answer, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said simply: “I can confirm that legal advice has been sought from the Government Legal Department on Ajax.”
The response came after Francois, the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked whether ministers had ever turned to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department for legal guidance on the programme.
While brief, the confirmation is notable given the renewed scrutiny surrounding Ajax in recent weeks. The programme has again been paused for Army training after around 30 soldiers reported noise and vibration symptoms during a November exercise, triggering a fresh safety investigation and a new ministerial-led review. Pollard has previously confirmed that all Ajax use for training and exercising has been halted pending the outcome of those investigations, and that an independent review, including external experts such as Malcolm Chalmers, is assessing how effectively earlier recommendations were implemented and whether further action is required on safety.
Alongside safety concerns, MPs have raised questions about workmanship, quality control at General Dynamics’ Merthyr Tydfil facility, medical impacts on crews, and the evidential basis on which Initial Operating Capability was declared earlier this year. Ministers have repeatedly stressed that safety assurances were sought in writing from senior officials before IOC was announced, and that no symptoms reported to date required hospitalisation.
The admission that legal advice has been taken adds another layer to the picture, suggesting that the department is formally examining its position as it navigates the programme’s next steps. However, Pollard’s answer did not set out when advice was sought, what issues it covered, or whether it relates to contractual, safety, or liability matters. With Ajax already subject to multiple reviews, parliamentary pressure continuing from across parties, and further decisions pending on training, acceptance and rollout, the programme remains one of the most closely watched and politically sensitive elements of the Army’s modernisation effort.
Well that sounds expensive, I wonder how many meetings and how much this will cost the Tax Payer ?
should have done this eight years ago
It might have been, no date is specified.
As pointed out in the article.
Throw it in bin, sue GD for building a piece of **** and oder CV90.
GD UK was set up as a limited company and made 6k and 10 k loss last two years, their only asset is factory. BAE could take over the factory and fit hydro gas to AJAX and CV90 with Bofors 40 mm could be build their to replace Warrior so they get a product that works.
UK trading standards law states that a product should be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, perhaps the Government should have listened to the whistle blower in 2019 that said rubber tracks should be tested and the suspension replaced with hydro-gas. There seems to be no sign of “Lord haw haw” who goes by the name Ian, he often stated there was nothing wrong with AJAX, he said the problems were overstated and the vibration would not damage radios and other electronics. His contacts in General Dynamics knew best and everyone else was wrong, hope he enjoys eating his hat and holding his head in brown envelope shame!
Incompetent procurement. Duff product. A reconnaissance vehicle almost the weight of a main battle tank. Nothing about this vehicle makes any sense. Cancel it. And, I hope anyone injured during the trials receives compensation.
Yes, there were a quite few of them telling us how wonderful it was!
Pete this sales will follow the contract rather than consumer legislation because this piece of kit was not designed for individual buyers.
Contracts can include and exclude all sorts of stuff and it can also shift the risk.
Whilst the law will obviously play a part I suspect that this is simply a case of the MOD getting advice of where they stand legally and who is liable for making thing right (if indeed they are not right).
Impossible for us to judge bearing in mind we don’t know the details of product or contract.
Everytime I hear or see statements froms MPs the circus theme tune goes off in my head.
Too long the MIC has treated government’s like piggybanks always getting more money the more they screw up. They should be held to account .
But the government feed the MIC, it’s their priority, not actual military capability.
12 billion to develop GCAP?
Not buy it, develop it.
Someone tell me why when I go out to a restaurant for a meal why I’ve not paid to have the building constructed first?
The MIC has it made, I wish we still had in house capabilities like the RREs.
I wish Ajax wasn’t a bugger up. And they went ahead with that Blackjax variant looked so cool.
I also wish the military, heck the country wasnt a mess.
I for one hope the issues can be fixed and not all the fleet is affected. Many are still to be built and not all the 50 plus Ajax were affected.