Failures of government will receive to Brian Lancstaff's report on the infected blood scandal. I know you can't anticipate what it says, but would you agree that this is one of the most shameful failures of government in our lifetime.

Yes, and it's gone on over a very, very long period of time, decades. I had actually constituents come and see me who lost their son in the infected blood scandal, and they were showing me the photographs of... It's obviously happened a long time ago, but they were showing me the photographs of him and how he deteriorated. As a parent, anyone hearing these stories would absolutely agree with the premise of your question.

You make the point that it was a long time ago you saw those photographs. It's embarrassing, and it's tragic, actually, that these people haven't had compensation. What went wrong with the machinery? How is it that so many people are now saying, I missed it.

Well, talking to the parents, I haven't obviously seen the report yet. I think actually, by the way, when that comes out tomorrow, that's very important, that that's a day for those who've been affected, like the constituents of mine, rather than for government. But we will come back and respond quickly to it. But listening to those parents who lost their son, it just makes you angry inside to hear about all the different, essentially, lack of anybody taking responsibility, mismanagement.

Everybody had a reason why nothing could happen.

Exactly.

Including, by the way, the politicians.

Well, I think everyone was, I think almost certainly everyone was. Again, I haven't seen the report, but I think we know enough about it to know that. It just made me angry to know that they had lost their son without anyone ever taking responsibility without it. I think this is why it's very important, this report, and tomorrow, because it will give with that family and many others, the opportunity, and also the opportunity for government to properly respond, which we'll do.

I don't want to turn this into part of a political thing, but the thing that they would say they're most angry about is that it's taken so long to get the compensation scheme up and running, and that has taken place under your watch or your administration's watch.

Well, it's gone on so long. It's actually taken place under every shade of government, in fact, because it's not been a quick thing.

The decision about the compensation scheme, I think, is only four, five years ago, and it's just taken... I think what I'm really trying to say is, would you agree it's just taken too long, even in recent times when everybody knew what had gone on. Theresa May set up the inquiry in 2017. Everybody knew it had gone on, and it's still still still.

Yes. Look, again, as I'm not a real expert in this, in fact, when I checked, they're the only two constituents of mine or one family who've been affected. I think that's the other thing, that it's affected a lot of people, but over a very broad geographical spread in the country. Perhaps there's just never been that critical mass. I don't know. But yes, I think this has been too slow. Of course I do. I mean, you can't speak to that family and many others that will be around the country and not simply think that this is a massive injustice, which needs to be put right. I know the government said we will. The report tomorrow, I think, will be the day for that family and others. Then I know the government will want to respond quickly.

Will the Prime Minister, I think Prime Minister is going to speak about this tomorrow.

I don't know the exact detail, but I'm quite sure there'll be a full- Will he be ready to apologize? Again, let's wait for the Prime Minister to that. I don't want to mislead because I don't have a particular insight into that.

All right, let's talk about your brief. President Zelensky said this week that, and I'm quoting him here, We are in a nonsense situation where the West is afraid that Russia will lose the war, and it does not want Ukraine to lose it. Is he right that we are, in effect, creating a stalemate in which tens of thousands of people are dying needlessly?

I went to Ukraine, stood in Kyiv in St. Michael's Square earlier in the year, and I made a very similar point that it was a wake-up moment for the West, and that by delaying what we should be doing, and in fact, now have through, in particular, what Congress has done. We were running the risk of doing exactly what President Zelenskyy is concerned about. I think this is completely nonsensical for the West. We have to understand we are in an existential battle about the way that we run the world order, about democracy itself. It's one thing that it's bad enough that people in autocratic states have to put up with having no say at all about the way their country is run and the way citizens have to live their lives. But it's quite another when they try and impose it on free and democratic countries. And as free countries, we have to stand up to that.

When you say the West, when you say free countries, I know that you've announced this morning that we're standing more on who are sending more money, more ammunition, and so on. Who are the laggards? Who's not pulling their weight?

Well, look, I mean, first of all, thank you to the British people, because as defense secretary, I get nothing but support, not just from other politicians patients, but from the British people for supporting Ukraine. It is a fact that the delay in sending additional aid, and here, obviously, the United States Congress was slow on this, had left a hiatus in which, for example, Putin has moved into or tried to move towards Kharkiv, which is Ukraine's second biggest city. Now, I'm actually confident that Ukraine will be able to ultimately repel that, although there's a few difficult weeks ahead because that aid is coming. But nonetheless, that didn't need to happen.

You would blame partly the United States, Congress in particular. What about European?

I think the internal politics there, rather than the administration, specifically for reasons that we all know about, made it start to make it complicated. What about European? But yes, I think Europe has to step up as well. I make this as a wider point. We are living, as I said in my Lancaster house speech in January, we're living in a more dangerous world than we were 10, 15 years ago. It's It's really important, therefore, that we lift our ability to defend ourselves. That's why this government's committed to 2.5%. I want to see other European, as you say, I want to see other European countries do the same.For.

Example, I know some of your colleagues have been Are you thinking about the Germans being a bit-Well, I have to say in regard to Ukraine, they've actually, not in the first year, but subsequently, put in very large amounts of money.

I think that's been commendable. But I would actually say, we set a NATO minimum of 2% 10 years ago to be met this year. We've now raised that to 2.5%, but meantime, only two-thirds of NATO countries have got to the 2%. What about those countries who enjoy the umbrella of European security? Security, but aren't even part of NATO, so aren't even contributing. I think they have to think about this as well.

I don't want to put you off here, but you're sounding slightly Trump-ish here.

I think everyone should play their part and pay their part. That is certainly It's true because in the end, if you are in a country that does not spend on your own defense, but you enjoy the overall umbrella of a security apparatus of essentially Britain providing our nuclear deterrent to NATO, which we do, then you enjoy the benefits, but you're not paying in. In this more dangerous world, I think everybody does need to pay in.

There's one other point about this which the Ukrainians make. No matter how many missiles you send, how much ammunition you dispatch, if you limit their use, they can be neck to useless. Why not allow Ukrainians to fire on targets inside Russia?

Well, look, I can't get into things like sensitivities of targeting decisions other than to say-Well, no, this is a policy, and you're pretty clear about it.

You're open about it. You say these weapons can't be used for certain kinds of offensive-In fact-You've got to change that policy. At some point, you're going to have to go big or go home, aren't you?

In fact, the United Kingdom has been very forward-leaning about the way that our weapons are used, including in other countries, didn't initially do this, but then followed our lead in Crimea, which we see as an integral part of Ukraine. The fact it was invaded by Putin in 2014 doesn't change that. We were very open about, therefore, providing those permissions. Now, I can't go into, I know you're going to go me on this, I cannot go into decisions about how weapons are permissioned. But I can say this, Ukraine is in a fight for its survival. The United Kingdom has led the way. We are very helpful, therefore, to our Ukrainian friends, and we encourage others to do the same. But before getting into the bit of the conversation that you're getting into, which I think is, shouldn't they be firing on Russia? What I'd like to see is all of our partners, including Germany, who do have the facility to provide those longer range weapons, but don't allow them to be used in Crimea, which is part of Ukraine. I think those are the things which would need to happen first.

So a change in policy would be under... Let's just say it would be an active discussion.

Well, it's That's not something I can go into on a television program on air. There are areas of defense which are so sensitive, I'm afraid. They're just not for television discussions.

All right, let's talk about something that I hope is up for discussion. We told Mr. Putin in Beijing this week, and I was very I'm struck by the body language. We can see some of it here. These two men are not just in a marriage of convenience. There's a romance going on here. How concerned are you about this growing strength of friendship.

I'm extremely concerned about this because remember, these are two countries that do not believe in democracy, and Putin literally murders his opponents. That's his MO. That's how he operates. China doesn't share our values of freedom and democracy. Their entire purpose is to keep the Communist Party in place. If you have that situation and they're trying to spread their system to the rest of the world, we must see and have our eyes wide open that that is a direct threat to our way of life. If we cherish our freedom and cherish our democracy, then we have to be concerned that they're linking together and not just that Russia with Iran and using Iranian shehad drones and the link to North Korea, buying North Korean weapons. You've got this number of different countries making the world, trying to make the world or reshape the world in their image. And that is not good for those of us who love democracy.

The Prime Minister made a case, something like this. He talked about dangers threatening our country, China, Iran, cyber attacks, gender activists included, and he claimed that only the Conservatives can keep us safe. I was struck by something he said about labor. He said that labor have just one thing, a calculation that can make you feel so bad about your country that you won't have the energy to ask what they might do with power. Does he genuinely believe, as that implies, that Keir Starmer wants people to feel bad about his country?

Well, I certainly know that as an opposition, what they spend a lot of their time doing is sitting on the sidelines and sniping no actual solutions and take defense as your... Since you raise it as an example.

He raises these as great issues of moments as you've just done. And then he says, Kier Starmer is just running down the country. Is that really the spirit in which we're going to do politics now? Well, hold on.

Let's look at the actual concerns that face the country when we've just been talking about them, these existential threats. Kier Starmer says, Yeah, sure. Don't worry. I want to get to 2.5% of GDP spent on defense. Now, I I can't tell you when I'll do it. In fact, I won't make that decision. In fact, I won't do it because we've said we'll do it by shrinking the size of the civil service back to where it was before COVID. Kier Starmer has ruled that out. Fair enough. But if he doesn't tell us how he's going to do it, how can he be serious about spending the money?

Yeah, this is a different thing. He may have a different view about how to do it, and he may not express it.

Or not actually going to do it. That's dangerous, isn't it?

But what the Prime Minister seems to be saying, let me put it as crudely as this, that Kier Starmer, in some senses, His patriotism should be questioned.

No, I think what he's actually been saying is he runs down the country, snipes from the sidelines, and then when actually push comes to shove, he has dozens of members of his party, MPs, who voted against Trident. He himself tried to get Kier Starmer elected who wanted to leave NATO. I think actually the Prime Minister is quite right to raise concerns that actually easy to snipe from the sidelines, actually to do anything about it, or to be consistent in wanting to defend this country is a very different thing.

There are also internal threats, I think, that Prime Minister alluded to. We'll hear more from Lord Walnie about that this week. Do you agree that there may be a case for prescription of more organizations which support or encourage extremism than is currently the case?

Look, we constantly keep this under review, and so there's almost Certainly the answer. In the end is yes. We don't do that lightly, and we need to always preserve the freedom that we're trying to make sure that this country enjoys. So there's always that balance of free speech to be made. But do I think that there are organizations who are fundamentally trying to undermine our way of life? Yes, for certain. And of course, we need to watch those and decide when to prescribe them.

My colleagues here have been talking to Jim Rathcliff, the boss of INIOS, and also now part owner of Manchester United. He has a beef with you. 75% tax on oil and gas, he says, hurt his energy business, driving others away from the UK. But the important thing is that Ratcliffe is getting ready, it seems, for a labor government. Does it disappoint you that the business leaders are now flocking to labor events and basically writing you guys off?

Well, look, first of all, I read what he said, but I actually think he's wrong. For example, one of his complaints was on immigration, not recognizing that a large amount of the immigration last year came from, for example, Ukrainians coming here, and I had a family live with me. They were very welcome in this country. Same with British nationals from Hong Kong. I thought there were very good reasons why this country, being generous, has done those things. Secondly, I saw him refer to growth in the economy, and I just I noticed our first quarter figures at 0.6% was faster than America, France, Germany, Japan. I actually just thought that his analysis was wrong. Now, he's a businessman, as you say, part owner of an of united. He will have his own agenda going on, but I just fundamentally disagreed with what he said.

All right. Maybe one way of bringing these people back into the conservative fold would be maybe if you lose a general election, Conservatives Just might want to turn to an experienced cabinet minister, steady the ship. Let me ask you two things, really. If called, would you be ready to serve your party as leader? And by the way, what is the truth about schnapps with schaps?

Well, first of all, I see what you're getting at here, but I actually am somebody who believes that the result of the next election is not over until we fought that election. And by the way, 2015, Conservatives were never going to have a majority. I remember talking to you about it at the time. We did. 2016, we were going to stay in the EU, according to the pollsters. We left. 2017, with a very large lead in the polls, Theresa May, about the same size as the lead that Labor had now, by the way, lost that majority at the election, and that was in six weeks. I do not think that the result of the next election is out of the way. No, I've never had schnapps. Actually, I've never even tried schnapps in my life.

Oh, really? All the stories we hear about your generosity your colleagues are just wrong. I'm disappointed.

Well, I certainly am. I hope to be generous to my colleagues, but there's a huge interest in defense in the conservative Party and in the country, and I certainly try to keep them posted with what we're doing in defense policy, including winning that record additional £75 billion of investment into defense by getting to 2.5% of GDP.

Grant Chaps, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you.