IF YOU want an illustration of how the arms industry helps push Britain’s foreign policy towards confrontation, you could look at some documents I got from the Foreign Office about the Aukus pact.

They show that Foreign Office ministers are really keen on hanging out with bomb- and missile-makers and asking them what they need from our foreign policy.

Aukus is a very big deal in political circles which gets much less press than it deserves. Aukus is the Australian-UK-US deal signed in 2021 to increase military spending by the three nations to “deter” China from getting too big for its boots.

Pillar 1 of Aukus means Australia getting nuclear subs to sail around the Pacific to scare China off. Pillar 2 means investment in all kinds of new high-tech weapons, also to “deter” China. Thanks to low-key reporting, I don’t think it’s widely understood in Britain that we are signed up for a new arms race with China.

The Financial Times summarised what the partners want from Aukus as follows: “For the Biden administration, Aukus has rapidly become a centrepiece of its efforts to contain Chinese power. For Australia, it is a far-reaching choice to tighten its military ties with the US. For Britain, it is a symbol of the country’s renewed global ambitions.”

There is growing criticism of Aukus in Australia, where senior politicians are asking if it is a good idea to sign up to a 20-year plan for closer military ties with the US in a sort of new cold war with China, given the US doesn’t look that reliable, especially with Donald Trump close to the presidency.

But in Britain, there is little discussion, even though the “UK’s renewed global ambitions” sounds like Britain yet again getting caught in ridiculous military posturing instead of focusing on trying to rebuild our stretched social and industrial infrastructure.

While there is little discussion in the newspapers, there is plenty of activity behind the scenes which shows the Foreign Office sees Aukus as a boon for British arms firms. Freedom of information documents I got show potential arms sales excite the Foreign Office as much as the idea of “deterrence.”

I asked for notes for Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s visit to last July’s Royal International Air Tattoo. The heavily redacted “Official-Sensitive” document shows she went on arms export business.

The notes say the tattoo is “a valuable chance for you to explore future opportunities for defence and security exports to the Indo-Pacific, and to support broader HMG [His Majesties Government] priorities in the defence sector,” adding the advice: “Dress code — Smart (lounge suit/summer dress).”

It’s interesting to know the Foreign Office has a dress code for ministers meeting arms companies and that a “summer dress” is the right thing to wear when hanging out with bomb-makers.

Many families enjoy the air tattoo, hoping to support the RAF and enjoy air displays, but it is also a major arms fair. The notes make clear Trevelyan is going to the tattoo because “you have been invited to the Babcock, Boeing and Airbus chalets.” These arms firms do business at the tattoo in the temporary “chalets” erected around the runways at RAF Fairford.

I obtained the preparatory notes for her lunch with Babcock at the tattoo. They say Trevelyan should tell Babcock she is “keen to understand” its “view of opportunities for systems and equipment exports” and ask “how can the British government help?” with these exports.

The document notes Babcock is “Britain’s second-largest defence contractor after BAE Systems” and the firm has already sold a military comms system to Australia, so is well placed for more “defence and security exports in the Indo-Pacific.”

The Babcock meeting was one of around 20 Aukus-linked meetings Trevelyan held with arms firms over the last year. Trevelyan is a Foreign Office rather than Trade Department minister, so this shows our “diplomacy” is heavily influenced by government enthusiasm for arms sales.

I also obtained notes for another meeting between Trevelyan and BAE Systems chief executive held at last September’s DSEI arms fair in London. The notes say that Aukus is a “key opportunity” needing “a whole government approach to deliver for Britain and wider enterprise (not just defence).”

The Foreign Office sees Aukus as a “key campaign” for them to win business for arms firms, not just a diplomatic/defence plan to deter China. The notes say Trevelyan should ask BAE “What do you need from government to make the most of this once-in-a-generation opportunity?”

Labour’s John Healey and David Lammy are also enthusiasts for both Aukus and the arms industry, so a change of government won’t mean the Foreign Office stops having arms sales as one of its “key campaigns.”

NHS: digital dangers abound

Both Labour and Tory ministers think the answer to NHS underinvestment can be magically fixed with “information technology.” Health Secretary Steve Barclay promotes “digital innovation” while his shadow Wes Streeting says “Labour’s reform agenda will turn the NHS on its head” moving from “analogue to digital.”

But digital isn’t a magic wand, it is something that requires hospitals to invest in training, skills and staff.

This was underlined by a BBC investigation earlier this month that found IT systems failures were linked to the deaths of three patients and more than 100 instances of serious harm at NHS hospital trusts in England.

Nearly half of hospital trusts with electronic patient systems reported issues that could affect patients. Electronic health records can make hospitals more organised and efficient — but like any IT system, they can also go wrong.

Cash-strapped hospitals are hoping a new Health Information System will cut costs and increase efficiency like a one-shot magic bullet. But in reality, unless staff are given time and training to learn to use the new system, and unless hospitals hire and train their own in-house IT staff to maintain, support and modify bought-in systems, they can lead to patient harm.

Follow Solomon Hughes on X @SolHughesWriter.