The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West) I beg to
move, That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International
Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024,
which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of
Parliament, be approved. It is my pleasure as the Minister
responsible for the Indo-Pacific in the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office to speak on...Request free trial
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Affairs ()
I beg to move,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International
Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024,
which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session
of Parliament, be approved.
It is my pleasure as the Minister responsible for the
Indo-Pacific in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
to speak on behalf of the Government. In December 2022, the UK,
Japan and Italy launched the global combat air programme, known
as GCAP, to deliver a next-generation aircraft by 2035. The Prime
Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to promoting
co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Italy on 5 July
with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and between the
UK and Japan on 6 July with the Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio
Kishida. In the call to Japan, our Prime Minister concurred that
the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are
indivisible.
His Majesty's Government are committed to ensuring the security
of the Indo-Pacific, working closely with our allies. For the UK,
the aircraft will sit at the heart of a wider system; it will be
networked and will collaborate with a range of wider air
capabilities, including the F-35, and broader military
capabilities. It will use information systems, weapons and
uncrewed collaborative combat air platforms to complete the
capability. Replacing the capability provided by Typhoon, this
system will sustain the UK's operational advantage.
In addition, GCAP will attract investment in research and
development on digital design and advanced manufacture processes,
providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled
engineers and technicians.
Mr (Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
Will the Minister give way?
I will continue, if the right hon. Gentleman allows.
The signing of the convention on the establishment of the GCAP
international government organisation, commonly known as the
GIGO, by the parties of the UK, Japan and Italy took place in
December 2023 and was conducted by the Defence Secretaries of
those three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive
body, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial
partners engaged in GCAP. Through the GIGO, the UK will lead on
the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with
supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology,
and will facilitate collaboration with key international partners
that raise the profile of the UK's combat air industrial
capacity.
The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, employing
personnel from the UK, Italy and Japan. The chief executive and
director posts shall be filled by nationals of different parties
according to a mechanism that shall preserve a balance between
the parties. Given the nature of the GIGO as an international
defence organisation, the Ministry of Defence, with support from
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has been
leading on trilateral engagement and negotiations on its
establishment. The convention, once in effect, will enable closer
collaboration between the parties—the Governments of Japan, Italy
and the UK—and support the development of His Majesty's
Government's defence capabilities, stimulated by development of
the UK-based headquarters. That will enable further collaboration
with key industry partners, with the headquarters supporting
hundreds of jobs, and working in close partnership with
Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK, and hundreds of other
companies across the UK in the supply chain, to deliver GCAP.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister give way?
I am coming to an end, and then there are 90 minutes for
debate.
This Order in Council is a statutory instrument and forms part of
the secondary legislation needed to confer legal capacity and
privileges and immunities on the GCAP international government
organisation and accords certain privileges and immunities to the
organisation's personnel and the representatives of the parties
to the convention. The order was laid in draft before Parliament
on 23 May 2024—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To clarify, it is not my decision whether to allow
interventions; it is up to the Minister. I would say that
normally the shadow Secretary of State would get in, but it is up
to the Minister whether she gives way.
If the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something, I would
be happy to allow him, following your advice, Mr Speaker.
(South Suffolk) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that there
will be no delay to the Ministry of Defence's currently planned
spending on GCAP this year?
To be clear to Members new and old, this instrument is the legal
framework within which the programme will sit. It does not have
specific funding recommendations attached to it because it is the
scaffolding, or the nest, within which all the work will
happen.
This order was laid before Parliament in draft on 23 May 2024. It
is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the
Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to
approval and ratification, the treaty will enter into force on
the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance
of the parties. That is anticipated to be in autumn 2024 to meet
the 2035 in-service date.
This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities to
enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government
consider those privileges and immunities both necessary and
appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the
UK has towards the organisation.
Mr Francois
I am not a Minister, but I was for three years. Will the Minister
give way?
As the right hon. Gentleman has so much experience on the Defence
Committee, I am happy to take his point.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is a Foreign Office
Minister heading this up, I believe, not a Defence Minister,
which is interesting, but it is an international agreement. Can
she tell the House whether, because of the threat to the
programme from the defence review, she has had any
representations from the Japanese Government or the Italian
Government, our two other major programme partners, to express
their concern about any threat to GCAP?
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I can
confirm that this is the legal framework around which the
programme will sit. I can also confirm that the Defence Secretary
yesterday met with his Japanese counterparts at the show and they
were able to have further interesting discussions. The right hon.
Gentleman will be able to continue his questioning when he is
surely once again a member of the Defence Committee in the
autumn.
Dr (South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
Many jobs in our constituencies depend on contracts with the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is also interested in GCAP. What
conversations have been had with Saudi Arabia, particularly in
the light of the procrastination by the Prime Minister on this
programme—reaffirmed, if I am honest, by the Minister today in
her remarks?
The right hon. Member asks an important question, but there has
been no procrastination. Within a month of being elected, we have
got the legal framework to the House of Commons for a debate,
expediting all the important organisational arrangements so that
the programme can proceed at pace. He talks of procrastination,
and after 14 years, I am sure he is a master of procrastination
as part of the last Government.
The privileges and immunities conferred on agency personnel and
representatives are not for their personal advantage, but to
ensure complete independence in the exercise of their functions
in connection with GCAP. To be clear, agency personnel have no
personal immunity if they commit a crime and there is a clear
carve-out ensuring that they have no immunity in any vehicle
incident.
The immunities in respect of the GIGO cover immunity from suit
and legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, and
appropriate tax exemptions and reliefs in relation to official
activities. In respect of representatives of the parties and
staff, the provisions cover functional immunity and an immunity
waiver. Additionally, the order includes an exemption from the
legal suit and process immunity in the case of a motor traffic
offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle. That is a standard
clause included in statutory instruments and treaties to provide
for privileges and immunities.
The support for the GIGO's establishment ensured through the
order is a unique opportunity to showcase UK leadership and
innovation in the air force defence industry on a global stage.
Through the GIGO the UK will lead on the development of an
innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and
equipped with cutting-edge technology, and facilitate
collaboration with key international partners that raise the
profile of the UK's combat air industrial capacity.
There is much to be welcomed in the Minister's speech. At the
very beginning, she referred to a number of aircraft companies
that will be involved across the whole of the United Kingdom. My
understanding—maybe she can confirm this—is that Spirit
AeroSystems will also be involved. If that is the case, it means
that everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great and Britain
and Northern Ireland will benefit from the jobs and
opportunities.
Obviously the specifics of the supply chain and so on are not
really part of the order, but we are aware that that is an
important part of our industrial puzzle, and I am sure that there
will be some knock-on benefits for Northern Ireland. The hon.
Gentleman is a fierce defender of jobs and opportunities in that
wonderful place.
The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. Under
this Government, defence will be central both to the UK's
security and to our economic prosperity and growth, including by
harnessing the strength of our well-established defence industry.
The GIGO is key to GCAP, and the UK Government continues to make
positive progress with our partners Japan and Italy. I commend
the order to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
12.51pm
(South Suffolk) (Con)
May I associate the shadow Defence team with the remarks from the
Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition about the terrible
attack on a British solider in Kent? Our thoughts are with his
family.
I can confirm that we support the measures before us and
recognise that they are necessary to deliver into law the
administrative governance of the global combat air programme.
Although this is a Foreign Office measure, the statutory
instrument was prepared with strong input from the Ministry of
Defence—it certainly crossed my desk when I was Minister for
Defence Procurement. May I put on the record that it was a great
honour to serve in that role—with significant responsibility in
relation to GCAP—alongside the two previous Secretaries of State,
Wallace and .
It was a privilege to engage with our international GCAP partners
from Italy and Japan, whom I had the pleasure of hosting last
September in Lancaster House for trilateral discussions. This is
not just about delivering UK military capability in the crucial
area of combat air, but about doing so to the benefit of two
great partners, and, in the case of Japan, one that faces the
threat of China and Russia right on its doorstep. Since that
trilateral, the project has achieved significant goals, not least
the signing of the international treaty last December that we are
legislating for today. The treaty establishes the legal basis for
the formation of a new GCAP international organisation, the GIGO.
I am delighted that we are able to agree that the international
HQ of the GIGO will be in the UK, but that, in keeping with the
spirit of equal partnership that underpins GCAP, the first chief
executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy
and Japan. As such, the SI before us effectively enables this
international treaty to enter into effect, with further important
measures on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the
effective operation of the GIGO.
All that said, although the SI is necessary to deliver GCAP's
governance arrangements, it will not directly deliver a single
aircraft. Alongside this SI, we need the Government to back the
GCAP programme wholeheartedly by ensuring that it has the funding
necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability.
Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary for the Government to ask
us as a House to approve the regulations if they were at the same
time seriously contemplating scrapping UK involvement in GCAP.
Yet that prospect has figured prominently in the press in recent
days. While the best of British defence aviation has been
gathered at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough,
incredibly the Government have not been able to repeat the
wholehearted backing of GCAP that they gave prior to the general
election.
In responding to the statement from his predecessor on 18 December last year, when
he confirmed the trilateral agreement for the GCAP treaty, the
now Defence Secretary said:
“Developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can
continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies
for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK
industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence
technology.”
I totally agree with his remarks. Yet fast-forward to the
present, and, as we have just heard at Prime Minister's
questions, the Prime Minister is only able to say that the
programme is “important.” Meanwhile, the Minister for the Armed
Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (), who is on the Front Bench
and for whom I have great personal respect, said:
“It's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the
defence review”.
He thus implied that the defence review might not continue the
UK's commitment to GCAP. We now need clarity from the Government
for Parliament, industry and our international partners. We are
being asked to approve this SI to deliver a key stepping-stone to
the GCAP project, so are the Government still committed to
it?
This is my guess about what is currently happening. I would be
truly staggered if the Government were to withdraw from a
programme that they have previously given such full support—not
because theirs is a party that does not know a good U-turn, but
because it would bring international ramifications that do not
bear thinking about either for the Foreign Office or the Ministry
of Defence. Rather, in my view, we need to have in mind another
Department—one that I have also had the pleasure of serving
in—the Treasury. I suspect that the overall question of whether
the Government are committed to GCAP is a red herring. What
really matters is whether they are committed to funding it this
year, with important spending decisions to be made right now.
They will be in the inbox of the Secretary of State, under
“Funding decisions on GCAP.” We want the Government to continue
that funding in the years beyond, and we want to know whether
they are using the review as a chance to shift spending decisions
to the right.
It is not unprecedented in the history of the Treasury for it to
work in that way under successive Governments, probably. It might
offer illusory short-term savings, but it would cause immediate
and lasting pain to the most important conventional defence
programme of our time. To be clear—and I mean this—I have the
greatest respect for the way the Treasury has to balance the
books and be responsible for the nation's finances. I was
delighted that the previous Government proposed moving to 2.5%
once it was affordable—we were prepared to make difficult
decisions to fund that 2.5% by reducing the size of the civil
service to pre-pandemic levels—and once it was sustainable. Far
from this Government inheriting what the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury has described as the “worst economic inheritance” since
world war two, we did what we promised and moved to 2.5% only
once the economic conditions allowed—namely, when inflation was
back to target, with healthy economic growth and a deficit
heading towards a little over 1% over the forecast period. That
is our clear pathway to 2.5% versus Labour's uncertainty and
delay, which makes the real difference.
To understand the direct short-term importance of 2.5% and its
relevance to GCAP and this statutory instrument, we need only go
back to what the Secretary of State said the response to the
statement from his predecessor in December. He said:
“This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD's
equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain's
defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the
defence budget.”[—[Official Report, 18 December 2023; Vol. 742,
c.
1137.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=742&ColumnNumber=1137&House=1)
It is not so much that we lost control of the defence budget;
rather, Putin invaded Ukraine and sent inflation soaring all
around the world. In a world that was then in a rush to rearm,
that context caused an inevitable hit to the costs of major
defence projects and matériel. I have never pretended
otherwise.
Bearing in mind that the equipment plan—the MOD's forward
inventory—accounts for over 10 years, the NAO's assessment of a
black hole did not take account of one thing: moving to 2.5% by
2030. As I said in my wind up to the Thursday's debate on the
Gracious Speech, by setting out a fully costed and clearly
timetabled pathway to 2.5%, we were able to deal with those
funding pressures head on, and ensure that our largest two
programmes—the nuclear deterrent and GCAP—would be stabilised,
and, as a result, properly funded into the future. I asked the
Foreign Office Minister who responded to my to confirm that the
Government's timetable would not put funding of either programme
at risk. There was no answer, and we have had no answer today,
either. That is the problem. The Government can afford to bring
forward this SI and to continue building the administrative
apparatus for GCAP, but we fear that they cannot afford to
approve the funding requirements for the next stage of building
the actual aircraft, because of their vacillation on reaching
2.5%.
We Conservatives are clear that we support the SI on the basis
that we are also supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting
in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over
the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That
is a key point: for all three nations, GCAP is all about pace and
timetable. For the UK and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon
before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040; for Japan, with
equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F-2. That is why
any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear
timetable to 2.5% or otherwise, is so important and critical.
Overall, it is my view that withdrawing from GCAP now would be
the equivalent of scrapping the Spitfire programme in the 1930s.
It is that serious. However, if such an outcome is seriously
under consideration—and we know that there are those in
government who are hugely sceptical—I will explain why we are
ultimately supporting this SI. It is because we on the
Conservative Benches believe that GCAP is a military necessity
that will bring enormous economic and strategic benefits to the
United Kingdom.
To start with the military capability argument, if there is one
key lesson from Ukraine, it is that in the absence of air
superiority we face the prospect of terrible attritional warfare
with huge casualties, reminiscent of the worst battles of world
war two.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
I know it is thinking very far into the future, but does my hon.
Friend accept that one of the lessons from the Ukraine conflict,
where we have had to give indirect support, is the importance of
maintaining aircraft that we have withdrawn from service—in
mothballs, if necessary—so that they can be made available to
allies, should they ever face a crisis such as this one? When the
happy day comes that we have these great sixth-generation
aircraft, can we be certain that we have not unduly disposed of
their predecessors, in case someone else needs them in
future?
My right hon. Friend's question is an interesting one. Whenever I
was in front of the Select Committee—it was always a great joy
and privilege to be cross-examined, particularly by my colleagues
on the Conservative Benches—there was always a debate about when
we withdraw platforms and when we bring in their replacements.
That will never go away, and I wish the Armed Forces Minister
well when he has the unique privilege and experience of going in
front of the Committee. What I would say to my right hon. Friend
is that we have to accept that, as a matter of avionic reality,
the Typhoon will reach the end of its service life, and we as a
country have to replace it. GCAP is key to that, with the
construction of the new core platform.
While investing in the best combat air capability does not
guarantee air superiority in the future, it offers us the chance
to deny adversaries such potentially deadly freedom of operation
by maintaining technological competitiveness. However, there are
those who ask, “Why don't we simply go off-the-shelf and buy more
F-35s?” I noticed similar views being expressed in The Daily
Telegraphthis very day, and there is even a rumour that some
Government Departments, such as those I mentioned earlier, may
take a view along those lines. We must be clear that the F-35,
while a brilliant and highly capable aircraft, is a
fifth-generation platform, not a sixth-generation one. It is not
optimised for the battle space that is likely to pertain by the
late 2030s, and the United States—which, after all, possesses and
manufactures the F-35—is itself investing in a sixth-generation
programme, as are our adversaries.
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying: his great
focus on the issues of modern technology, our companies and what
they are involved with. I know that he has a tremendous interest
in Northern Ireland—he visited there regularly in his former role
in government. Can he give us some suggestions about the role
that aerospace in Northern Ireland could, and will, play in
finding a way forward?
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an absolute
champion of the defence industry in Northern Ireland. He is
right: one of my last visits was to the Thales factory in
Belfast, which of course is home to the next-generation light
anti-tank weapon, the lightweight multirole missile, and other
key munitions. In terms of aerospace, the first small and
medium-sized enterprise forum that I held as Defence Procurement
Minister was in Larne in Northern Ireland, on Armed Forces Day
last year. Spirit was one of the attendees, and I am confident
that it has a strong place in the future of British aviation in
the defence sector, as long as we put the funding in place and
keep with the programmes.
Having said all that, there must obviously be debate when we are
spending this amount of money on a capability, and I understand
why there are those who question the sums of money involved, the
timeframes and so on. To be clear, as a former Defence
Procurement Minister, I would not support a programme that was
purely about spending such a vast amount of money just on a new
core platform to replace Typhoon. That brings us to what GCAP is
really about, which the Minister mentioned in her opening
remarks, to her credit. On one of my last visits to a land
company—a company manufacturing armoured vehicles for this
country—the chief executive I spoke to referred to the GCAP of
land. The point is that, although the “A” stands for air, when we
talk about GCAP in military capability terms, it is equally about
how we work with autonomous and uncrewed systems. That is the key
to the sixth-generation concept.
I am very passionate about this issue—I was proud to bring
forward the first defence drone strategy at the Ministry of
Defence—and although there are those who are concerned about the
timeframe, I would just make the following points. First, the
timescale for delivering GCAP is very ambitious compared with
that of Typhoon; secondly, we can gain capability benefits from
GCAP on a much shorter timescale. We have heard the Chief of the
General Staff talking about the need for the Army to be able to
fight a war within three years, and when I was Defence
Procurement Minister, I was keen to ensure that all the services
were looking at what they could do to boost lethality and
survivability in the near term. Surely, the key to that is how we
make use of uncrewed systems.
The United Kingdom is incredibly well placed in that regard: we
jointly lead the maritime coalition in respect of Ukraine
alongside Norway. Of course, Ukraine's greatest military success
has been naval, having pushed back the Russian fleet using what
we might describe as innovative weapons rather than traditional
naval deployments. Likewise on land, the incredible importance of
drones cannot be overstated, including the psychological impact
on those who are fighting out there.
Sir (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I totally agree with what the former Minister is saying about the
requirement for and necessity of sixth-generation aircraft, as
well as about maintaining sovereign capability. However, does he
agree that it seems peculiar that the Americans are developing
their own sixth-generation aircraft with Lockheed Martin, the
French and the Germans are developing their own sixth-generation
aircraft as well, and we have forged this strange partnership
with the Italians and the Japanese to develop GCAP? Does the
Minister think that makes sense, in terms of pooling effort and
making sure that our allies have at least one good
sixth-generation fighter aircraft?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do
not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of
dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese
counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all
three countries, and working so closely together—there is already
so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a
brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There
will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different
countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about
the hon. Gentleman's question is that he has opened up the debate
about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just
wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it
means to be sixth-generation.
Mr Francois
Before my hon. Friend does so, would he give way very
briefly?
Of course—it is a pleasure.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend was a very good Defence Procurement Minister, and
we on the Committee liked him because, crikey, he actually
answered the questions. He will know from that experience that
even the Americans, who have a new thing called the next
generation air dominance fighter, are struggling to afford it;
there have been media reports in the US that they may even cancel
that programme, because even the Americans cannot afford to do
everything unilaterally anymore. In the light of that, does my
hon. Friend believe that a three-way programme represents good
value for money?
My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but
was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are
those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that
2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a
funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the
pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant
additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford
GCAP and stabilise that programme.
I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be
frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force,
those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come
primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical
because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear
that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering
large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but
the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to
build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to
develop those drones, and we are doing that.
I have always said—I said it during my statement on the
integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as
Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was
building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable
platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling
it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a
technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence
technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy
fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for
the Army and of course for the Air Force.
I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of
points have been floating around in the press. The first is that
the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea
impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed,
it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an
integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single
service competition. There has also been the point that we should
choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes,
the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would
like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what
is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the
threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we
should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous
economic benefit they bring.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to
the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP.
There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would
stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to
have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular,
investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge
economic gains for every part of the country.
In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest
programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every
year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every
constituency up and down the country—including many in
Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would
hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure
would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on
display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in
Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private
investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand
to benefit.
An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition
when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point.
I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have
exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial
supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from
this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson
for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into
export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any
other platforms or capability manufactured by the United
Kingdom.
To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future
war-fighting capability and relations with our closest
international partners. The Government should instead embrace
GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous
position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear
timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by
investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated
technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of
systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of
battlespace data.
To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from
happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence
posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to
always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send
that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our
largest conventional military programme? We support this
statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful
gains it will give to the United Kingdom's economic and military
strength.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that I welcome the very thorough response
from the Opposition, but the shadow Minister did take twice as
long as the Minister? I do have other speakers on his own side
who also want to get in, so please just work to make sure we can
get everybody in.
We now come to a maiden speech—I call .
1.13pm
Mr (Leyton and Wanstead)
(Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to
speak. It appears that for once my sense of timing has been
impeccable. Having completed 24 years and seven months of service
in the Royal Air Force, I have arrived on time, uniquely placed
as the only person who could sequence their maiden speech in
amongst a debate about military aircraft. Unfortunately, as my
hon. Friend the Member for Bootle () suggested in his riposte to
the King's Speech, I will not be wearing a silk smoking
jacket.
It is a life of service to this House that also characterises my
predecessor's career. A loved politician, gave 14 years of service to the
constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, and nine years as Member for
Hornchurch before that. He is a fine parliamentarian and, more
importantly, a fine socialist, like his mother and father before
him. His incredible commitment to the parliamentary Labour party
as its chair for the past nine years was instrumental in helping
us get to where we are today. While he now moves on to the other
place, I am certain that his children, and his family's legacy,
will follow in his footsteps in years to come.
This sentiment of service is something that resonates deeply with
me. Service is fundamental to who I am, and it is fundamental to
the Government and to my commitment to the wonderful constituency
of Leyton and Wanstead. I am here because my constituents placed
their trust in me, a trust for which I am grateful, and will
repay with service and a commitment to ensuring they are
represented in this place to the fullest of my abilities.
At the centre of my constituency is Leytonstone, at the heart of
which is our beloved Whipps Cross hospital. Whipps has served our
constituency for 121 years, during which time its NHS staff—quiet
professionals—have given selflessly for those in need within our
community. Yet this hospital is emblematic of 14 years of failed
Tory commitments and lack of investment. Its rebuilding is
central to my tenure as an MP.
Leytonstone is also a cradle for talent, having been home to
notable figures such as my namesake David Bailey and Cartrain,
and sports stars Jo Fenn, Andros Townsend and David Beckham.
Leytonstone was the home, of RAF pedigree, of Douglas Webb DFM,
the front gunner in the famous dam busters raid, and more lately,
of James Sjoberg, Officer Commanding 47 Squadron. Leveraging this
rich heritage to inspire our youth and give them pathways to
success is a personal commitment of mine. Opportunities like
these were scarce for young people like me. Creating similar
pathways for our youth will be central to my service.
Leytonstone is also home to one of the most financially deprived
areas in the country, but it is a spirited community that seeks
to heal itself. Community leadership from Cann Hall mosque
ensures the provision to all local people of a much-needed food
bank and a youth group. Similarly, at St Margaret with St
Columba, others gather to preserve a sense of community despite
their obvious hardships.
Community spirit is also strong in South Woodford and Wanstead.
If Whipps is the heart of our constituency, Wanstead park is its
lungs and the River Roding its veins. Wanstead park is part of
our historic Epping forest, which was saved by campaigners such
as Octavia Hill, founder of the National Trust, and the spirit of
activism and preservation continues in the Wanstead Community
Gardeners, the South Woodford Society and the ever popular
Wanstead fringe festival.
To the south is Leyton, home of Leyton Orient football club. The
O's and their trust embody the best of our community. From their
sacrifices in the pal regiment in the first world war to their
work with Waltham Forest Age UK, they support our vulnerable
veterans. The club is also proud to celebrate our diverse
communities, epitomised by Laurie Cunningham, the club's first
black player. His legacy continues to inspire, as does the
leadership of Omar Beckles in improving representation in
football. Such leadership is reflective of the club's leadership
in the establishment of governance for our footballing world.
Efforts such as these are key to me. Visible role models and
leadership are essential for diverse communities. Without these
inspirational characters, young black people like me will not see
themselves in places of power. I reflect on the very low number
of black men in our politics, despite an increase in
representation across all ethnic groups. Addressing this is key
to fixing the inequalities that face young people, particularly
in the area of knife crime.
A pivotal moment in my upbringing was the murder of Stephen
Lawrence. While we are aware of the continuing failure to provide
justice to my friend Stuart's family, we all know of the
institutional failings that have led to this. I want to point all
Members to a number of things surrounding this that were
formative for me. First, the absence of representation inhibits
our ability to hear voices and understand the challenges faced by
others like us. I reflected during the campaign that when I was
young I carried a knife, not because I wished to attack anyone,
but because I was scared and felt that the fate that had befallen
my friend's brother could happen to me and others like me.
Mistakenly, I assumed that I could look after myself similarly,
but sadly, we know that is not the case, and that those who carry
knives are more likely to be killed themselves. We need people
like me to translate those experiences into policy.
Secondly, and in some ways most importantly, I look back with
great upset and anger on how this matter was politicised by
extreme groups. Our anger and upset was channelled by populists
who manipulated us for their own political ends. Those voices are
present in our House and vocal in our politics, and we must
challenge them openly to prevent those actors from fostering
anger, hate and division within our communities. I fear it is our
greatest threat to democracy, and we must be fundamental in our
moderation. We must challenge those behaviours without fear,
openly, separating them from the underlying issues.
Finally, what saw me through that period in my life, and through
a highly decorated flying career in the Royal Air Force, are the
two things I value most: first, my friends; and secondly, my
family. My mother and father instilled in me the values and
virtues of service and humanity; my sisters shaped me and helped
me to see the world through the eyes of a woman. My friends
shepherded me through school, college and university, and through
every difficult challenge in my life. But it is my wife who has
supported me steadfastly through a military career and grown our
wonderful family. I love her deeply and will never be able to
thank her enough.
The reason I am here is my service not just as a Member of this
House but to our nation in the RAF. I have chosen to speak in
this debate because as a young engineering student I recall
learning of the failings of the Duncan Sandys defence review,
which did deep and lasting damage to our aerospace industry and
industrial base. Already we have heard voices state that our
commitment to this programme is a fallacy, but acceptance of that
is merely acceptance of a failure to manage defence programmes
and the companies contracted to deliver them. It is not GCAP that
is a fallacy, but the way we contract and manage such programmes.
Our interaction with defence primes must change. We must
encourage risk taking, because without it there is no innovation.
We must not allow the customer to set the demand for technologies
that the customer itself cannot conceive.
We must be a Government who better understand science, and we
need an industry that is incentivised with accountability. We
have the sixth largest defence budget in the world. We must get
our money's worth, and we must make sure that our money leads to
our security and not to excess corporate bonuses. For that
reason, the remarks by the Minister for the Armed Forces about
the sanctity of the defence review are key. We cannot allow
defence simply to be bought out of its overspend. This is an
exciting programme with two close and valued partners, and the
Government's defence review is critical to it.
Mr Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
1.23pm
(Honiton and Sidmouth)
(LD)
It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. and gallant Member
for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has delivered an
excellent maiden speech, and it is an example to every new, and
old, Member of this House that he should set out his love and
affection for the place where he lives and where he has clearly
spent many happy years. It is obviously a custom in this House to
use the term “honourable and gallant” for somebody who has
served, but in the case of the hon. Member it has particular
resonance, because he received an MBE a decade ago in recognition
of meritorious, gallant, and distinguished services. He made a
tremendous speech, and the whole House will have heard him talk
about the importance of a new hospital to his constituency, and
about the scourge of knife crime, and his own personal
reflections on why young people carry knives. We will all reflect
on his thoughts and comments as he makes them in the months and
years to come.
I welcome the Minister of State to her place, and congratulate
her on her new role at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office. Given that she shadowed that role for some time, I feel
hopeful that she has a good understanding of our partnerships not
just in Europe but in east and south-east Asia, and that they are
safe with her.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I welcome the Government's
announcement that they remain committed to the global combat air
programme. I also welcome the presence in the King's Speech of
the strategic defence review. Reflecting on the speech that we
have just heard, it is essential that we go through a strategic
defence review every time we have a serious change of Government,
as we have had after 14 years. It was encouraging to hear that
the review will be published soon, within the first half of next
year.
Professor Michael Clarke points out that this is the 12th defence
review to have taken place since the end of the cold war, and
that most have “not been very strategic”. He says that most
reviews have been cost-cutting exercises, and that only a couple
of them could be described as genuinely strategic. He goes
on:
“I think this one has an ambition to be more genuinely
strategic.”
Sir
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of past
strategic defence reviews, and I particularly remember the 1998
SDR, which was after a Labour landslide. It was strategic and
outlined concepts that stood the test of time. One reason for
that was that it gave other people the opportunity to contribute
to the review. I am hoping that Labour Ministers might pay a
little attention to the idea that if they want their strategic
defence and security review to do well, they should open up the
process so that people on a non-partisan basis can have serious
input to it—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see my friend the
Minister for the Armed Forces nodding his agreement.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention, and
so far I gather that the Government are prepared to listen to
external expertise. I was encouraged to hear that will be very much at the
pinnacle of this review, and I know as an example that she has a
great deal of insight into matters Europe, and in particular in
relation to Russia. The defence review will need to look not only
at means, which is what we are discussing today, but at ends and
ways, so that it comes to thinking about means only after
thinking about ends and ways. The problem with pre-empting a
review and leaping straight into talking about particular
procurement programmes is that it only serves, at this stage at
least, to start to raise questions about what programmes have not
been confirmed so far.
In this, the week of the Farnborough airshow, lots of questions
have been raised about GCAP, or “Tempest” as the fighter aircraft
will be known in the UK. On Saturday, one headline warned:
“RAF jet may never get off the ground”
and on Monday a subheading read
“questions are being asked about whether it should be scrapped to
save money.”
On Tuesday an opinion column warned:
“The Government's silence over the future of the Tempest fighter
is deeply concerning.”
Sometimes the question is not as simple as whether to spend, but
whether to spend in the near term or the long term, or on
procuring equipment today or in the future. There is a trade-off
in combat power between the near term and the long term.
I appreciate that the Government will be seeking to confirm to
our allies that GCAP will proceed, and they will want to reassure
Italy and Japan, as well as offer reassurance to commercial
partners. Those of us from the west country need look no further
than Yeovil to see what a success Leonardo has been for industry
in our region. Defence exports from Yeovil amounted to £1.6
billion in 18 months. This issue clearly does matter a great deal
to UK industry, but we must think about what else is happening in
the commercial space.
We have heard about the European future combat air
system—SCAF—consortium made up of France, Germany and Spain,
which is developing a fighter jet in parallel. I urge the
Government to consider whether the two systems can be as
interoperable as possible. The pyramid open systems architecture
that we anticipate will be part of GCAP would do well to be able
to speak with whatever the SCAF comes up with.
Aside from GCAP, the strategic defence review should consider the
UK's existing capabilities, and existing combat air in
particular. Twenty-six tranche 1 Typhoon fighter aircraft are due
to be retired from service at the end of next March. The option
remains for those tranche 1 aircraft to be brought up to the
standard of tranche 2 or tranche 3. BAE systems provided the
previous Government with the structural and avionic modifications
that would be required, but they chose not to take that up.
Instead, they intended to put the 26 tranche 1 aircraft on to a
so-called reduce to produce programme to strip them of usable
parts for the Typhoon fleet's inventory of spares. I wonder
whether consideration also could be given to whether they could
become tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft instead.
An initial order of 150 F-35 Lightning aircraft has already been
scaled back to 138, in part to release funding to GCAP. We can
see that there is always a trade-off between thinking about
future combat air in 2035 versus what we might need today.
Upgrading the 26 tranche 1 fighter aircraft would grow the UK's
Typhoon fleet from 107 to 133. Of course, they will not have the
latest air-to-ground capabilities of the F-35, and they certainly
will not have the range, payload or stealth capabilities that we
will expect of GCAP and Tempest, but they would be available
soon. In recent months we have seen Typhoon intercept Russian
long-range maritime patrol bombers north of the Shetland islands
within NATO's northern air policing area. Now does not seem to be
the time to cannibalise Typhoon tranche 1 for spare parts.
I recall from my own service the phrase used in the armed forces
that we should “deal with the crocodile nearest the boat.” In
announcing that GCAP will go ahead, I trust that the defence
review will also appraise those near-term risks in our near
abroad rather than simply carrying on with existing programmes
because they are already in train.
In closing, I will pose three questions to the ministerial team.
First, is GCAP still too linked to the assumptions about
geopolitics from the 2021 integrated review? Is it taking into
full account the integrated review refresh of 2023, and
particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, if there
is to be a parallel development of GCAP and SCAF by other
European allies, will the Government reassure us that
consideration is being given to interoperability such as in
relation to open systems architecture? Thirdly, if there is not
enough money in the pot to upgrade Typhoon tranche 1, buy more
F-35s and develop GCAP, which of those three initiatives is the
UK unlikely to do?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
I call .
1.33pm
Mr (Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your
election and welcoming you to the Chair? I am sure that you will
chair our proceedings excellently. We wish you all good luck.
May I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr
Bailey) for a fine, fluent and—if I may say so—at times poignant
maiden speech? He spoke well on behalf of his constituents. I
have it on good authority that when my hon. Friend the Member for
South Suffolk () was the procurement
Minister, the hon. Member took him on a tour of Brize Norton and
helped to brief him on the A400M. My hon. Friend has asked me to
pass on his thanks. As a former Army officer, may I say to a
former RAF officer what a great pleasure it is to see the RAF
turn up on time? There is indeed a first time for everything.
[Laughter.]
The purpose of the order is laid out clearly in paragraph 4.1 of
the explanatory memorandum, which states that it
“gives effect to the Convention between the Government of the
Italian Republic, the Government of Japan and the Government of
the United Kingdom…establishing the Global Combat Air Programme
International Government Organisation signed on 14 December
2023”.
It points out that
“The Convention was negotiated by the Ministry of Defence.”
My third welcome is to the Minister; it is good to see her in her
place. However, as the convention was nominated by the Ministry
of Defence, could she explain for clarity why the FCDO and not
the MOD is handling this statutory instrument?
The Minister kindly nominated me for a place on the House of
Commons Defence Committee. As today appears to be a day for
people taking up nominations, I will gladly accept that and
announce that I am going to run—for that Committee.
I also point out that in the explanatory memorandum the policy
context for the order—this is important—is described as
follows:
“In December 2022, the Prime Ministers of UK, Japan and Italy
launched GCAP to deliver a next generation aircraft by 2035. The
signing of the GCAP Convention between the partners took place in
December 2023 and was conducted by the respective Defence
Secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the
executive body with the legal capacity to place contracts with
industrial partners engaged in the GCAP.”
So far, so good. The debate takes on some additional resonance,
however, because we now have a defence review, which some people
have interpreted as a sword of Damocles hanging over this
important programme. My fourth welcome is to the new Minister for
the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and
Devonport (), who represents a military
constituency; it is good to see him in his place, too.
A few minutes ago at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime
Minister described GCAP as a “really important programme”. It is.
It is good that he was able to go to Farnborough, see the mock-up
of the aircraft for himself and receive a briefing.
When I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, in
March 2024 we travelled to Japan to examine the programme as best
we could from the Japanese perspective. We spoke to politicians,
civil servants, industrialists and the Japanese air self-defence
force—its military. We were going to write what I believe would
have been a very positive report, and then someone went and
called a general election. We cannot blame the Minister for that,
but she and some of her colleagues did somehow appear to benefit
from it.
I would like to stress three themes from that trip, which came
out strongly. The first was the absolute unanimity of purpose
among the Japanese to deliver the programme. As one politician
put it to us,
“We live in a tough neighbourhood, including three autocracies
with nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen our defences, and
this programme is fundamental to that.”
I think that is a very good summary of the Japanese
perspective.
Secondly, we were struck by the willingness of the Japanese to
consider third party exports of GCAP to make the aircraft
affordable by increasing its production run. My hon. Friend the
Member for South Suffolk was always hot on that when he was the
procurement Minister. For various historical reasons, I do not
think that the Japanese would necessarily have taken that view
even a few years ago; that is important.
Thirdly, the Japanese have an absolute determination to achieve
the in-service date of 2035, which is referred to directly in the
memorandum. The Japanese air self-defence force uses a mixture of
F-15J Eagle aircraft and the F-2, which is sort of a souped-up
version of the American F-16. They are both good and capable
aircraft, but they are getting rather long in the tooth. The
Japanese have to plan forward against a threat from the Chinese
J-20 or the Russian Su-57. The risk is that by the mid-2030s
those aircraft will be outmatched by those two powerful new
combat aircraft.
Reference has been made to the F-35. It is a fine aircraft, but
it is expensive to buy and very expensive to run. The Americans
have found that to their cost—the F-35 was nicknamed by the
American media
“the plane that ate the Pentagon”.
It might not necessarily be the answer to the Treasury's dream.
Moreover, for the record, deliveries of the F-35 to the United
States forces were suspended for nearly a year—they have only
just been resumed—because of problems in upgrading the computers
and the software. If we are to talk about the realities, the F-35
has been quite a troubled programme and, to some extent,
continues to be so.
What would be the implications of cancellation of GCAP? This is
an international agreement and, as it says in paragraph 7 of the
explanatory memorandum:
“No external consultation was undertaken as the instrument
implements provisions of an international agreement to which the
United Kingdom will be obliged to give effect as a matter of
international law once it enters into force.”
The first implication were we to cancel it is that it would put
back Anglo-Japanese relations and Anglo-Italian relations,
arguably for decades. I would not want to be the CEO of a British
company trying to sell something to the Japanese Government in
the aftermath of the cancellation of GCAP. Secondly, given the
scale and the prominence of the programme, there would be a
serious risk that we in the United Kingdom would achieve a
reputation as an unreliable partner in major military
collaborative programmes—everything from AUKUS through to
collaboration in space. In an era when things such as a
sixth-generation combat aircraft are so expensive that, as I
intimated earlier, even the Americans are struggling to afford
one on their own, the reality for us as a medium power is that we
need to collaborate. We would find it very difficult to find
future partners if we suddenly cancelled such an important and
sizeable programme for financial reasons.
Thirdly, it would make a nonsense of the UK's so-called tilt to
the Pacific, which was inherent to the so-called integrated
review and was reinforced when the review was refreshed before
the general election. How can we tilt to the Pacific if we then
cancel a major collaborative programme with a critical Pacific
partner, which faces challenges from Russia and China even more
immediately than we do? Bluntly, our name would be mud in that
theatre of operations if we were to do that.
Fourthly, there is what one might call the prosperity agenda. As
they said in the King's Speech, the Government are very committed
to growth—let us not debate building and the green belt now, but
focus on this issue. In the last few years, about 80% of the UK's
defence exports have come from combat air—mainly sales of Typhoon
or our 15% workshare on the F-35. That has averaged roughly £6
billion a year. Again, what would be the threat to our exports
and our reputation as a reliable supplier if we were to cancel
the programme?
What should we do? The GIGO, which this memorandum establishes,
will incorporate prominent representatives from all three
countries—the UK, Japan and Italy—and it will be headquartered
here. If the programme is to survive, which I strongly believe it
should, the GIGO has a vital role to play as the management
organisation. It will have to be leaner and less bureaucratic
than its predecessor organisations, which oversaw the Tornado and
Typhoon programmes—two wonderful aircraft with a proud heritage
in the Royal Air Force. I think everyone in the industry would
admit that those organisations were a bit too bureaucratic.
The GIGO will have to be a lot leaner and meaner to get the job
done. The principal industrial partners—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo, among others—will have
a real challenge. Historically, the answer to such a dilemma
might have been, “Look, it's a very complicated programme. It
will take years to achieve, and it all depends on how many
countries join, how many aircraft they buy and what configuration
they go for. Will the Saudis participate? Will they want it built
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if they do participate? There are
lots of imponderables, so we will come back to you in about five
years' time with a unit price.” That will not wash. I would
submit that one of the first tasks of the GIGO, working with
those industrial partners and the three Governments, is to come
up with at least a realistic pricing envelope for the programme,
which the Treasury can look at and, hopefully, take a positive
view on. If they do not do that, there can be no blank cheque,
even for this.
To conclude, there is no such thing as an uncancellable defence
programme—although I still hope for Ajax—but this comes close. To
cancel this programme for short-term financial reasons would be a
disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically and
industrially. If it comes down to GCAP, AUKUS or Ajax, for me,
Ajax has to go, and I say that as a former soldier. We need to
understand how extremely serious the implications are of
cancelling this programme.
I was a soldier, but the Royal Air Force has a proud tradition in
the defence of this country and its interests, going back to the
Battle of Britain and the first world war—when it grew out of the
Army, I hasten to say.
Sir
And the Navy.
Mr Francois
And the Navy, in which my father served, for completeness. The
Royal Air Force needs this aircraft. We need it. The Japanese,
the Italians and the west need it. By all means, let us control
the costs, but let us keep it. We are not going to scrap the
Spitfire of the future.
1.46pm
(Angus and Perthshire Glens)
(SNP)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I look forward to you extending your authority to unruly
fourth parties, even if they are new to that role.
I welcome this statutory instrument, which gives effect to the
convention on the establishment of GCAP. GCAP is not important
but vital to a range of different priorities, to which I urge the
new Government to pay very close attention. It is vital to the
United Kingdom's ability to play its role in defending our values
against peer or near-peer adversaries and the threats that they
present to our way of life. We will not do that in the very near
future if we cannot command a sixth-generation capability. It is
vital to developing and maintaining sovereign air capability. If
we had no legacy of manufacturing complex combat air systems, we
could not start it. That enterprise cannot be begun from
nothing.
The flipside of that inevitable truth is that if we neglect what
we have developed, at great cost to the public purse over the
past 100 years, we defeat the legacy of world-leading
extraordinary aircraft, civil and military, that have come out of
the United Kingdom over the past 100 years. We also create an
extraordinary gap in our ability to defend the realm—the first
duty of any Government. The programme is vital for the 600
stakeholders in the UK alone who have been engaged with GCAP to
date, and it has not even got up to speed yet. Those are just a
few elements of why this is vital. In a geographical sense, it is
extraordinarily important to defence manufacturers in the central
belt of Scotland and the north-west of England, but I see no
reason to disbelieve the claim that it has positive effects for
constituencies all across the United Kingdom.
I seek to impress on the Minister for the Armed Forces—who I know
gets it, and I am glad that he is here today—that he should
challenge any rise in Treasury dogma when it comes to GCAP. It is
an opportunity for the United Kingdom to repeat the world-leading
performance of Harrier and the Blackburn Buccaneer, the
extraordinary capabilities of the Panavia Tornado and the
exceptional abilities of the BAE Typhoon. That is what it can do.
What it expressly must not do is repeat the incredibly
self-defeating cost to the public purse and defence capability of
the TSR-2 fiasco in the 1960s. Unfortunately, an incoming Labour
Government scrapped that at huge cost to our defence capability
and huge cost to the public purse. It was a demonstrable exercise
in a Treasury obsessed with the price of everything and myopic
about the value of everything. I repeat, in case I sound
political, that I know the Minister for the Armed Forces gets it.
We trust him to do the right thing.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what happened to
TSR-2, which was a generation ahead of its time and a world
beater. It was scrapped because the Treasury wanted to buy the
F-111 instead, which was an American aircraft, and then it did
not end up buying it. There is a lesson from history there too,
is there not?
If we take, as the United Kingdom has, an extraordinarily complex
programme somewhere down the road, then the opportunity cost,
much less the financial and operability cost, of turning back on
that must be well set out. I am afraid that those are the details
the Treasury has a history of not being that interested in. It is
more focused on the number at the bottom right-hand side of the
balance sheet, but this is far too important to yield to that
level of priority.
It is much to be regretted that the future combat air system and
GCAP are proceeding in the European theatre in parallel. That is
a grossly expensive duplication. I greatly fear that there is
nothing we can do about it now. Nevertheless, it is much to be
regretted. I am not certain that the partners in the competing
French-led FCAS programme will be happy partners throughout, but
that remains to be seen. The Minister for the Armed Forces must
ensure that the door is left open for any latecomers or laggards
who want to get on board with GCAP. I would appreciate his
assurance, either today or at a later date, on that willing
acceptability and acceptance.
As it is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister
who is leading today, let me say that the one thing the
extraordinary aircraft I listed did not enjoy was particularly
healthy export success. GCAP must have exceptional export success
because, quite apart from the standard avionics engines and air
frames that we have to deal with in conventional traditional
aircraft, this aircraft is a breed apart in terms of its
electronic warfare capability. It is a combat system, which
happens to be in an aircraft, that is extraordinarily expensive.
If the price of that is left to the Italians, the UK and the
Japanese, we will face no small measure of difficulty.
On the statutory instrument itself, article 34(2) of the
convention makes provision for host countries experiencing
“serious balance of payment” issues. I draw Members' attention to
the sovereign debt liabilities of both Japan and Italy—and the UK
itself, although it would be the third of that list. But the
convention merely seeks—to inform the Minister—to “consult” in
such circumstances. It would be appreciated if we could know what
type of consultation that would involve. Further, article
19(1)(c) clarifies that funding from each party will
“be set out in a further arrangement”.
However, the convention does set out that the steering committee
will have equal representation from each of the parties. How will
the convention decide what the funding will be based on? Will it
be based on orders, or on the number of national employees
employed in the steering committee? How will that work? It is
unclear.
In closing, Leonardo in Edinburgh is the brain and nerve centre
of GCAP; it is the central nervous system of this world-leading
capability. The system is being designed and finalised in
Edinburgh, and it will be built in Edinburgh at Leonardo. That
brings me on to the final provision in the SI, which states that
the headquarters of GIGO will be established at a later date, but
that it will be in the UK. It is really important that wherever
it is established, it has close connectivity with the key prime
manufacturers of GCAP: Rolls-Royce, Thales, BAE and Leonardo. It
must be in a part of this island where an outstanding quality of
life can be enjoyed, with access to good schools, good quality of
life, transport infrastructure, an international airport and good
links with London. That place is Edinburgh.
1.54pm
Dr (South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your victory. You
will be brilliant and I look forward to serving under your
chairmanship in the three or four years ahead.
May I say how very much I support the statutory instrument? I do
not support the Prime Minister's lukewarm words at Farnborough. I
think the concerns we have on the Conservative Benches are to do
with the hares he set running not by what he said, but by what
did not say. My advice to Ministers would be, “For goodness'
sake, up the rhetoric around this.” No Government in their right
mind would cancel this project. This project is not only
essential to our defence; it is the bridge to the unmanned future
of defence that will come by mid-century. Kick away that bridge
and we are left with very little: we undermine fundamentally the
defence of these islands; we destroy the reputation of this
country not just with the Japanese and the Italians, but with
practically any partner in defence, present and future, that we
can imagine, not least the Saudis; and it means that we will not
be able to successfully translate our defence industrial base to
the future, which we all appreciate is largely unmanned in each
of the four domains that defence these days has to consider.
Words mean what words say, except when they trip from the lips of
politicians. Then, it is very often what is not said that
influences the conversation, particularly in the media.
My plea, in the very short time available to me, is for
Ministers, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister to correct
what was said this week and, in particular, to ramp up the
rhetoric on our support for this fundamentally important
programme that is vital to our defence and our defence base. I
appreciate that the Prime Minister has a problem, in that he has
failed to commit to 2.5% of GDP within a recognisable timeframe,
which is no commitment at all, and he has launched a largely
unnecessary defence review, which will be a distraction for at
least 12 months. I am confident in the sound good sense of and Richard Barrons. I
cannot image that they will be party to the cancellation or delay
of this programme.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
I call the Minister to respond.
1.57pm
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you, on
behalf of the Government, on your accession to the throne—not
literally, but to the Speaker's Chair, which was actually a gift
of the country of Australia to the House of Commons following the
1940s.
I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for South Suffolk
(), in particular for his
comments regarding the dreadful attack on a soldier outside the
Kent barracks this week. I thank him for putting that on the
record. I also thank all Members across the House for supporting
the SI without a vote.
I will conclude briefly on some of the very important points that
have been raised. If I do not cover them all, it is because I
will be sending a copy of Hansard to those in charge of the
review, including the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon.
Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (). All the points that have
been raised are crucial in thinking through the next five years
of defence spending. As I said at the beginning, this debate is
about the international treaty part of the programme, so I will
be very brief.
First of all, I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and
Wickford (Mr Francois) for his recommendations from his visit to
Japan. There is nothing like visiting a country and getting to
know the whole team there to give really good feedback, so I will
be passing that on. We also had very supportive comments from the
hon. Member for Strangford (). There was a big plea from Edinburgh by the SNP
spokesperson, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens
(), for some defence jobs. That
has been heard.
I praise fulsomely the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member
for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has enormously big shoes
to fill. Our friend has left the green Benches and will probably
go the red Benches at some future point—who knows?—so he has very
big shoes to fill. Perhaps his predecessor has already been
ennobled. I loved my hon. Friend's description of growing up with
the challenges of knife crime and how he came through that. What
an excellent role model he is for so many people who are watching
our debates today! I also admired his commitment to value for
money; that could prove very useful, given his particular area of
interest.
A question arose in the debate relating to the role of other
partners. The order names the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy
because we needed to get on with this. We are the first to deal
with this at this level in our parliamentary process. Japan and
Italy will then engage in their own processes because of the
reciprocity involved, and I am sure that after that, when we are
all up to speed, discussions about further partnerships will be
ongoing. In granting these privileges and immunities we will be
able to bring the GIGO into force, and in doing so, we will be
better positioned to support the achievement of GCAP's aims and
the fulfilment of the Government's objectives. We will also be
better placed to work with international partners and to
influence the air combat industry as a result. I hope that the
House will support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International
Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024,
which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session
of Parliament, be approved.
|
