AUKUS Defence Partnership The Minister for Defence Procurement
(Alex Chalk) With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make
a statement about the AUKUS defence partnership. Yesterday, the
Prime Minister, standing alongside the President of the United
States and the Prime Minister of Australia, announced that our
three nations would be jointly developing a conventionally armed—I
stress that—nuclear-powered submarine, the SSN-AUKUS, which will
come into...Request free trial
AUKUS Defence
Partnership
The Minister for Defence Procurement ()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement
about the AUKUS defence partnership. Yesterday, the Prime
Minister, standing alongside the President of the United States
and the Prime Minister of Australia, announced that our three
nations would be jointly developing a conventionally armed—I
stress that—nuclear-powered submarine, the SSN-AUKUS, which will
come into service in the late 2030s.
Before I provide the House with more details about this landmark
announcement, it might be beneficial for colleagues if I provide
a brief summary of how we got here. For more than 60 years, the
UK and the US have successfully collaborated on the development
of nuclear submarines. This unprecedented co-operation goes to
the very core of our special relationship. Currently, with the
support of the United States, we have a fleet of five
Astute-class submarines, with a further two boats to be built.
These world-class vessels are an essential component of our
defence and security apparatus in a more contested world.
More recently, Australia has also recognised the need for a
stealthier and more enduring underwater capability to deter
threats to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific. That is
why back in September 2021, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Uxbridge and South Ruislip (), while Prime Minister,
announced to the House a pivotal new defence partnership
involving the United States, Australia and the UK, otherwise
known as AUKUS. The partnership involves two pillars: first, the
joint development of a nuclear-powered, conventionally armed
submarine capability for Australia; and secondly, the creation of
a suite of complementary technologies, among them hypersonics and
cyber. It is the first of those pillars that I wish to focus on
today.
For the past 18 months, we have been working closely with our
trilateral counterparts to understand Australia’s requirements,
to make a detailed technical assessment and to set out the
optimal pathway for delivering this unique platform. As the Prime
Minister said last night, this scoping period has now concluded
and a solution has been identified.
The SSN-AUKUS will be based on the design for the UK’s
Astute-class submarine replacement, SSN(R), which has been under
development for several years. SSN-AUKUS will build on these firm
foundations by incorporating cutting-edge US submarine
technology, including the propulsion plant, combat systems and
conventional weapons, but this boat will not just be of benefit
to the Royal Australian Navy. It is now clear to us that the
SSN-AUKUS, which is an evolution of SSN(R), should now become the
UK’s future platform as well, providing the future attack
submarine requirement for the Royal Navy as well as the Royal
Australian Navy.
As yesterday’s refreshed integrated review underlines, we are
having to contend with an increasingly volatile and complex
environment, with multiple adversaries seeking to undermine our
rules-based international order. In response, the deepening of
our defence partnership offers three distinct advantages. First,
it bolsters our undersea capability. It will give us the ability
to deter future threats in the underwater battlespace, to protect
our nuclear deterrent and our vital sea lines of communication
and to fulfil a range of military tasks, including anti-surface
and anti-submarine warfare, land attack and intelligence
gathering.
Secondly, AUKUS will bring a truly global and interoperable
capability for our nations that is not just capable of operating
in the Indo-Pacific, but strengthens our contribution to NATO in
Europe. It will enable us to operate in the high north, where the
impact of climate change is opening new military and commercial
shipping access to the north Atlantic, and it will ensure that
three like-minded nations with shared interests on the global
stage can work together even more closely.
Thirdly, and finally, AUKUS helps us share the burden of research
and development costs, not just giving us access to some of the
most advanced technology on the planet, but allowing us to
integrate our supply chains and provide greater resilience at a
time of growing resource costs and inflationary pressures. It
will also open up further opportunities for technology sharing
and interoperability across the defence context.
The first SSN-AUKUS for the Royal Navy will be built in the
United Kingdom and delivered in the late 2030s, taking full
advantage of our many decades of experience in building
nuclear-powered submarines. To support SSN-AUKUS, Australia has
committed to making a proportionate financial investment in our
submarine industrial base. SSN-AUKUS will support thousands of
new jobs at Barrow-in-Furness and Derby and throughout the
national supply chain. These are truly centres of excellence, and
I am proud to say that they stand ready to support Australia in
this endeavour. It is particularly good news that Rolls-Royce UK
will be building the nuclear reactors for all of Australia’s
submarines.
We intend for the first SSN-AUKUS to come into service with the
Royal Australian Navy in the 2040s, and Australia will receive
substantial support to develop and operate these nuclear-powered
submarines. Submariners from the Royal Australian Navy have
already begun to train with the Royal Navy to gain the relevant
experience and, alongside the US, the Royal Navy intends to
increase the number of submarine deployments to Australia from
2026, building on the successful visit to Australia by HMS Astute
in 2021. The United States has also signalled her intention to
provide Virginia-class attack submarines to the Royal Australian
Navy, with Australia planning to acquire three. Taken together,
this plan is consistent with Australian sovereignty and
international obligations. It systematically and carefully builds
Australia’s ability to safely and securely operate, maintain and
sustain SSNs.
It goes without saying that compliance with non-proliferation
requirements is paramount, and I reassure the House that
throughout this process we will remain fully committed to setting
the highest non-proliferation standards. We are undertaking every
step in a way that reflects our long-standing leadership in
global non-proliferation and our steadfast support for the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have been clear that we will
pursue this endeavour in a way that sets a strong precedent for
states seeking to develop a naval nuclear propulsion capability.
We have consulted, and we will continue to consult regularly and
transparently with the International Atomic Energy Agency with
respect to the development of a suitable nuclear safeguards
approach. The IAEA director general has expressed his
satisfaction with our engagement.
This is a momentous journey for us all. For maritime nations such
as the UK, as well as Australia and the US, maintaining a
capability advantage over potential adversaries is essential. For
the UK, AUKUS represents an historic opportunity for a deep,
enduring and mutually beneficial partnership with two of our
closest allies—a partnership that will strengthen the resilience
of our nuclear submarine enterprise and will bring with it
investment and high-skilled, high-wage jobs, as well as an even
stronger and more capable Royal Navy submarine force. The United
Kingdom will now begin embarking on delivering SSN-AUKUS, along
with our allies. I look forward to keeping the House updated on
how it progresses. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
3.16pm
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. This
AUKUS defence partnership has our fullest Labour support. The
multi-decade agreement deepens security and opportunity between
our three countries. It strengthens strategic security and
prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. It promises not just jobs now,
but jobs in the next generation and the one after that. It
fulfils all our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. I
want to see Britain playing the biggest role possible in building
these new submarines, with the first AUKUS boat launched as early
as possible in Barrow.
Yesterday’s 2023 integrated review states
“£3 billion will be invested across the defence nuclear
enterprise”.
How much of that total is going to Barrow and to Derby? The
current funding of £85 million each for developing the new SSN(R)
submarine runs out at the end of this month. As the Minister has
mentioned, the AUKUS pathway report published by the Australian
Government last night confirms that
“Australia will also make a proportionate financial investment in
the UK and US industrial bases.”
When will this investment in Barrow and Derby begin? How will the
combined UK-Australian investment in the SSN-AUKUS programme be
managed?
This AUKUS agreement is profound. It is not about any nation
buying weapons systems off one another, or the Government
contracting with major companies for a new platform; it is about
building the industrial capability of all three countries. It is
a national enterprise for the UK on skills and workforce, on
technology, on security of essential supply chains and
components, on sharing highly secret technologies and on
decommissioning and recycling out-of-service subs, so who will
lead this drive? How will the necessary co-ordination and
integration be done? We know, as the Minister said, that
Australian personnel have begun serving with the Royal Navy, and
that the UK will increase SSN visits to Australia ahead of what
is called the submarine rotational force west being created in
2027. How often and for how long will a UK Astute be rotated to
Australia?
The UK’s former National Security Adviser, , has described the AUKUS
pact as
“perhaps the most significant capability collaboration anywhere
in the world in the past six decades”,
because it is about more than just subs. Pillar 2 of the AUKUS
partnership, which the Minister mentioned, promises potential
co-operation on hypersonics, cyber, artificial intelligence and
quantum computing. Those are essential capabilities that can be
delivered before the new AUKUS subs enter service.
Yesterday’s integrated review said little about pillar 2, so can
the Minister overcome his reluctance and provide an update on it?
What are its strategic objectives? What are its timelines? Which
of the technologies has the highest priority? As the broad
coalition of countries imposing sanctions on Russia has shown,
some of our strongest and most reliable allies are in the
Indo-Pacific. Could any other countries, beyond the three AUKUS
nations, become involved in pillar 2 collaborations?
Finally, AUKUS is a national enterprise for the UK and a
trinational endeavour with our closest security allies. Will the
Minister commit today to report regularly on progress with AUKUS
to Parliament and to the public?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is
absolutely right that this is an announcement of such moment that
it will require cross-party and generational support. It is
important to note precisely the scale of what is being proposed.
As he rightly indicated, this is about not simply the sale of a
weapons system, but the growth of a capability across continents
and across generations. With scale comes opportunity: having that
trinational approach builds the resilience of the supply chain
and of the industrial capability, which benefits Australia, of
course, and the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about investment. I am pleased to
note that, in the last financial year, £2 billion was invested
into Barrow-in-Furness and Raynesway, as he will have seen,
because I think he has had the opportunity to visit both
recently. There will be further investment to come, partly as a
result of what has been announced recently, and in the years to
come, which echoes my point about it having to be sustained and
continued. He is right, of course, to reference the fact that, in
the document that accompanies the announcement, a copy of which I
am sure he has seen, the Australians have indicated their
agreement to make a proportionate investment in UK
infrastructure.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to ask about co-ordination,
because this has to be co-ordinated. The way that happens is,
first and foremost, to ensure that the Australian experts who
need to develop that expertise, as they have candidly
acknowledged, spend time in the UK—in Barrow and Raynesway.
Indeed, this Thursday, I am looking forward to going to Barrow
with the Premier of South Australia, where the first SSN-AUKUS
for the Royal Australian Navy will be built.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of AUKUS pillar 2. I
have had the opportunity to speak to my opposite number here in
the UK to discuss precisely that. There are a number of aspects
to it, as he indicated, such as hypersonics, AI and underwater
technologies, and further detail will be explored in due course.
To his point about other countries, I can say that, unlike pillar
1, which is not open for engagement beyond the three nations, we
will of course consider the interest that other nations have
expressed in pillar 2.
As is well expressed in the fact sheet that accompanies the
announcement, AUKUS—whether pillar 1 or pillar 2—is designed to
show:
“our shared commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific and an
international system that respects the rule of law, sovereignty,
human rights, and the peaceful resolution of disputes free from
coercion.”
That is what our nations stand for, and that is what AUKUS will
deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
As somebody who is passionate about UK security and Britain’s
place in the world, I could not hide my deep disappointment
yesterday when the new integrated review spelled out a
deteriorating global threat picture, but offered no new
investment in our conventional forces. We are back here today,
however, and I welcome this landmark announcement of ever greater
collaboration between three trusted allies. Our political
relationship with Washington experienced a bumpy patch post
Brexit—I say that as a US-UK dual national—so it is good to see
it back where it should be. Indeed, landing AUKUS, the Paris
agreement and the Windsor framework shows that statecraft has
returned to No. 10.
The procurement programme is for the long term and the first subs
will not arrive for another couple of decades, yet the threat
picture is deteriorating rapidly. If we are to commit to the
Indo-Pacific tilt, does the Minister recognise the urgent need to
increase the surface fleet, so that we can meet our
responsibilities there?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous in his
attention to the issue of the deterrent and the nuclear submarine
capability in general. His point about the surface fleet is
absolutely right. As a relatively new Minister coming into the
Department, it has been encouraging to see the approach taken on
Type 31—in other words, the choice of a platform that is
deliverable, affordable and configurable to a mission. We have to
move beyond a situation where exquisite and highly expensive
capabilities are not necessarily operating on a particular
mission to their full specification, so Type 31s can be
reconfigured for anti-piracy missions, war-fighting missions or
humanitarian missions. The British people want to see British
warships and frigates acting in the national interest abroad in a
sustainable and affordable way, and that is the approach we are
taking.
(Angus) (SNP)
I am not a huge advocate of nuclear submarines, but I recognise
their dynamic advantages over air-independent propulsion, in
terms of range, speed and duration. Moreover, as the SNP’s lead
on defence, I spend my time engaged on the defence posture and
resources that an independent Scotland will require to defend our
national interests and those of our allies collectively, in a way
that is consistent with Scotland’s defence and security
priorities, so I will not lecture Australia or the United Kingdom
on what is right for them. I encourage the Defence Procurement
Minister to acknowledge the outstanding engineering prowess that
supports attack submarines at Thales in Glasgow and MacTaggart
Scott in Loanhead. Nevertheless, I wish everybody in
Barrow-in-Furness every success with the work and I hope it
generates great prosperity there.
I note the challenges in delivering Astute-class SSN in the UK,
with boats one to three being delivered five years late and 53%
over budget. What assurances has the UK given to the Australians
that that contagion will not affect SSN-AUKUS? What about
refit—will the UK be helping Australia with technology transfer
and how to refit the boats? Presumably not, given that, due to
the Ministry of Defence’s dithering and short-termism, HMS
Vanguard required seven years to overhaul and refuel, rather than
the planned two, with an attendant cost explosion.
Of the 21 submarines languishing at end of life—seven at Rosyth
and a further 14 at Devonport in England—only seven have been
defuelled. This scandal sees the previous HMS Vanguard, which
went out of service in 1980 and has a 62-year-old hull, still
sitting there waiting for the Government to put the money in to
safely dispose of it. We have the industrial expertise in the
United Kingdom to do that work, so why are the Government not
funding their responsibilities? Has the UK cautioned the
Australians that it is not enough simply to fund the build,
commission and operation of these nuclear submarines, because
states must also allocate the budget for disposal? Has the MOD
had that conversation, and if so, how did it manage the hypocrisy
of it all?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sunny observations, which were
hugely appreciated. If I can begin at the end, I was disappointed
to hear him asking questions about whether the Australians have
been reminded about decommissioning, because it is in the very
document that I would have thought he had read. This document, at
page 41, talks about radioactive waste management and Australia’s
plans to do precisely that, so I am pleased to have been able to
deal with that.
On the issue the hon. Gentleman raised about the expertise in
Scotland, let me join him, in the spirit of unity across the
House, in commending the excellence in Scotland. I am delighted
that it is the Ministry of Defence in a British Government that
has ensured that those brilliant experts in Scotland have got the
ships to work on. That simply would not happen in the event of
independence, and he needs to be straight with the Scottish
people about that.
On the second issue about refitting, let me say that one
advantage of co-operating across the three nations is that we
have not only the broader industrial capability to build these
boats in the first place, but the capability to develop them over
time. One thing he will well understand, as others in the House
also recognise, is that it is not enough to think about the
capability of the platform on day one; we have to consider how it
will develop through the years. Our ability to do that and to
ensure that it remains at the cutting edge is immeasurably
enhanced by the fact that we are operating across the three
nations.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about dismantling, I hope I can
reassure him. Swiftsure, one of the boats he referred to, is
being dismantled as the demonstrator—that will be completed by
2026—and low-level radioactive waste has been removed already
from Swiftsure, Resolution and Revenge. The matters are in hand,
and they will continue at pace.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
May I put on record my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend, the
Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister, and to their teams, for
getting this bold and visionary deal over the line? AUKUS will
provide resilience for our submarine programme, and capacity and
capability between our three nations, and it will secure our
allies in uncertain times, and deliver jobs and investment in
Barrow. It will be a true win-win. Further, does my hon. and
learned Friend agree that it is testament to the remarkable
skills of the ship makers in Barrow that Australia chose a
submarine designed by Barrovians for its future fleet? Will he
join me in thanking and paying tribute to the hard work they do
day in and day out, at the shipyard and in the wider submarine
programme, to keep us and our allies safe?
I thank my hon. Friend for his heartfelt and powerful tribute to
the people he represents, and he is absolutely right. This
decision is a vote of confidence—not just a British Government
vote of confidence, but an international vote of confidence—in
the good and skilled people he represents. Let us be clear that
this is a British design that will be enhanced principally by US
but also by some Australian technology. It is an excellent
example of where international scale allied with British know-how
and British hard work can produce something genuinely world
beating not just for this generation, but to ensure that future
generations—our children and grandchildren—can enjoy the safety
we have enjoyed.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement. Last year, I visited Australia, and
one thing that impressed me was that, for Australia, this is a
national endeavour. With meetings at federal level and obviously
with the state premier of South Australia, this is a joined-up
national endeavour, including looking at skills not just for
today, but for the future.
I noticed that, in the new refresh of the integrated review
yesterday, it says:
“We have also: announced…Great British Nuclear, to progress a
resilient pipeline of new nuclear projects”.
The fear I have is that we are not matching the endeavour of the
Australians. Could the Minister explain how we will get that
concentration on skills—not just today, but in future—especially
with the Business Department shilly-shallying around the
investment for Rolls-Royce in the small modular nuclear
reactors?
May I welcome the right hon. Member’s approval, which is
appreciated? He is right that it is a joined-up endeavour in
Australia. It has to be, and the Australians well understand the
enormous scale of what they are taking on. As he indicated, I
look forward to welcoming the premier of South Australia in
Barrow this Thursday. His point about skills is well made. We are
clear, as are those at Raynesway in Derby, and in Barrow and
Furness, that we need to grow the skills pipeline, but that has
already begun. If we consider the £2 billion invested last year,
yes, some of it went to new buildings and equipment, but it also
went to ensuring that the capacity and college facilities to
bring on those apprentices are in place. Someone who goes to
Derby can be briefed now about precisely what is taking place.
The excitement, enthusiasm and drive that is going into ensuring
sufficient suitably qualified and expert personnel is reassuring
and encouraging. The right hon. Gentleman is making the right
point, and I am pleased to reassure him that that matter is not
lost on those involved.
(Wokingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement and the work that has gone into
it. Can the Minister give the House any indication of the first
phase of roll-out, and of how many submarines of the new type
will be built? How many of those could be for the Royal Navy?
We know, come what may, that the first of these submarines will
be built in Barrow, and we have already begun the procurement of
long-lead items for that initial batch. Precise numbers will
emerge in due course, and that will depend on all sorts of
things, including how quickly the Australian industrial base
matures and so on. I reassure my right hon. Friend that the first
boat will be built here in the UK, and work is being done to
ensure that the necessary components for future builds are
already being procured.
(Warley) (Lab)
I welcome this development, as well as the announcement from the
Prime Minister, an American Democrat President and an Australian
Labour Prime Minister, showing unity between parties and across
countries on this vital endeavour. However, I think the Minister
is unreasonably complacent. It is not clear who is in charge, and
lack of clarity leads to delay and disruption. If we look at the
Polaris agreement—it was signed at Nassau in 1962, and HMS
Resolution was laid down in 1964, launched in 1996, and
commissioned in 1967. Who will be doing that? On the nuclear
aspect, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr
Jones) said, the report states that we will be looking to
“align delivery of the civil and defence nuclear enterprises”
and goes on to mention the development of
“small modular reactors in the UK through Rolls-Royce SMR;”.
Yet the Treasury is sabotaging that project. It is demanding
endless inquiries and evaluations, and is now talking about
having a competition with international competitors to try to
undermine Rolls-Royce. We do not have that link-up between the
civil and military enterprise, so when will somebody get a
grip?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I do not
recognise the points he is making. As far as Rolls-Royce is
concerned, the Government are absolutely behind that fantastic
facility—
indicated dissent.
I have been there recently, and I am pleased to say that they
are. Rolls-Royce recognises the importance of this programme. One
thing that is clear about building nuclear powered submarines is
that unless we keep the drum beat of “always-on” manufacture, it
is easy for those skills to erode. I am delighted that this
programme ensures that we will be building reactors now and in
the future for generations to come. That means we will keep those
expert personnel, ensure a pipeline of staff, and we will be
experts for many years to come.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the work he has done
with his Department, his team, and the Ministry of Defence as a
whole. The changing geopolitical landscape, and the 360-degree
view of NATO, make it vital that there is a silent capability in
the Pacific, especially when we look at changes to the
geopolitical energy demands coming from western South America. On
pillar 2, and the development of weapons, if we are to expand to
other nations to help with the development of highly complex
weapons, on which I think the west would admit it is way behind
the curve, has the Minister given any consideration as to how the
UK and AUKUS members can work with PESCO nations which, as he
will understand, are a closed shop and have made it difficult for
a relationship to form? Will he give that issue some attention
regarding how that relationship can be built moving forward?
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am also grateful to
him for the part he played in progressing this matter when he was
in the Department. He comes to this subject with enormous
knowledge of the NATO context. I want to pick up on his first
point, on capability, because we have not spoken a vast amount
about it. The ability to be stealthy and undetected is not a
capability enjoyed by conventionally powered submarines, and that
is one reason why the United States and the United Kingdom no
longer operate them. It is vital that submarines have the range,
the lack of detectability, and the ability to be more stealthy
and detect more in terms of intelligence and so on, so I take
that point. On his second point about pillar 2, he is absolutely
right and I will certainly undertake to consider the matter he
raises. We had very warm and positive discussions with the
Australians here in the UK about pillar 2. I think there is a
shared recognition among the United States, the UK and Australia
that we need to move quickly. There is no time to lose.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
On behalf of my party, the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the AUKUS
defence partnership announcement. I endorse what the right hon.
Member for Elmet and Rothwell () said about the stealth it
will bring to our partnership. Like the Minister, the US
President was at pains yesterday to stress that SSN-AUKUS will be
nuclear powered but not nuclear armed. The Minister went further
today and talked a little about compliance with international law
on proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency is
satisfied that Australia does not intend to pursue uranium
enrichment. Given that since the announcement China alleges that
AUKUS undermines the international non-proliferation system, will
the Minister provide a little more assurance to the House and the
British public that the initiative does indeed comply with the
non-proliferation treaty?
I am happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right to say, of
course, that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I have
made that crystal clear. The NPT is about the non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons, not nuclear propulsion systems. I am pleased
to be able to indicate that the director general of the IAEA
reported to IAEA member states that he believes the AUKUS
partners are committed to ensuring the highest non-proliferation
and that safeguard standards are met. He noted his satisfaction
with the engagement and transparency shown by the three countries
thus far. Australia, in joining the UK and the US, has joined not
just the strongest possible culture of safety, but the strongest
possible culture of adherence to the rule of law. Indeed, these
systems are the very tools that we bring to the table to defend
the rules-based order.
(Bolsover) (Con)
This is a very welcome agreement that helps to make the world
just a little bit safer. I recently had the pleasure of visiting
Faslane with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I met some of
our submariners, went aboard one of our nuclear submarines and
saw a reactor built by Rolls-Royce in Derby, which will have been
made by some of my constituents. The announcement is incredibly
welcome news for Derby and Derbyshire. What assessment has the
Department made of the economic boost it will bring to the east
midlands?
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He is a great
supporter of his constituents who produce these brilliant
reactors. I am so pleased he went to Rosyth and met the
submariners, because I would like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to them. It is a tough job, candidly. They do on our
behalf, out of sight and sometimes out of mind, an enormously
important job and I know the whole House will join me in paying
tribute to them for what they deliver for the security of our
nation. The additional investment—let us be clear that the
nuclear reactors will supply all the Australian SSN-AUKUS
submarines—will mean thousands more high-skilled, high-paid jobs
here in the UK. To the point made just a few moments ago, they
will be welded shut nuclear reactors. I am happy to be able to
make that point. They will not need to be opened or tampered with
in any way during the lifetime of the submarine.
(Halton) (Lab)
I was deeply disappointed with the funding announcement
yesterday, which was woefully inadequate for our defence needs,
but I fully support and welcome today’s announcement and the
AUKUS partnership. May I ask the Minister a specific question?
Page 56 of the “Integrated Review Refresh” rightly refers to
supply chain risks, particularly in terms of the five priority
technologies. To ensure that we, along with our partners, produce
and develop the best possible assets that can outmatch our
adversaries, at what point will we hear—we still have not
heard—when we will publish a strategy on semiconductors and
quantum technologies?
The hon. Gentleman is right that semiconductors and quantum
technologies are significant. I am happy to write to him on that
point.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome today’s announcement as further evidence that we and
our allies are taking seriously the threat of Chinese aggression
in the Pacific, and taking action to deal with it. Apart from the
strategic security advantages, the announcement offers economic
benefit to the United Kingdom. The Minister has indicated that
the defence supply chain should benefit, and it is reported that
Barrow shipyard, Rolls-Royce, Thales and more will be in line to
benefit. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether this
announcement will lead to extra high-value jobs in engineering
and defence in Northern Ireland?
It is overwhelmingly likely that this announcement will have a
positive impact across the United Kingdom, including in Northern
Ireland. Inevitably, precisely how it shakes down will become
clear in the fullness of time, because we will need to see the
extent to which the supply chains are met in the UK, the United
States and Australia. There is the rub—the point of all this is
that all three countries bring that element of resilience.
Already, Australia has certain capabilities in pressure hull
steel, valves, pumps and batteries; we have capabilities in
nuclear reactions and so on; and the United States brings weapons
systems and various other technologies to bear. That resilience
in the supply chain is important to ensure not just that the
current submarines can be fitted out and produced, but, vitally,
that there is a pipeline in future, because it sends the
strongest possible demand signal not just now but for generations
to come.
(Grantham and Stamford)
(Con)
My hon. and learned Friend will have noticed that China has been
quick to condemn our historic AUKUS agreement as a “path of
error”. It also still refuses to condemn Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine. Does he agree that that illustrates both the difficulty
that we face in determining our relationship with Beijing and why
AUKUS is so important for our security?
It is important to note that we are looking to have an
interoperable presence with our allies in the Indo-Pacific as a
whole. Although my hon. Friend is right and proper in identifying
China, which the Prime Minister said presented an “epoch-defining
systemic challenge”, it is also correct to say that the United
Kingdom, Australia and the United States want to ensure that all
of the Indo-Pacific remains free for those who believe in the
international rules-based order and the rule of law. My hon.
Friend is absolutely right that when it comes to China, we have
grave concerns about human rights violations and other aggressive
actions. That is why we want to ensure the capability to allow
our values and what we stand for to be properly represented and
upheld in that vital part of the world.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Many in the world are concerned that this agreement undermines,
if not breaches, the non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister
assure us that it will be constantly under review and will be
reported to the NPT review conference when it comes along? Will
he also explain the longer-term implications of this in stoking
up a cold war with China? That is likely to increase defence
expenditure by the UK, the US, Australia and China in future,
leading to greater danger in the South China sea. What is his
aspiration for a more peaceful relationship in the long term that
will not cost such vast amounts of money for all the countries
concerned?
May I reject in the strongest possible terms what the right hon.
Gentleman says? I do find it troubling that he is so ready to
take the side of any country that stands potentially in
opposition to the United Kingdom.
indicated dissent.
The right hon. Gentleman is the self-same man, I am sorry to say,
who in 2014 blamed NATO for Russian aggression. Now, again, he
wants to take the side of others. This is the country, together
with its allies, that believes in what he should believe in: the
international rules-based order and the assertion of those rights
in a contested world. We will continue to do that, and we will
not be knocked off course by those who try to do our country
down.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call .
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that major defence
announcements such as this one should not be considered in
isolation? By far the biggest foreign policy challenge that we
face is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Western strategies are
largely dependent on economic sanctions against Russia, but those
sanctions have been blunted by the fact that Russia has been able
to find other markets with which to trade. What assessment has
the Minister made of whether the AUKUS security pact will help or
hinder our strategies to bring Russia’s war to an end?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have to ensure that
our defence nuclear programme progresses in the way that I have
indicated, but not to the exclusion of what we are properly doing
on the continent of Europe. I am proud, and I think this whole
House can be proud, that after the United States there is no
nation on the planet that has done more than ours to provide
military equipment to the Ukrainians: more than 100,000 artillery
shells, 200 armoured fighting vehicles, night vision goggles,
more than 10,000 anti-tank weapons, winter clothing and so on. We
do all this and more because we believe that we need to send a
message from this country that might is not always right and that
our country can be counted on to stand up to bullies.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to
questions for almost three quarters of an hour.
|
