The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps) Thank you for
that warm welcome, Mr Speaker. With permission I would like to
share details of the treaty that I signed with my Japanese and
Italian counterparts last Thursday. A year ago, the Prime Ministers
of the UK, Japan and Italy agreed to work together on a joint
programme to develop a new generation of military combat aircraft.
Supersonic and armed with an array of revolutionary new
capabilities, our global combat...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Defence ()
Thank you for that warm welcome, Mr Speaker. With permission I
would like to share details of the treaty that I signed with my
Japanese and Italian counterparts last Thursday.
A year ago, the Prime Ministers of the UK, Japan and Italy agreed
to work together on a joint programme to develop a new generation
of military combat aircraft. Supersonic and armed with an array
of revolutionary new capabilities, our global combat air
programme, or GCAP for short, will deliver vital military
capability, strengthening and sustaining our combat air sectors,
and setting the standard for future combat air. Above all, it
will bolster our collective security. The fact is that we are
living in a much more dangerous and contested world. Our skies
and international airspace are increasingly contested, not least
from threats posed by Russia and China. All three treaty
countries are already making significant investments in combat
air to pursue these lofty ambitions. During recent years, the
Ministry of Defence alone has invested £2 billion in UK combat
air technology, with a further £600 million from industry to
shape the capabilities and develop the necessary skills pipeline
to deliver this state-of-the-art aircraft for the future.
Today I am pleased to announce, as an early Christmas present to
the House, a major milestone in that programme. On Thursday 14
December in Tokyo, alongside my Italian Defence Minister
colleague Guido Crosetto and my Japanese colleague Minister
Minoru Kihara, I signed the GCAP treaty. It establishes the legal
basis for the formation of a new GCAP international governmental
organisation. As everyone seems fond of acronyms, the GIGO—or, as
Guido Crosetto told me, the “JIGO”—is now formed. It is with
great pleasure that I now confirm that the headquarters of the
GIGO will be in the UK.
The GIGO will be responsible for delivering vital military
innovation, strengthening our trinational industrial capacity,
and getting the most punch out of our pounds, euro and yen. While
located in the UK, it will, however, be a partnership of equals,
which is why the first chief executive of the new GCAP agency
will be from Japan, and the first chief executive officer of the
joint venture will be from Italy.
It is worth spending a brief moment reiterating why GCAP is so
strategically important. It will immeasurably enhance our freedom
of action, ensuring that the RAF has the global reach and
cutting-edge capabilities it needs to conduct operations and
exercises for decades to come. It will deepen our collaboration
with partners in the Euro-Atlantic at a time of increasing
instability, and it will also ensure that we remain a key player
in the Indo-Pacific theatre, which will only grow in geopolitical
influence and importance over decades to come. Indeed, our new
treaty already builds upon our existing defence relationships
with Japan, complementing the recently signed reciprocal access
agreement, which facilitates mutually beneficial defence
co-operation, and I was able to speak about that in Japan last
week.
Like AUKUS, today’s treaty is a truly multi-decade endeavour with
like-minded partners who share our view of the international
environment. The agreement arrives two years after we deployed
our magnificent Royal Navy carrier strike group in 2021, and it
is two years away from a planned carrier strike group deployment
in 2025, which will include Japan. Collectively the signal we are
sending both to our allies and to our adversaries is clear: the
UK is deeply committed to Indo-Pacific security and Euro-Atlantic
security, as well as global security. In increasingly uncertain
and deadly times, we will do everything in our power to preserve
an open and stable international order.
We should never forget, however, that GCAP is more than just an
engine of security; it is also an engine of prosperity. With key
combat air hubs in the north-west and south-west of England and
in Edinburgh, GCAP will help accelerate economic growth across
the country. There are already around 3,000 people working on the
future combat air programme in the UK, with almost 600
organisations on contracts across the country, including many
SMEs and academic institutions. The GIGO headquarters alone will
support hundreds of jobs here in the UK. It will attract
substantial inward investment in research and development,
providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled
engineers and technicians, not to mention the prospect of
thousands more high-value jobs right across the supply chains of
our three nations.
More than that, it is a programme of such size and
sophistication—it is a programme that will innovate on such an
extraordinary scale, using artificial intelligence, digital
twinning, open architecture and robotic engineering —that I
believe it will inspire a whole new generation to get into
engineering, aerospace and defence. Today, we are glimpsing the
future, and it comes after months of intensive work to get this
together with Japan and Italy, establishing the concept of a GCAP
aircraft and the joint structures to launch the development phase
in 2025.
One year on from the landmark deal that three Prime Ministers put
together, our GCAP partnership is soaring to new heights. Getting
here has been the product of immense effort and long sleepless
nights from colleagues in all three countries. I pay tribute to
their tireless effort, because today we fire up the thrusters to
turbo-boost our nations towards a revolutionary air capability.
That capability will one day surpass an earlier pantheon of
legends in the sky, from the Spitfire to the Tornado and from the
Typhoon to the F-35. It is a capability that will initiate a
step-change in the industrial co-operation between our three
nations and will usher in a new era of combat air power. Given
all it will do for our country, I have no doubt that, when it
comes to formally laying the treaty for ratification before this
Parliament, it will meet with the approval of colleagues on both
sides of the House. The treaty has been published on gov.uk
today, and I commend this statement to the House.
4.08pm
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement this afternoon
and for early sight of it.
We welcome the treaty that he signed on behalf of the UK last
week with Japan and Italy, and we warmly welcome the decision to
locate the GCAP government headquarters in London. The treaty is
the latest in the planned steps for developing our tri-nation
sixth-generation fighter and weaponry. Ukraine has shown us that
some of our strongest allies are in east Asia and the Pacific,
and we share with them concern about China’s growing military
power and assertiveness in the region. We want to see peace,
stability and deterrence strengthened in the Indo-Pacific. GCAP
is, like AUKUS, a strategic UK commitment to contribute to that.
I know it is welcomed in Washington and Canberra, just like
AUKUS.
Most importantly, 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. The Defence Secretary is
right to report that to the House.
Defence industrial collaboration underpinned by treaty is
unusual. It is a multi-decade undertaking for this nation. As the
Secretary of State says, it should command support across the
House, and Ministers should report on it openly and regularly.
May I ask him what scope the treaty allows to work with other
allies, both at a secondary level and as primary partners? Does
article 50 ensure that the export problems with the Typhoon will
not be encountered with GCAP? When will he lay the treaty before
Parliament for ratification?
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. In June, the defence Command Paper reaffirmed
that the UK would spend £2 billion on this project “out to 2025”.
Will the Secretary of State confirm what funding has been made
available for GCAP in the defence budget for 2025 and 2026? In
response to a written question, the then procurement Minister,
the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (), told me back in March:
“We will determine the cost-sharing arrangements ahead of the
next phase”.
Has that now been done, ahead of the treaty signing?
Meanwhile, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority this year
downgraded the GCAP programme to red, which rates
“successful delivery…to be unachievable. There are major issues
which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or
resolvable.”
What are the major issues that led to the IPA downgrade? What
action is the Secretary of State now taking to lift the red
rating?
The Secretary of State said this afternoon that the joint
development phase will launch in 2025. His press statement on the
treaty signing said this combat aircraft is
“due to take to the skies in 2035”.
Keeping the programme on time, as well as in budget, will be
critical, so by what date does he expect the design to be locked
down, the national work shares to be settled, the manufacturing
agreements to be in place, and the first flight trials to
begin?
Signing the treaty is the easy part. Britain and its allies must
now do the hard work to get this new-generation fighter aircraft
in the air and on time.
May I start by warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman’s
welcoming of this treaty signing and the overall programme? As I
say, Members on both sides of the House agree that the defence of
the realm comes first. In an ever more dangerous world, it is
important to have the facilities that a sixth-generation fighter
aircraft would bring.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the HQ is coming to
London, but I want to put it on record that it is coming to the
UK. We have not decided a location for it yet. I think there are
20-plus potential locations, so I would not want to assume that
it will be based in London. We are not as London-centric on
everything as he may be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about examples of working
internationally previously. It is worth pointing out that the
Typhoon was Italian, British, German and Spanish, and it has been
a very successful programme. We are used to working with
partners, including Italy, which is involved in this
programme.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about article 50 export issues. I
think his question is born out of a specific concern about German
export licences, which we believe are resolvable. Time will tell.
On a wider basis, we recognise that such an aircraft can only be
truly successful if the market is greater than the UK, Italy and
Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the broader equipment plans,
and he mentioned the £16.9 billion programme. There are a number
of caveats. Of course, we have seen huge inflation, but at the
other end we have also seen a big expansion of the amount of
money that is going into our 10-year equipment programme. That
number, which was a snapshot in time, was taken before the
refresh and takes into account programmes that will and will not
happen, so it is not quite as black and white as he
presented.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about cost sharing on the
programme. That is part of what the process of discussions both
on the treaty and on the new GIGO organisation will ascertain.
That is because the industrial capacity and capability of each of
the three countries is important, as is the intellectual property
that will be brought forward. That is part of what that
organisation is currently establishing. It cannot be prejudged
simply because we are likely to have greater industrial capacity
in certain areas relative to other countries. The amount of
project ownership will therefore fall on these factors: how much
money goes in, the intellectual property and the industrial
capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about RAG—red, amber,
green—ratings. If I remember rightly—I will correct the record if
I am wrong—one of the reasons for the red rating was about laying
a treaty for the project. That is one of the reasons why we are
laying the treaty for the project, and we will carry on
systematically working through any other factors that could be
slowing up the programme or causing the rating to be lower.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing for the treaty. I
am pleased that there seems to be strong cross-party consensus on
this. As he will know, passing such treaties in this House is not
a particularly complex matter—the treaty will be laid before the
House, and it will be a question for the business managers. In
other countries—in Italy and particularly in the Diet in
Japan—there is a rather more complicated process, so the time
limiter is likely to be more on their side than on ours. They
will be looking to lay the treaty at their end in the spring, and
that is more likely to be the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timings overall. It is a
compressed timetable, with a specific requirement for it to be in
service for 2035, which comes from the Japanese side because of
its aircraft replacement programme. Japan pressed the target,
which we are fully signed up to, and there are a large number of
milestones along the way, including a UK demonstrator aircraft,
which will be very much sooner. I hope that that information is
helpful. I am happy to write to him with any further detail and
to take further questions.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
In welcoming this project for a long-term future aircraft, may I
ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the threat
picture that will face it will in large measure depend on the
outcome of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Can he say
anything to the House about the efforts that he and fellow NATO
members are making to ensure that Ukraine has some current
aircraft with which to defend itself, so as to improve the
prospects that will face us when this future aircraft comes into
being?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that air
facilities and combat capabilities are essential to Ukraine, as
we have seen. That is not just aircraft but unmanned vehicles of
all types. That is why this aircraft—it will be known to some in
the House as the Tempest, which was the name when we originally
set off—will have the facility to fly unmanned. We know that
Ukraine has chosen the F-16. We do not fly F-16s, but to persuade
the world to give Ukraine aircraft, we offered the first
training. That seemed to create a situation where other countries
pitched in. We do, of course, help Ukraine in many other ways on
unmanned aerial vehicles, some of which perhaps we will not go
into here.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight his statement.
The SNP welcomes this defence co-operation between responsible
allies that will be taken forward. The Secretary of State rather
brushed away the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of
State about the £17 billion black hole in the defence equipment
budget. Since the Secretary of State mentioned expansion, will he
expand on that? Will he guarantee that other areas in defence
spending are not to be sacrificed and that they will get the
support that is required? When will he come to the House to
detail how that support will be delivered? I will come back to
that in a moment.
The Secretary of State talked about the additional market for
this equipment. What concerns are there about Saudi Arabia
joining the programme and the potential use of future combat
aircraft in Yemen? What assessment has been made of the
possibility of the programme increasing tensions with China and
worsening the situation in the Taiwan strait?
Finally, I want to come back to finance. Can the Secretary of
State detail how the UK will adhere to its treaty commitments if
the shortfall in the MOD budget increases to £29 billion, as
projected?
I should point out again that it is not a shortfall in the budget
but a snapshot of a forecast done before the refresh.
That is semantics.
It is not, simply for the reason that the projects in there may
or may not go ahead. The largest increase in that budget was to
do with the nuclear enterprise, which we all know the hon.
Gentleman does not approve of in the first place because he does
not want us to have that ultimate security of constant nuclear
defence at sea. We are totally committed to that, and will make
sure that it always exists.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about Saudi or any other
country’s engagement. A programme of this nature is of great
interest to many other nations. We receive constant inquiries.
The Saudis have been partners with us in air combat for many
decades—since Margaret Thatcher’s time at this Dispatch Box. We
will see how their interest develops. He mentioned Yemen in
relation to Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly, he completely failed to
mention that Houthis from Yemen have been attacking ships,
including the British ship HMS Diamond, which fired down one of
their unmanned aerial vehicles this weekend.
The reality, as ever, is that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands
the global context. We will back our RAF to have sixth-generation
aircraft capable of being the best in the world.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
This is a really exciting announcement, and I congratulate the
Defence Secretary. As we procure the sixth generation, we will
become a leading nation in advancing air capability. Our world
has turned a dark corner and has become more angry. It is right
that we collaborate internationally—that is the way forward in
upgrading our defence posture. He did not mention how many
airframes he planned or hoped to build—perhaps that was
deliberate. He did mention the F-35B. We originally wanted more
than 130 of those, but we might be lucky to get half that. As has
been said, the world will look very different in 2035, and we
will need more F-35s. Can he confirm how many of those airframes
will be procured? I do not apologise for saying this again and
again: is it now time to increase our defence budget to 2.5%?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. He is right that
having a sixth-generation aircraft in our fleet will ensure that
we keep ahead. He will know that Typhoons are at four and a half,
and the F-35B is a very capable fifth-generation aircraft. Our
current plan is to have 48 by 2025, and another 27 after that.
For 2035, it is not possible right now to provide an exact number
of a sixth-generation aircraft that is yet to be designed and
built. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East
(Sir ) pointed out, we do not know
quite what the shape of air war will be at the time, particularly
with drones, swarms and many other developments. We do know that
air combat will continue to be vital in future, and that we will
have the best form of air combat available through GCAP.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, delivered in
his usual “never knowingly undersold” style. I welcome the
treaty, but does he agree that if GCAP is to be successful, he
must ensure that we have a vibrant manufacturing base in the UK?
I do not know if he is aware or whether his officials have
briefed him, but following the completion of the Qatari order at
BAE Systems at Warton, there is no more manufacturing taking
place at that site. What will he do to fill the gap between
delivering the development phase of GCAP and the final
aircraft?
It is worth pointing out that the Tempest programme, the UK side
of GCAP, already employs 3,000 people in this country—I mentioned
that £2 billion has been spent so far—and the right hon.
Gentleman will be interested to hear that 1,000 of those are
apprentices. He asks about a factory run by what is essentially a
private business, or rather not Government, in BAE—
No, it’s not!
It is factually true to say that it is a private business. I was
going to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question by saying
that he will perhaps be aware that there is further interest in
Typhoon around the world. I cannot go into specifics, but I very
much hope that it is successful in winning that. As a Government,
we will certainly be fully behind that.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I have the honour of being the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to
Japan. The GCAP treaty is a powerful testament to the very close
and like-minded relationship between our two countries. Does the
Secretary of State agree with me that it would be helpful if
Japan were to revise, carefully and sensibly, the three
principles governing its defence technology exports, to allow
GCAP to be most effective in today’s changed world?
Mr Speaker, they speak so highly of my right hon. Friend in Japan
that I heard of little else while I was there last week. I am
very grateful for his work in helping to ensure that the GCAP
treaty came to the conclusion that it did last week. He asks
about the three principles. They are not in Japanese law, but
relate to its Cabinet, and they determine where and how things
from the defence world can be exported. When I was in Japan last
week, I made it very clear that, in no small part to help the
programme to operate successfully, changes to the three
principles were likely to be needed, in just the same way that,
for AUKUS, Congress needs to make changes to allow exports to
happen between the UK and Australia. It is a very similar
situation in Tokyo and I did gently persuade my opposite number
that that will need to be taken care of.
(Halton) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the treaty set out by the Secretary
of State. One key problem with procuring new assets and equipment
is that once it is specified, lots of changes come in further
down the line and the costs shoot up. Given his discussions, has
he set a date for when this asset will be specified? What
safeguards has he put in place to ensure that it is not
continually changed, therefore delaying the project further and
adding extra costs?
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that a huge amount
of work has been done. On Thursday in Tokyo, we received yet
another update from the industry consortium that has been working
on the specifics of both the concept behind the joint venture and
the different aspects of the aircraft’s performance. It is not
yet known in detail exactly what those will be. The technology is
so cutting edge that, as he knows, part of the programme is
R&D. That will be an iterative programme.
The hon. Gentleman’s central point is absolutely right: the
single greatest danger is mission creep that keeps adding on new
facilities. One thing that we, as the UK, will be saying is,
“Let’s get the aircraft flying and stable as a valuable asset,
and then let it iterate or spiral over a period of time once it
is in service.”
(South Ribble)
(Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the treaty and on
forming a technological partnership with Italy and Japan to face
some of the more difficult challenges in the world. The right
hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne () said that it is all very well
to sign the treaty, but it is about the hard work and the skilled
work. May I gently remind my right hon. Friend that Lancashire
has the heritage, the skills, the apprentices and the site? Does
he agree that the best place to put a new site would be next to
the National Cyber Force centre in Lancashire, because of the
mixture of skills that would come together beautifully?
As I corrected the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne
(), London is not guaranteed as
the headquarters, and I think the whole House heard my hon.
Friend’s valuable pitch for Lancashire.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his positive statement—it is
good to hear positivity at any time of the year, but more so at
Christmas. It is great to hear of the proactive nature of this
programme, and I thank the Secretary of State and his team for
the hard work that they have done so far. I note that the
north-east of England and Scotland are seeing jobs and
engagement. Will the Secretary of State outline how this will
enhance skills and labour throughout the United Kingdom and
particularly in Northern Ireland, which has a skilled business
workforce and industrial trades just waiting to be used? We are
here for the Secretary of State’s use, if he will only give us a
chance.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the skills that the
programme will provide throughout the UK. I am reminded of
Thales, in Northern Ireland, and of how important the
Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon has been to the battle in
Ukraine—pivotal, I am told, when I speak to my opposite number. I
have no doubt that some of the great skills and brilliance from
Northern Ireland will be part of GCAP.
(Horsham) (Con)
Having been involved in some of the early discussions with Italy
and Japan, I warmly welcome this treaty and congratulate my right
hon. Friend—they are truly excellent partners. However, he is
right in saying that if we are to maintain those manufacturing
bases for decades to come, we will need export orders. May I
encourage him from the outset not only to look at exports from
the licensing point of view, but to look at the potential for
export variants, which will allow us to export while also
maintaining national security?
I thank my right hon. Friend—a brilliant Minister for Defence
Procurement in a former time—for what he has said. He is entirely
right about exports. I do not think we can forget the
significance of Japan’s engagement in the programme, and I
congratulate him on his earlier work on this. For Japan, its
involvement is a totemic shift from its settlement after the
second world war. I think that over time it is countries that are
democratic, that want freedom and that are on the side of
people’s liberty and rights that will need to have this
sixth-generation aircraft. As I said in my statement, we are
living in a far more contested world, and one in which it is more
important than it has been in any recent decade that we have the
best capabilities, and those are what this will bring us.
(Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is clearly very pleased with himself,
which would presumably account for the unnecessary amount of
levity following a statement that was actually very serious. I
pay all tribute to Italy and Japan for signing the treaty—I would
not trust a cheque that this Government had signed, much less an
international treaty—but I suspect that they take their
confidence from MBDA, from BAE Systems, from Rolls-Royce and from
Leonardo, which are behind this project, unlike the UK
Government, who are just signing it off. Does he agree that it is
absolute testament that the beating heart and the brain of this
platform comes from Leonardo’s facility in Edinburgh? Will he
also redouble his efforts to bring Sweden inside this tent? We
need Sweden for its industrial base and its technological
know-how, and for further orders.
I do not think that anyone in the House would accuse the hon.
Gentleman of undue levity and cheerfulness, although it is
Christmas. None the less, I wish him well. Of course we want to
ensure that all our defence companies succeed as a result of
this, including those in Scotland—and who knows, that could be a
location for the headquarters.
(Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As a former serviceman and a former Defence Minister, I, too,
welcome the treaty that the Secretary of State has announced.
What worries me, though, and what worried me when I was a Defence
Minister, is slippage, under previous Governments and under this
Government. Can the Secretary of State assure us that no airframe
will be taken out of service on the basis of something coming in
in 2035? We need to keep what we have until this is available in
the air.
The 2035 date is really the absolute backstop, as I mentioned
before, and not just for us but for our Japanese partners, who
have a specific issue with their previous airframe coming out of
service at that time. That is, as it were, our guiding light. As
for the way in which the Royal Air Force itself decides to
operate its airframes in the meantime, that is in no small part a
question of what happens with technology during this period. As I
also mentioned, over the last nearly two years in Ukraine we have
seen the development of air combat at a speed that would have
seemed impossible to us before the Ukraine war, so I would not
want to pre-empt it entirely, while still supporting my right
hon. Friend’s principle that we should ensure that we have
sufficient airframes operational and in the sky at all
times—which, as the Typhoons and the F-35Bs remind us, is so very
important.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
The GCAP is a prestigious project that will offer careers and
high-skilled roles to people across the global supply chain for
decades. Will my right hon. Friend commit to keeping up the work
of the armed forces in their support for technical education in
our schools and colleges, which is critical to making these
projects a big success?
I absolutely will commit to doing that. My hon. Friend is right
to highlight it. I am in conversation with my Cabinet colleagues
about how we can maximise the amount of skills, not least because
we need them for this programme. It is a matter of great pride
that there are already 1,000 apprenticeships involved in the UK
side of this.
Mr (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
(Con)
As the world becomes a more dangerous place, I very much welcome
this statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the global
combat air programme is another demonstration of this
Government’s commitment to Indo-Pacific security?
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, not only about GCAP today
but about AUKUS. I think that, five years ago, people would have
been surprised to find that we had signed a global arrangement
with Australia and America for nuclear powered subs and pillar 2
for AUKUS, and I think they would now be surprised to discover
that we are bringing in a treaty to allow for joint aircraft
production and research and development with Japan. This is all a
sign of our commitment to the Indo-Pacific and to making sure
that the waterways and skies around the world remain free and
open for commerce and for every country to use.
(Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome this treaty and project, which will bring the GCAP
alongside AUKUS and the five power defence arrangements at the
heart of our Indo-Pacific defence partnerships. Could the
Secretary of State confirm that this will also secure the future
of the supply chain behind Typhoon and Eurofighter, including the
landing gear and avionics from Gloucestershire? By the way,
Gloucestershire airport would make an outstanding choice for
project headquarters. I make a declaration of interest here: will
he also confirm that he will be deploying the Prime Minister’s
Indo-Pacific-focused trade envoys to ensure that other nations in
the region are aware of the opportunities that this offers? That
would also bring us greater air compatibility.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the supply chain. There
is a strong read-across between the 4.5 version of the Typhoon
and the GCAP, so it will be important for our defence supply
chain, particularly when it comes to combat aircraft. I note his
pitch for a potential HQ, and I also want to thank him publicly
for his work in south-east Asia, where he does a tremendous job
as one of the trade envoys.
(Torbay) (Con)
I join others in welcoming this treaty, not just in the defence
sense but for the benefits it could bring to the south-west
region. In the light of recent incidents with North Korea and the
rising threat of China, can my right hon. Friend say a bit more
about how he sees this as part of our genuine commitment to stand
with our allies if they come under threat?
We have a choice as a nation, as indeed does the world: we see a
much more aggressive Russia invading its neighbour; we see China
looking threateningly towards its neighbours; and it is important
to understand the dynamics of North Korea, of Iran and of what is
happening in the middle east. We are undoubtedly living in a more
contested and more dangerous world, and preparing now for the
sixth-generation fighter combat aircraft is therefore more
important than ever. This Government are entirely committed to
securing our future and that of the global order of the
world.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As somebody who
represents Samlesbury in the Ribble Valley, may I give him
advance notice that I shall be knocking on his door shortly?
|
