Judith Cummins
Main Page: Judith Cummins (Labour - Bradford South)(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement, on behalf of the Defence Committee. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. They should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to present the Defence Committee’s third report of the Parliament, which illustrates just how hard the Committee is working on the House’s behalf for the people and their Parliament. My sincere gratitude goes to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this salient, significant statement on the global combat air programme.
The UK is a world leader in combat air. We have developed and built some of the most iconic fighter jet aircraft in history, from the Spitfire and the Meteor to the Tornado and the Typhoon. The global combat air programme offers the opportunity to build on that history as we look to the Royal Air Force of the future. GCAP, an international collaboration with Japan and Italy that aims to deliver a next-generation fighter aircraft by 2035, will be one of the UK’s most significant defence programmes of the coming years. The new aircraft, known as Tempest, will be crucial to countering the threat posed by our adversaries in an increasingly volatile world.
GCAP promises much: national sovereignty in combat air, strengthened relationships with key allies and a boost to our defence industrial capacity. However, delivering on that promise will not be easy. The Committee’s report seeks to make constructive recommendations that we believe will maximise GCAP’s chances of meeting its ambitious target on time and on budget.
Before I come to the detail of our findings, I would like to provide some context about our inquiry, which was begun by our predecessor Committee and interrupted by the general election. Given the importance of the topic, we felt that it was incumbent on us to complete that important work and bring our findings to the House. I place on the record the Committee’s appreciation of the work undertaken by our predecessors. I also thank the Committee staff, especially Lucy Petrie, who managed the inquiry through to completion, and our specialist adviser Douglas Barrie. I express my gratitude to my fellow Committee members, many of whom are present in the Chamber, who approached the report in the collaborative, cross-party manner for which Select Committees are rightly renowned.
I turn to the report’s conclusions. It is no surprise that a programme as ambitious as GCAP will take up a significant share of the defence budget in the coming years. The Ministry of Defence has already spent £2 billion on the programme and has allocated a further £12 billion over the coming decade. Our report calls for transparency about costs as GCAP progresses so that our Committee and others in the House can hold the Ministry of Defence to account.
The need for robust scrutiny of GCAP is underlined by the difficulties facing previous multilateral defence programmes, which have all too often seen costs spiral and delays pile up. Of particular relevance is the UK’s experience on the Eurofighter Typhoon, where the Committee heard of the difficulties caused by a lack of empowerment in the programme’s delivery organisations. We make it clear in our report that those fundamental errors cannot be repeated on GCAP.
If GCAP is to succeed, it must not only learn from the mistakes of the past, but anticipate the opportunities and challenges of the future. Our report warns that it will need to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to emerging technologies including artificial intelligence and the development of uncrewed aircraft.
The Committee welcomes the UK’s partnership with Japan and Italy. Both our partners have much to offer. Italy and the UK have a shared history in combat air, having worked together on Tornado and Typhoon. For Japan, involvement in GCAP is a significant step both politically and militarily. We applaud Japan’s progress in opening up exports for GCAP, which we believe will be critical to its success.
There has been speculation that further partners may join the programme. Our report is clear that the potential benefits of expanding GCAP must be balanced carefully against the risks, and that meeting the 2035 target date must remain paramount. Our report also highlights how, as with all defence programmes, GCAP’s success will ultimately come down to its workforce. Recruitment and retention will be a major challenge for a programme of this scale. The defence industry faces fierce competition from other sectors for skilled workers. Our report emphasises the importance of ensuring that the existing Typhoon workforce is transitioned to GCAP, as well as attracting new talent into the sector.
I conclude with a reflection on the Committee’s first visit to Scotland last week. At RAF Lossiemouth we were privileged to have the opportunity to meet the Royal Air Force personnel who protect our skies. Our visit was a welcome reminder that, for all the advanced capabilities promised by GCAP, the UK’s security ultimately rests in the hands of the brave servicemen and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. On behalf of the Committee, I pay tribute to their dedication and professionalism. They have our sincere gratitude. I commend the report to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Chair for his excellent report and his vigorous statement, reminding the House about the great history of the UK in combat air. The Opposition strongly support GCAP because we want that great tradition to continue well into the future. However, GCAP is not just about the Tempest platform. It is meant to be a system of systems offering technological advances to the RAF in areas such as AI and autonomy. Given how important that is and how the Committee’s report focuses on transparency, does he agree that we need financial transparency to ensure adequate funding both for the platform that we call Tempest and for those associated technologies, because they could bring enhancements to the lethality of the RAF well before 2035?