Global Combat Air Programme

Defence Committee

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.

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 call the shadow Secretary of State.

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?

I welcome the words of the shadow Defence Secretary, and I thank his shadow minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for all his work as part of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament. The shadow Defence Secretary is right that the Ministry of Defence must balance funding pressures in the near and long term, but transparency from the Government about the cost of GCAP is crucial, because Parliament and the public rightly expect value for money, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so eloquently highlighted.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent statement. He will know that the Committee, of which I was part in the previous Parliament, was able to visit Japan and Italy, where we saw for ourselves the tremendous enthusiasm for the project and how they wanted to work very closely with us. At the end of the statement, my hon. Friend rightly touched on the importance of the workforce, but this project is also crucial to the future defence industrial base, is it not?

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the previous Defence Committee and to bring the report to fruition. He is absolutely right. This project is crucial for our partners in Japan and Italy and for our own defence industrial base. If we do not commit wholeheartedly to GCAP, it will be to our detriment as a nation.

Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest has a sort of ring to it. I understand why we are using the term GCAP, but its presentation leaves a lot to be desired. One reason is that it is so much more than just the Tempest airframe—autonomous aircraft will fly in conjunction with it. How confident is the Select Committee Chair that all this can be done in a fast-moving landscape and in just a 10-year programme?

I thank the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for his question. I am not well enough versed in acronyms to be able to offer something better than Tempest, Tornado or Typhoon. I see the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), is in her place; perhaps she can think of a better acronym than GCAP. It is incredibly important that the programme is met and that we work with our partners. The Committee has highlighted the need to meet the very ambitious programme by 2035, which will take substantial effort.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. As the shadow Defence Secretary made clear, GCAP is a system of systems, but like every programme, it requires a pipeline training solution. Our report highlights the need for a jet training solution now that production for the Hawk aircraft series has been shuttered, after 1,000 aircraft were produced and exported to 18 countries. That is a grave mistake as our GCAP partners are looking for a GCAP trainer in the US, and we have nothing to offer them. Our defence and aerospace industry cannot survive on elite technology alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at jet trainers as an essential part of the training system offered as part of GCAP for its pilots, our industry and economic growth?

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee. He has certainly hit the ground running. I fully agree with his views on training. The Committee’s report found that training for the Hawk aircraft has been an absolute blunder and a huge missed opportunity. We must ensure that we do not miss such opportunities in future, as doing so would be to our national detriment.

I thank the Chair and the Committee for their industry and for this excellent report. He highlighted the size of the GCAP programme and the need for such programmes to show greater flexibility. Does he intend for the Committee to look during this Parliament at the agile procurement of the sort that we are seeing in Ukraine, and to make recommendations to the Government on that?

Yes, we have already been looking into that, and the Committee has held evidence sessions on Ukraine. Many of us are impressed by the agility being displayed in Ukraine. We hope that many of those lessons will be learned by the UK Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. There has been some suggestion that Saudi Arabia and other global partners might want to join the programme. What does the Committee think of that?

The existing partnership with Japan and Italy is a strong one, but we must recognise that further partners could benefit the programme. Our report warns that including any additional partners will require careful consideration, and it must not jeopardise the 2035 target date, which is paramount.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with our Italian and Japanese partners committing to multi-year funding plans for GCAP to give confidence to industry, the UK should show a similar commitment?

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question and for his hard work on the Committee—long may it continue. I wholeheartedly agree, and I hope that Ministers are listening intently, because multi-year funding settlements can offer us that extra stability to provide a lot more in a shorter space of time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the whole Committee on a fantastic report. Could he expand a little on the export potential of Tempest and how he thinks the Government might be able to secure that? Secondly, is there an opportunity, through informal collaboration with the other consortia pursuing sixth-generation fighters, for general lessons to be learned between the three programmes, all of which involve our allies?

We should always be open to collaboration. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is looking into that. On my hon. Friend’s first question, I highlighted exports in my statement and I commended Japan. The real potential for us is not merely to deliver on these next generation jets but to export, because they contribute so much to the Exchequer for the provision of public services in our country.

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. In March 2024 the RAF published its autonomous collaborative platform strategy. Is the Chair content with the assurances that there is sufficient flexibility built into GCAP to allow it to operate alongside a range of uncrewed solutions?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Committee has looked at autonomous aircraft. We hope we will be able to realise the full benefits, although only time will tell just how much of a benefit we realise.

I commend the Chair and the Defence Committee for turning their scrutinising eye to the global combat air programme. The Chair talked about the benefits and risks of new partners, and explained that we need to weigh the benefits against the risks. In previous multilateral fighter jet programmes, there has been an overestimation of just how much of the product could be exported. Last November, Reuters said that Saudi Arabia could be a potential fourth partner on the programme. Could the Chair expand on some of the benefits and risks of adding Saudi Arabia to the programme, as it relates to exports?

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and indeed a former defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Having extra partners on board can be very beneficial, as it can share the cost burden and enhance our export possibilities. However, as the Committee rightly noted, having additional partners will require careful consideration. Under no circumstances should we allow that to jeopardise the 2035 target date, because that could have serious cost implications for the Exchequer.

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement today. In the statement, he referred to the demand for skilled workers. On Friday, I had the opportunity to meet Unite and GMB in relation to the airspace sector in Northern Ireland, where the Chair will be aware a skilled workforce already exists. What discussions are being held with this sector in Northern Ireland to transfer the global combat air programme skills through both smaller and larger operations and contracts?

As always, the hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question. Having a robust defence industrial base is vital, as is having a skilled workforce. As I mentioned, our report calls for a holistic approach to recruitment and retention. The Committee has had various meetings with union representatives, and we feel it is very important to retain our existing Typhoon workforce, wherever that may be in the UK. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Northern Ireland.