Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front Benchers will have heard what he has said and will no doubt share that information. Other parliamentary mechanisms are available for pursuing such matters. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to assist the hon. Member, if he needs further advice.
I hope it is not a continuation of that point of order, because I have made my statement clearly.
The right hon. Member is incredibly experienced, and will no doubt know that the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair. He will obviously pursue all avenues available to those in the House—there are many—to continue this conversation.
I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today. This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?
What we heard the Health Secretary say this morning was that he wants to cut waiting lists, but we all know that there is only one waiting list he really wants to cut. The Prime Minister is not going to do anything about the toxic culture, but this is his responsibility. Just last night, his allies accused not just the Health Secretary but the Home Secretary and even the Energy Secretary of launching leadership bids. These attacks came from No. 10—nowhere else: his toxic No. 10. The person responsible for the culture in No. 10 is his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in him?
I did not hear the Prime Minister give his full confidence in Morgan McSweeney. He says that these attacks are not authorised. The truth is that that means he has lost control of No. 10, because that is where they are coming from. But the real scandal is that, two weeks from a Budget, the Government have descended into civil war. Instead of fixing the mess they have made of the economy, they are all—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they are all chuntering. These are the “feral MPs” that No.10 has been talking about. Those are not my words; they are No. 10’s words—his words. Unbelievably, the Prime Minister’s advisers have been reduced to briefing that MPs cannot get rid of him—I am not making this up—because it would destabilise international markets. Why does the Prime Minister think that there would be a market meltdown if the Health Secretary took over?
The Prime Minister is talking about growth and investment. While he desperately tries to cling on to his own job, perhaps he understands what it is like for all those people out there losing their jobs. How can he talk about growth? Yesterday, we learned that unemployment has risen to the same rate as it was in lockdown—180,000 jobs lost. Why does the Prime Minister think that unemployment has risen every single month since Labour took office?
We left employment higher than it was after the last Labour Government. Let me tell the Prime Minister what is causing the increase in unemployment: his disastrous Budget last year. To be clear for all those Labour MPs shaking their heads, it is last year’s tax rises that have killed jobs, and that is what is going to trigger this year’s tax rises. This is the tax doom loop. There is only one way out of it, and that is to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister instead offering welfare giveaways to save his own skin?
I would not have made the stupid mistake in the first place of putting up the jobs tax and killing jobs. Since Labour came in, it has been disaster after disaster. The Deputy Prime Minister—the new Deputy Prime Minister—is clueless about how many illegal migrant sex offenders he has let loose; the Culture Secretary is breaking the rules to give her donor a top job; taxes are set to rise even further; unemployment is at levels not seen since lockdown; and in the middle of it is a weak Prime Minister at war with his own Cabinet. It is not just him; it is all of them. There is no replacement; it is all of them. Two weeks before the Budget, is it not the case that this Prime Minister has lost control of his Government, lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people?
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. I recently paid a shadow ministerial visit to Warton and Samlesbury, and we saw the penultimate Qatari Typhoon painted and ready to fly out, I think within a couple of days. The last one may even have gone now as well. To emphasise his point, this is extremely pressing, is it not?
I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument about a blended force of Typhoon and F-35, but does he accept that one of the drawbacks of the F-35 is that we are effectively at the mercy of the joint programme office in the United States? That has led to serious delays in the integration of the Meteor, a highly capable air-to-air missile, into the F-35 because American systems have been prioritised. That is a bit of a problem, is it not?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, as we debate the important role that the Typhoon programme plays in our nation’s defence and industrial strength. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this important debate. Since he entered the House almost a year and a half ago, he has proved a doughty champion for his constituents, for the defence industry in the north-west more generally and for his constituents at Warton for whom the Typhoon programme is crucial in particular. He made a very good speech to open the debate, and I know that he will continue to fight tenaciously for his constituents’ interests as this Parliament plays out. I also take the opportunity to pay a personal thank you related to air defence. Recently, I turned 60 and, as a memorable birthday present, my local Conservative Association generously clubbed together to pay for a 30-minute, two-seater Spitfire flight in aircraft No. MT818 out of Biggin Hill, including overflying my constituency. I warmly thank the pilot, Barry, and all his colleagues at FlyASpitfire.com—who do what it says on the tin—for a wonderful day. At this time of remembrance, it brought home to me just how brave the few—some of whom had barely 10 hours on type—were in flying that iconic aircraft in mortal combat during the battle of Britain. I am deeply grateful for that truly unforgettable experience. It will literally live with me for the rest of my life. Returning to the present, I also congratulate the Minister on the fact that the Government have now sealed the deal to export some 20 Typhoons to Turkey. For the record, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), when he was the Minister with responsibility for procurement, spent a considerable amount of time promoting that deal, as did Ben Wallace, the then Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say well done to the Government for capitalising on those previous efforts and bringing the arrangement to fruition. That being so, I have some specific questions about the deal for the Minister which I hope that the House will welcome. First, can he confirm what tranche of Typhoon the new aircraft will be, including what variant of radar it will carry? That has implications not just for BAE Systems at Warton, but for our national radar manufacturer Leonardo, based in Edinburgh. As for MBDA, our missiles champion, is the Meteor missile also part of the sale to Turkey? Secondly, a suggestion has been that Qatar will sell its older Typhoons to Turkey as part of the arrangement and that that might yet lead, in turn, to further Typhoon orders at Warton. Is that the case and, if so, what can the Minister tell us? Thirdly, is the Minister able to say anything more about other potential Typhoon sales internationally, in particular to Poland or Saudi Arabia? A Typhoon order from Saudi would be a significant achievement and, indeed, negotiations to that effect have been under way for several years already. That, too, would be of great interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, so I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to say anything further about that this morning. As the debate is entitled “Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability”, I also take this opportunity to press the Minister on the future of the Typhoon in Royal Air Force service. The RAF has recently retired some 30 of the older tranche 1 Typhoons, and has been in the process of effectively cannibalising them in order to keep the more modern tranche 2 and tranche 3 aircraft flying. In terms of combat mass, that represents a worrying reduction of about a fifth of the entire RAF Typhoon fleet. The few remaining tranche 1s in service are now the fleet of Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant. Will the Minister confirm that when they retire some time in 2026-27, the RAF will provide replacements of either tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft to maintain the air defence of the Falkland Islands, not least for the peace of mind of the Falkland Islands Government? That would leave about 107 tranche 2 and 3 aircraft in RAF service. The tranche 3 aircraft are optimised to accept the new future generation of electronically scanned radar, now generally referred to as Radar 2, which has been under development at Leonardo in Edinburgh, in association with other European allies, for more than a decade. Tranche 2 aircraft can also be modified to accept Radar 2, but both tranches of aircraft require an important electronics update, known as P4E, in order to fully utilise the important new capability of Radar 2, including its crucial electronic warfare suite. However, as I understand it, the MOD has still not placed an order for the final development and installation of P4E, crucial though it is to Typhoon’s future. Although Radar 2 has now been fully developed—indeed, I was privileged to see a prototype of it on a shadow ministerial visit to Leonardo some months ago—the MOD has still not placed a production order even for an initial batch of Radar 2s. That too represents a very important part of the UK’s Typhoon sovereign capability. Without an effective radar, much of the other investment in Typhoon is nugatory. Can the Minister say anything positive today about the future orders for Radar 2 and the associated P4E upgrade to the UK Typhoon programme, given that both—and we need both—are due to be in operational service by 2030? BAE trade union colleagues, whom I met recently at Samlesbury, have been pushing hard for a further domestic order of Typhoon aircraft, not least to maintain key skills at the Warton site. They have no greater champion than my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde—“Tory MP backs trade unions to the hilt”. I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for Ministers to take, and that it must be considered in the context of the wider mix of potential combat air system, as several hon. Members have said. In that regard, to date the UK has ordered some 48 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variants for both the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force, almost 40 of which have now been delivered—minus one, which had an unfortunate accident leaving an aircraft carrier. However, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of the slow build-up of the Lightning force. Can the Minister say anything more encouraging about that? The Government have intimated that they intend to buy another 26 F-35Bs, making 74 in total out of an originally planned order of 138. However, this summer they announced their intention to substitute 12 of those aircraft for the F-35A variant, which is capable of carrying the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, both in our defence of the United Kingdom and as part of our commitment to NATO. What more can the Minister tell us about how many F-35s the MOD still intends to buy, and what mix of variants that will comprise, in addition to Typhoon? A crucial future part of our sovereign air capability is represented by the global combat air programme, which aims to develop a world-class, sixth-generation combat aircraft—a system of systems, potentially including autonomous adjuncts. It is being built with Italy and Japan, and is to be known in RAF service as the Tempest. As the Minister knows, the putative initial operational capability for GCAP is 2035, partly driven by a very hard in-service date for the Japanese air force. An industrial consortium called Edgewing, headquartered in Reading, has recently been formed to manufacture the aircraft, but there are already worrying rumours of delays. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that GCAP/Tempest remains on schedule, and that Tempest will still succeed our oldest remaining tranche 2 Typhoons from 2035? The Typhoon is a fundamentally important part of the air defence of the United Kingdom and of our allies, and is likely to remain so for decades, even allowing for the gradual introduction of Tempest. As the Minister will appreciate, for those aircraft to be used most effectively, especially in the air defence role, they need to be closely integrated into the UK’s wider air defence network. We now have a major gap in that capability, however, following the withdrawal of the Boeing E-3D AWACS aircraft in 2021, because of the frustratingly delayed introduction into service of its vital replacement the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. The delays to Wedgetail are a disgrace; the aircraft is years late and has flown only a relatively small number of test flights. Rumours are circulating within the industry that this is due to a mixture of factors, including the integration of the MESA—multi-role electronically scanned array—radar and serious problems with the UK E-7’s bespoke command and battle management system. A respected former procurement Minister, Sir Jeremy Quin, was recently appointed chairman of Boeing UK. I hope he can bring his experience to bear to sort out this debacle. What can the Minister say today about Wedgetail and when it is finally likely to enter operational service with the Royal Air Force? In short, when will the aircraft be ready to fight, rather than just conduct air displays as it did at the Royal International Air Tattoo this summer? We await the Government’s long-promised defence investment plan, including details on the future of Typhoon. We were originally promised the DIP by the autumn. With the leaves already turning, I ask the Minister a straight question: is Christmas in the autumn? Can he guarantee that the DIP will be published in full by the time the House rises for the Christmas recess on 18 December, just over a month from now? In addition, can the Minister assure us that the DIP will contain a similar level of granularity to the previous, well-established equipment plans that were published annually under Conservative Governments? They gave a considerable amount of detail so that the defence industry had a fighting chance of planning. The Minister will know that a bunch of major programmes are awaiting their fate with the publication of the DIP, including the phase 4 enhancement and mark 2 radar, the new medium helicopter and the wider combat air mix referred to earlier. After all this time, yet another Ministry of Defence policy document, with a bunch of glossy photos but not much detail, will not suffice. Perhaps the Minister can provide some reassurance this morning. Finally, can the Minister guarantee to deliver the DIP, including for Typhoon, given that the MOD is now embroiled in a massive in-year cost-saving exercise, including efficiencies—spending cuts, in pub English—of £2.5 billion in 2025-26 alone? That is happening this financial year, right now; if that is not true, I will give way briefly to the Minister to deny it. Silence speaks volumes. I will finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde on securing this important debate. I hope that we will get clear answers to the straightforward questions that he and I and others have put to the Minister this morning. Typhoon is vital to our future, and we all want to know what will happen to it.
Where are the SNP?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.
Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running. Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition. The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him? Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report.
2. What progress her Department has made on reaching its target for full gigabit coverage by 2030.
I thank the Minister for that answer, but it was the Conservative Government who brought forward Project Gigabit in order to ensure that everyone had access to a decent level of internet access, and some of my constituents continue to write to me saying that they do not have access in their areas. The Minister referred to 2032, but I think the previous commitment was for 2030; can he confirm what the target date is, whether for 99% or higher?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Typhoon fighter sovereign capability. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I requested this debate as an opportunity to have the time and space for a more in-depth discussion about securing the future of our sovereign capability in air combat, with the most pressing element being the production of Typhoon fighters at the BAE Systems Warton site in my constituency. The skilled workforce and cutting-edge technology that make Warton the world-leading facility that it is have taken decades and billions of pounds of investment to develop and maintain. As I go around my constituency, I meet families who now have three generations working at the site and dedicating their careers to it. When we combine the number of jobs provided to local people with all those who have moved to Fylde to work in the critical defence sector, it is easy to understand why it is such an emotive subject. Their service, ingenuity, skill and determination over generations of workers has built a truly impressive sovereign capability.
Forgive me; the hon. Lady will gather from my accent that I will have a slight Lancashire bias in this debate. However, it is obvious from the stats that BAE Systems produces on economic impact and jobs that the supply chain—all those who contribute to the production of Typhoons—is spread across the country. It is a nationwide effort to maintain this sovereign capability. Very few countries in the world can boast the ability to fully assemble their own world-class fighter jets. In an ever-more unpredictable, hostile and dangerous world, we are reminded of why having such assets and abilities is so important. Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record again my thanks on behalf of Fylde, Lancashire and the whole country for all the work that has gone into securing the Turkey Typhoon order, which is one of a number of potential deals that has been in the making for several years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) recalled to me the standing weekly meetings that were held in the Ministry of Defence during his time as the Minister for Defence Procurement, to keep the pressure on and the momentum going to secure export orders. His and others’ work was critical in overcoming our German partners’ objections to exporting Typhoon to certain countries, and the recent deal would not have been possible without that significant amount of work. The new Government clearly picked up the mantle with vigour and determination to get the deal over the line. There is plenty of glory and praise to go around for everyone. It is a major boost that has been warmly welcomed in Fylde and Lancashire, but we all know from the history of the Eurofighter programme, and Tornado before it, that export orders alone cannot sustain it. While everyone involved in the deal should take time to pat themselves on the back, there is significantly more work to be done before anyone can rest easy that this sovereign capability is secured into the next generation. To put this into sharp context, we are now the only partner in the Eurofighter programme that is not purchasing Eurofighter. Not only that, but the Government have made an active decision to purchase 25 American F-35s instead of British Typhoons. Along with many people right across Lancashire, local businesses and the unions, I am utterly perplexed and concerned by that decision.
They do provide slightly different roles, but they have the same general one in air combat. Many people say that in aerial combat Typhoon will get the highest the quickest, and according to many pilots and those involved, that is one of the most important factors. I will address the difference in capabilities between the two aircraft later in my speech. I thank the hon. Member for his enthusiasm this early on a Wednesday morning. As I was saying, the Government’s decision has brought me into an alliance that, as a Conservative MP, I never thought I would be in: campaigning hand in glove with and on the same side as trade unions. I must say that they have put their passion and their all into standing up for the workforce that they represent in Lancashire, and I know they are watching today. Although an element of the F-35 is built by BAE in Lancashire, it is a drop in the ocean compared with what an order for 25 Typhoons would have meant for jobs and investment. The order book for F-35s is already extensive, so ironically the UK’s order will not have a noticeable impact on job security in Lancashire. In the meantime, the final Typhoons have already rolled through the assembly line at Warton. It is pretty much out of work, which is a terrifying prospect for the workforce, supply chain and community. Even with the order from Turkey, there will still be a two to three-year period when the assembly line at Warton will be sat empty, waiting. The skills on the line—not just to assemble a modern fighter jet but to certify and test its readiness for combat in simulations and live flights—are such a crucial part of our sovereign capability. To maintain the whole-cycle workforce, from production to assembly and testing, there would need to be getting on for around 100 Typhoon orders between now and the Tempest going live. That puts the need for an RAF order into perspective.
That is the nub of the argument about why this debate is about sovereign capability. While there will be balance—I will come on to the difference in capabilities between the aircraft, as raised by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone)—this is about maintaining a sovereign capability that, once gone, would take a generation to bring back. This goes beyond jobs. To maintain and develop our sovereign capability, the RAF needs to be investing in, using and supporting the development of Typhoon. The RAF needs to be fully bought into its development: working with BAE systems on future orders, defining new requirements and capabilities, and enabling the development of future generations of the aircraft—a role only the RAF can truly play. The 6,000 jobs at the Warton site make up a workforce who, if lost, take our sovereign capability with them. The only way to secure the site to allow the time to secure multiple export orders was to place the order for the RAF as part of the strategic defence review. This also made sense because it would have boosted the export campaign itself—it is a pretty hard sell to make when we are not even buying it ourselves. Someone I spoke to about the export campaign said that one of the first questions they always get asked is, “Are you buying it yourselves?” What kind of message does it send to say, “Please buy our fighters while we go to buy somebody else’s”? To go back to the need to bridge the period between now and Tempest coming live, it is important to note that Tempest will not replace Typhoon. The point is simply that the site is secured by the order book for the new aircraft going live. We will still need the more agile fighter jet category that Typhoon occupies, as the different aircraft will perform differing air combat roles. As one person from the military described it to me: “Tempest is the big, bad aircraft that has the tech and payload to blast into the battlefield and establish air superiority. The role of future generations of Typhoon is to then clear up, run smaller missions and maintain that air superiority.” That makes it even more critical that the RAF and the Government remain bought into the continued development of Typhoon. They must place regular new orders, in addition to carrying out refurbishment, as we will need that sovereign capability for generations to come alongside Tempest. If we continue to erode the skills base, with investment and innovation in favour of paying for America to develop and maintain its own sovereign capability instead, ours will wither as a result of the UK’s short sightedness. That is why I have been like a dog with a bone about this issue since getting elected. It has been obvious over the past few years that the decision about the order of the 25 Typhoon jets would fall on whoever was in power when the next big defence review was conducted. To address the hon. Member for Swindon North’s intervention, I had hoped that the review would take a holistic look at what placing an order would mean, not just for the RAF’s specifications and requirements but for maintaining our sovereign capability—a phrase I am deliberately using over and over again. We should count ourselves incredibly lucky as a country that we are more secure for being able to produce our own fighter jets. We should do everything at every opportunity to invest in and continue to develop and improve that capability. Instead, the order has been sent across the Atlantic, with a vote of confidence in and a significant investment cheque for another country’s sovereign capability over our own. Even if there were certain requirements, and the RAF had been led to believe that the F-35 had advantages, the investment could and should have been made in the Typhoon programme, through BAE Systems, as part of the continued development of that aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work when we make our own aircraft. But I suspect that there may have been more to it than just that. Members may be surprised to know that this is by far and away not the first time I have discussed Typhoon and Tempest in Parliament. The ebb and flow of questions and answers on this subject between me and Ministers runs through Hansard over the last 18 months. Let us take a little trip down memory lane and look at some of the timeline. We start on 7 November 2024, with a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence. I simply asked whether the Department had a budget for new Typhoons in 2025-26. The then Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), replied: “Budget allocations for 2025-26 will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.” In a follow-up written question on 15 November 2024, I asked what steps the Department was therefore taking, given that the production line was already falling empty, to ensure that skilled workers in the defence sector were maintained. I received what can be described only as a public sector word salad of an answer, talking about partnership working and future procurement strategies, while the assembly line emptied. On 28 November, starting to get frustrated, I asked a question in business questions. I gave the long timeline of written and oral questions I had asked, trying to get answers and certainty, only to be brushed off by Minister after Minister. I was promised a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Typhoon order—it never happened. On 6 January 2025, in defence questions, I asked: “Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?” The Minister for Defence Procurement replied: “I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important”— critically— “in addition to production for our own use.” There was then a general comment about the strategic defence review, and the Minister finished by saying: “The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions”— slightly obvious. She went on: “It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.] “Yes,” I thought, “there it is: a hint on the Floor of the House that the order for Typhoon is coming.” It was said in the strongest possible terms without saying, “Yes, we are about to buy them. Please, just wait.”
Possibly. From January 2025 onwards, the sector press started reporting on the need for and the likelihood of a Typhoon order being placed. Then, on 2 June, the strategic defence review was published, and there was the shock announcement that the Government would not purchase Typhoon, as expected, and would purchase F-35. The question that I and so many others have is simple: what happened? I am sure the former Minister for Defence Procurement is a politician of such experience and integrity that she would not have given strong indications of a potential Typhoon order simply to get out of an awkward parliamentary question from a lowly Back Bencher such as myself, and neither would the Government would want to see expectations around a Typhoon order build in the media if they had no intention of placing one. One big thing brewing throughout that period was that the US President made it clear that if NATO allies wanted to include defence infrastructure in their 5% target, they needed to buy US military kit. If countries wanted better trade deals in the tariff wars then—you guessed it—they had better buy more hardware from the US. To conclude, I have the following concise, separate and clear questions that I and my constituents would like to be answered. First, given that the specification, lead time and price of both aircraft did not change between the Government hinting they were ordering Typhoon and their then going in the opposite direction with an order for F-35s, what changed? Secondly, have the Government ruled out placing any new Typhoon orders in this Parliament? Thirdly, given that the Turkey order will not fill the order pipeline gap, and the urgency of the situation outlined by the shadow Minister, what financial support will the Government provide to maintain the Warton site this financial year and next? Fourthly, will the Government please clearly state that they accept the principle that the lighter sister fighter aircraft to Tempest should remain a sovereign capability and, therefore, will be Typhoon? I will be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions in turn when he responds; I shall count how many answers we get. I want to finish by paying tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire, in both Warton and Samlesbury. It is good to see cross-party representation here from MPs in Lancashire who also have dependent workforces and jobs. There is such pride in our community for the world-leading technology produced at Warton. I am so proud to see how the workforce have held it together, kept going and remained hopeful—even as the assembly line emptied—that the orders would come to keep the site going and their jobs secured. The workers I have spoken to celebrated the fact that Turkey has done its bit for Lancashire and Fylde by ordering new Typhoons; they are now waiting for their own Government to do their bit and place the order.
The hon. Member is giving a good speech in defence of jobs in his constituency. On the point about previous years—I touched on this in my speech—it became obvious that the next big defence review would have to be the point where the crunch decision was made on this. I echo the point—it was probably remiss of me to miss this out in my opening remarks—that placing that order and then potentially releasing it is a very good way of not only potentially boosting the export campaign, but covering the two to three-year critical gap that we have now that the assembly line will be empty. I thank the hon. Member for making that point.
The hon. Member is making an excellent point. I have no objection to us having an element of F-35 within the RAF. It is important to have blended capability. The key point is that Typhoon as a platform could be developed and adapted to perform some of the roles that F-35s do. They are largely in the same frame of aircraft, in the sense that they both occupy the lighter fighter range, compared with what Tempest will be. If we are going to have Typhoon as a sister to Tempest in the future, using investment opportunities now to build, develop and change the Typhoon platform to have different variants of it would be a good way of maintaining sovereign capability.
The Minister will know that Harper Adams University is a world-leading research institution. He will also be aware of the university’s agritech research centre. May I invite him, on behalf of the vice-chancellor, to visit the university to look at the excellent work on robotics, AI and sustainable farming, in particular eco-farming and increasing productivity in a way that is sustainable?
The OBR?
Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now.
More!
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 November.
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about remembrance. I particularly remember being in west Africa in 1997, where I somehow managed to survive a bloody and violent attempted coup—if the Prime Minister wants any ideas on how to do that, he only has to ask. [Laughter.] Prime Minister’s questions last week was an absolute bin fire. If the Prime Minister is indeed intent on promoting the United Kingdom on the world stage, please can he promise the House that he will never ever be away on a Wednesday again?
The hon. Member says that he does not really understand the contradictions. Would he like to state how much growth there has been in the UK economy since the last Budget?
The hon. Member is nickel-and-diming the debate. One big question faces the Chancellor: what to do about the two-child benefit cap, which costs £3.5 billion, so let us not worry about the odd £50,000 here or there. I would like to hear a clear statement from him: is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it?
Will my hon. and gallant Friend take an intervention from any Labour Member who is prepared to say that they have spoken to a business in their constituency that welcomes the NI tax increase?
It would make things so much simpler for the House if the hon. Gentleman would put a date on when those on the Government Benches will take responsibility for running the country. I do not mind if it is in six months’ time or a year’s time, but we can then all go home—I have lots of things to do in Spelthorne until then. When the Government finally come to terms with the fact that they are in charge and are responsible, we will all be grateful.
On the topic of tough decisions, I have a really simple question for the hon. Gentleman, which will probably do him some good in the coup that is currently going on. Is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it in place?
Will the hon. Member give way?
Would my hon. Friend agree that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? We have tried to elicit some clarity from Government Members about whether they would like to raise the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £3.5 billion, or leave it where it is. Given the Chancellor’s kite-flying exercise in the media recently, would my hon. Friend be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who suggested that we were the ones spreading uncertainty?
I should declare that I have a data centre in my constituency under construction. It went through the normal planning route. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that if someone wants a data centre to go through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the local planning authority and local people will still be able to have a say on the application?
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on life sciences, so I know only too well that the industry, which has hitherto been a jewel in our crown, has been struggling to justify further such investment in our economy. Could I press the Secretary of State further on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), and ask her to reassure the House that she has put in a specific, ambitious and vigorous proposal to the Treasury in advance of the Budget to recognise that the life sciences industry is taking more risks than other kinds of investors?