Joint Strike Fighter

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 4 July 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Opposition Whip (Commons) 2:30, 4 July 2005

If he will make a statement on the ownership of the intellectual property in the joint strike fighter.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

Intellectual property rights in the joint strike fighter system are owned by the contractor generating them, whether UK or US companies. Ownership of subcontractor-generated information is a commercial matter between the contractor and subcontractor. The Ministry of Defence can use the IPR generated under the JSF contracts and subcontracts for purposes associated with JSF, whether nationally or collaboratively with other partner nations.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Opposition Whip (Commons)

Will the Minister confirm that owing to lack of access to the intellectual property invested in the joint strike fighter—the UK has now invested some £2 billion in this programme—and owing to the lack of a guarantee of future access to such property and to other elements of the JSF programme, if we ordered this aircraft today, we would not have sovereign control over it? In other words, we would not be able to upgrade and update it in the light of British requirements, once it was in service with us. It is unacceptable for the UK to have such a substantial part of her future defence requirements operating without sovereign control and the fact that this matter has not already been sorted out is a pretty poor return for British assistance to the US. Will the Minister make it clear that it is unacceptable for purchases to go ahead on this basis and will he inform the US Administration that the House believes it to be indifferent at best that her No. 1 partner in this programme and No. 1 partner in operations around the world is being treated in such a fashion without this issue being resolved?

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

I well understand the heat generated by the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. We constantly make representations to the US Administration through our defence and other contacts. Discussions are under way to ensure that the information transfer, which is crucial to our maintenance of the fleet, is completed to our satisfaction. We are at an early stage as yet, but the determination that the hon. Gentleman requests certainly exists within the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere in the Government.

Photo of Lindsay Hoyle Lindsay Hoyle Labour, Chorley

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that not to have the intellectual property rights and the know-how and ability to service the aircraft as well as build them to supply other nations amounts to a serious setback—not only to the loyal workers at Warton, but to the rest of Europe. The failure to reach agreement on the intellectual rights will put those workers' jobs, and the Royal Air Force as a whole, at risk. Furthermore, we will not have the operational capability to work off the new aircraft carriers. If we fail to get agreement from the Americans, will my right hon. Friend look further into the intellectual property rights and design that was put forward for Typhoon to operate off the carriers and view that as a fall-back position?

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

We are not yet at the stage of having to consider fall-back options or failure, but I take my hon. Friend's point that this is a very serious issue. I reiterate my earlier answer that we are determined to succeed—for all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. Negotiations are at an early stage and we have very good relations with the US Administration. There are blockages elsewhere in the political processes of the United States and we all have to work earnestly to ensure that those blockages are removed. This will be an important part of our and, indeed, NATO's defence capability.

Photo of Michael Jack Michael Jack Conservative, Fylde

Subject to the point raised by my hon. Friend Mr. Blunt being resolved, does the Minister agree that his own Department's RAND Europe study made a compelling case for Britain to have a final assembly and check-out unit for the joint strike fighter, together with a maintenance and repair unit located here? Will he confirm that, in any further investigations that his Department is making, BAE Systems Warton would be one of the key locations examined in a feasibility study?

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

One thing that can be said with a finger of certainty is that, whenever this matter is raised, the right hon. Gentleman pops up to speak about it. He is right that we commissioned the RAND study, which has pointed out what needs to be done to move the agenda forward in respect of establishing maintenance, repair and upgrade facilities in the UK. The review on how best to develop that is under way and we hope to conclude by September 2005. It would be wrong to be too predictive about what will come out of it. No doubt when the subject comes up again, the right hon. Gentleman will be there pushing the case for BAE Systems.

Photo of James Arbuthnot James Arbuthnot Shadow Minister (Trade and Industry)

Would the Minister describe the technology transfer relating to the joint strike fighter as disappointing?

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

There are Government discussions about it, and I have already answered the question twice earlier. We are at an early stage in the discussions and I have expressed my views about some of the blockages, particularly the protectionist tendencies of some politicians in the US, but it sometimes applies to the UK as well. We all have to work earnestly to ensure that those who are putting pressure on the Administration understand the importance of ensuring that this platform is delivered on time so that we can maintain the facility and use it for our own needs, which will also help to support NATO objectives. These are big issues and it is not right to put on the record the type of comment that the right hon. Gentleman elicits.