Examination of Witnesses(Questions 300-309)
RT HON
GEOFFREY HOON
MP, MR NICK
WITNEY AND
MR PAUL
TAYLOR
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY 2003
300. As this is the only facility we have in
the country that can detect incoming space debris, amongst other
things, and we rely upon this American equipment to detect space
debris coming in, would it not be better if our technicians had
a grasp of the complicated technology required for that? If the
Americans ever said, "We are not playing the game. We are
not happy and we are taking that facility away", Britain's
technology would not be able to cope, because they are not involved
in upgrades of this nature. Is there a danger that we would lose
the technology?
(Mr Hoon) Our technicians are perfectly competent
in terms of servicing, understanding and being trained in the
technologies that are used at Fylingdales. That is not the same
as saying that we have the industrial ability to produce the kind
of sophisticated software that will be required as part of the
upgrade itself. There is a distinction there. Outside the United
States, I suspect that there is no other country that is in a
position to be able to produce the sophisticated software and
hardware that will be required. It is an industrial issue, not
one of competence of our people.
301. Can I turn next to theatre missile defence?
In earlier examinations of defence both yourself and the MoD highlighted
the need to have passive missile defence measures for deployed
forces, something we are a little short of. There is a changing
emphasis, however. Recently, there has been talk about the fact
that we must seek to protect the deployed forces from such attacks,
such as missile attacks. The cost of theatre missile defence is
still unknown. We will consider the most efficient approach to
theatre missile defence for coalition forces. This may involve
a degree of role specialisation. Role specialisation is on the
agenda for missile defence, but are you seeking US protection
for our deployed troops in exchange for allowing the use of Fylingdales
as a quid pro quo?
(Mr Hoon) That is not specifically part of the arrangement
that we propose to enter into. We are in discussion with the United
States about developments in the technology that could protect
deployed forces. There are various programmes under way between
the United States and two or three other countries but, as yet,
the technology has not reached a sufficient level of maturity
for us to be confident that it would be wholly successful.
302. We have something the Americans want and
presumably we might want it as well. They are desperate for us
to say, "Yes, go ahead and upgrade." That will complete
the four units and we will have good missile defence coverage.
Could we not squeeze them a little tighter and try and get something
out of them that would be beneficial to us? Then we would not
have to worry about the expense.
(Mr Hoon) I do not think we need to approach our friends
in the United States in quite that mechanistic way. We have very
good exchanges with the United States on the subject of theatre
missile defence and in relation to other missile defence systems,
so I am sure that excellent relationship will continue.
Mr Howarth
303. I do think it is an opportunity for the
United Kingdom to drive a bit of a bargain with the United States
in terms of getting access to some of their technology. I want
to encourage you to specify how you will fight on behalf of British
companies to get them access to that. In your statement this afternoon,
you said, "We intend to agree a new technical memorandum
of understanding with the US which would give us full insight
into the development of their missile defence programme and the
opportunity for UK industry to reap the benefits of participation."
I applaud that and I would encourage you to strike the hardest
bargain you can on behalf of British industry. How do you propose
to do that?
(Mr Hoon) I do not propose to improve on the words
I used before the House. We do intend to draw up a memorandum
of understanding with the United States that will deal with these
kinds of issues, but obviously we need to be confident that we
can play a part industrially in this process and equally that
we have the skills and the technology to be able to make an effective
contribution.
(Mr Witney) This business of technology transfer from
the US and some of the restrictions that are imposed on US technology
is a long running problem. We stub our toe against it in other
collaborative areas such as the Joint Strike Fighter.
304. That is why now is a good moment.
(Mr Witney) It is indeed. We are very conscious of
that and that is one of the reasons why we are extremely keen
to crack on and negotiate a good MoU and to explain again to US
colleagues that it is in their interests to arrive at arrangements
with us which allow them to harness the full potential of UK industry
in this area.
305. Can you confirm that at the present time,
if there were a missile launched by North Korea along the lines
that you speculated on the floor of the House, we do not have
any defence against such a missile any more than the US does?
(Mr Hoon) That is the position today.
306. With the upgrade, will the new radar be
able to differentiate between the warheads and the decoys because
some have suggested that even the new radar will not be able to
achieve that. Obviously, trying to identify which is a warhead
and which is a decoy is going to be rather critical.
(Mr Hoon) That is part of the research programme that
the US are undertaking and part of the process of research and
development that they want to engage on with the test bed facility
that they are developing. That is part and parcel of defining
a successful missile defence system.
307. Can I not persuade you to go further and
recognise that it is in Britain's interests now to declare an
interest in participating in the essential corollary to what you
have announced today, namely to get British industry to participate
in the difficult development of the interceptor technology? Perhaps
it ought to be something which ought to be funded by NATO as a
whole for the protection of the whole of the European continent.
(Mr Hoon) Belatedly, if you will forgive me for saying
so, you did come to at least the $64,000 question, which is how
these things should be funded. Clearly, that is something that
will be better dealt with once we have a clearer picture of what
the United States propose to develop and to utilise in the future.
I cannot see any practical purpose in committing ourselves to
something today and seeking means of funding it that has not yet
evolved, is not yet available and we are not aware of what shape
and size it will be. If that was a spending commitment, I would
be delighted to give you some estimates as to how much it is likely
to cost.
Jim Knight
308. We were told when we went to Fylingdales
that the Serco contractors did have considerable software writing
capability that they had developed over the many years that they
had the contract there. Would it not be sensible to see if it
is at all possible for that expertise to be used in developing
the upgrade? Would that in turn not ensure that all of the automatic
data transfer that takes place is equally shared, because there
would be some suspicion that the US are installing this software
on the internet and all sorts of things. They could easily write
software that would give them information that perhaps would not
be passed on to strike command and some exclusive stuff could
go to Fylingdales.
(Mr Hoon) That is not the nature of our relationship
with the United States, as far as the latter part of your question
is concerned. As far as the first part is concerned, it seems
to me that, given the efforts that the United States are presently
making, they would welcome contributions from whatever quarter.
If there is expertise in this area, my view of the discussions
I have had with the United States is that they would be very keen
to take advantage of it.
Chairman
309. Serco are running education in Walsall
and I think they have more than enough on their hands!
(Mr Hoon) Only you could say that, Mr Chairman.
Chairman: We are expecting a vote at any moment
and we are suspending proceedings. When we return after the vote
the Committee will sit in private.
| 
