Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-86)
MR IAN
GODDEN, MR
DAVID HAYES,
DR JERRY
MCGINN,
DR SANDY
WILSON AND
MS ALISON
WOOD
21 NOVEMBER 2007
Q80 Mr Jenkin: But we will now be
under an international obligation under this Treaty to share that
technology which at the moment we are not under? That is correct,
is it not?
Mr Hayes: No, we are not under
an obligation to share technology at all. It provides an opportunity
for us to do so—
Chairman: I think we have understood
that. I want to move on now. The prospects of ratification; Kevan
Jones?
Q81 Mr Jones: In terms of ratification
in the US—and quite a few of us have had the experience
of meeting Congressman Hunter—what is US industry doing
in terms of ensuring in lobbying that this will be ratified throughout
the Senate?
Dr McGinn: US industry, as I mentioned,
has been very supportive of the Treaty in principle but US industry
is also very keen to see how the implementing arrangements will
work because, as we have discussed, the real devil is in the detail,
so to speak, and how this regime will be set up will govern how
useful it is. We have seen the Government on the US side as forward
leaning as I have seen them trying to make this a very useful
regime. One previous effort was done with the Joint Strike Fighter
to try to do something through global project authorisation. That
did not work and therefore the Governments have tried to make
this as useable as possible. We have not seen the implementing
arrangements so we cannot really comment on those. So far as your
question on ratification, we have had some initial discussions
with staff in the US Senate and there have been some discussions
with members of the Senate as well. The responses we have heard
have all been very positive in the sense that they see that this
is a recognition of the strong relationship we have but, that
said, one thing they want to see before they approve the Treaty
are the implementing arrangements. They want to see how the mechanism
will work, but in our discussions the underlying assumption—and
again I cannot speak for the US Senate—is that this is a
good thing and the prospects look pretty strong for passage.
Q82 Mr Jones: Has US industry been
lobbying hard for this?
Dr McGinn: This is a national
security priority for our two Governments. That is the perspective
that we have taken. It was not done as an industry initiative
so we do not want to get in front of the Governments. We have
taken the approach where we had some initial conversations and
now we want to wait until the implementing arrangements are complete
and the Senate has had time to consider them, but we will very
likely be strongly supportive with members in the US Senate.
Q83 Mr Jones: That sounds like a
"No" to me.
Dr McGinn: No, that is not the
case.
Dr Wilson: Could I give a perspective
here?
Mr Godden: I will as well.
Dr Wilson: In the UK, GD UK has
worked through the trade associations to get its point of view
across, and we are doing exactly the same in the US. Underlying
that, because we have specific issues on ITAR and TAAs, we have
been lobbying quite hard for improvements to the system in a much
more general sense than this specific Treaty. We have done that
directly into the State Department at the normal governmental
level and we have involved the UK MoD as well in that because
these are things that affect the UK. I think we have been fairly
even-handed in the way that we have approached this both in the
US and the UK through the trade associations which is the right
way to engage with government when it is a government-to-government
deal.
Q84 Mr Jones: Let us be honest, Mr
Wilson, we saw the ITAR waiver and other things fail not because
the two Governments did not agree but because the people on the
Hill just did not want this and stopped this. Surely in terms
of both trade associations and industry, if this is actually going
to go through the Senate a hell of a lot of work has got to be
done with the Senate because Senators I have talked to do not
have a great deal of understanding of some of these issues. Although
government-to-government relations might be good and everybody
might be slapping themselves on their backs in the embassies saying
how wonderful it is, if it does not get through the Senate, frankly,
it is a waste of time, is it not?
Mr Godden: Can I comment having
just come back from the US and discussing with the trade associations
in the US this very point. I came back last week from Phoenix.
My interpretation is that the associations are very active. Whether
they are active enough, I cannot judge, but they are active, they
are very positive about this Treaty and they are promoting the
idea of the Treaty. I cannot say any more than that. I cannot
comment not being on the Hill all the time but from the positive
mood in SBAC's equivalent association, the AIA, of which Jerry
is a member, my observation is they are very positive and are
campaigning for it.
Mr Havard: They are being very careful
about who they bankroll to be the next President as well.
Q85 Chairman: Our next witnesses
are waiting. I said that I would ask you a few questions about
DESO. I will ask you, Mr Godden, one question about DESO because
I want to get on. The decision to abolish DESO—and this
has got nothing whatever to do with the American Treaty and it
will not form part of our report—which in my own personal
view was a bad decision, is one which has been taken. The operation
now moves to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform. What in British industry's view are the key safeguards
that need to be put in place in order to ensure that the new regime
is as helpful as possible to the British defence industry and
to the British military?
Mr Godden: We remain disappointed
that that was done. However, we have moved on and the two key
things from our point of view are the quality of the leadership
of the new unit and the fact that it needs to remain as a unit
and not be dispersed in some manner. From our point of view, the
remaining unit with strong leadership reporting into the ministers
is absolutely essential, and secondly, the continued support by
the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces on the whole concept
of defence exporting in the field round the world—
Q86 Chairman: —with uniformed
personnel?
Mr Godden: With uniformed personnel
and with equipment, ships, etc., that is essential and in fact
that is probably where our worry has shifted as a result of the
budget cuts which have been imposed on that Ministry. Our concern
is strong leadership of a separate unit within UKTI and a continued
commitment by the Ministry of Defence, tough as that may be within
the budget cuts, to the support of defence exports. Those are
the two key points.
Chairman: That is very helpful. It being
now two minutes past your witching hour you are just about to
turn into pumpkins, so if I may say thank you very much indeed
for a very helpful session. You have managed to get through a
lot of ground with great discipline. We are most grateful to you
all for coming.
| 
