Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

AUKUS

Monday 19 February 2024 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Giles Watling thanked the Minister for his answer regarding AUKUS.
  • The Minister acknowledged that AUKUS should not be limited to defence cooperation between the UK, the US, and Australia.
  • The Minister stated that extending AUKUS beyond the core nations is a matter for pillar 2 arrangements, not pillar 1 which focuses on nuclear-powered submarines for Australia.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The MP discusses the potential broader implications of AUKUS beyond defense, including economic cooperation with other nations such as Canada. He seeks clarity on how Britain can maximize benefits through this initiative.

Question

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. AUKUS is a bold project that rightfully identifies the greater need for co-operation in the Pacific between our great nations. However, I do not think that it should be limited just to defence. In my own report for the 1922 foreign affairs policy committee, we found that there is not only a need, but an appetite for wider scope—the inclusion of Canada, for example. Does my right hon. Friend agree that AUKUS cannot just be about defence policy. Will we be reaping the maximum benefits for Britain by consigning this to be just a defence procurement exercise? Where is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in all of this?

Answer from Grant Shapps

My hon. Friend is right to say that AUKUS can and should be a programme that extends beyond the three core nations—the UK, the US, and Australia—but that is very much a matter for pillar 2 arrangements rather than pillar 1, which the House will know is about the nuclear-powered submarine for Australia and the joint procurement. He will be pleased to hear that, in November, I was in the US signing up to a programme of pillar 2 work, which could ultimately extend to others, including Canada and New Zealand.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)