HC Deb 29 July 1963 vol 682 cc11-3
19. Mr. Lubbock

asked the Minister of Aviation what arrangements he has considered to produce the Mirage III V in Great Britain.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery)

None, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock

Does the Minister recall that on 15th July he told me that Her Majesty's Government have consistently urged the adoption of a common aircraft by the N.A.T.O. countries? Supposing that it were to be proved that the Mirage III V were superior to the Hawker P 1154, would it not then be necessary for us to have manufacturing arrangements in this country? Would it not be as well to anticipate that situation and, at least, have discussions with the manufacturers of the Mirage III V so that these arrangements could proceed smoothly if that aircraft were accepted to be the best?

Mr. Amery

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that his supplementary question shows that his recent appointment as shadow Patronage Secretary is something of a mirage.

Sir John Eden

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the Hawker 1127 and 1154 programme we have a supersonic vertical take-off aircraft of excellent capacity and capability and that it would be far better, in this country's interests, if we were to proceed with British aircraft development rather than seek to cash in, as the Liberals seem to want, on anything but British?

Mr. Amery

We regard the P 1154 as holding the best prospect of meeting the requirements of the Royal Air Force and of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Cronin

Apart from merely supporting the P 1154 with words, will the right hon. Gentleman give some really practical support in the future, particularly as regards having some operational experience in the use of V.T.O.L. aircraft?

Mr. Amery

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we are doing all that he would wish us to do in that respect.

Mr. McMaster

In view of the weakness of a one-jet vertical take-off aircraft, is my right hon. Friend doing anything to produce multi-jet vertical take-off aircraft in this country?

Mr. Amery

As my hon. Friend knows, we pioneered the multi-jet version in the SC 1. However, it is our view that the single vectored thrust engine is the most satisfactory solution for a fighter-interceptor or strike aircraft.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the right hon. Gentleman treat my question with a little more gravity? Supposing that the Mirage III V were proved to be technically superior to the P 1154, what does the Minister's previous answer mean, that Her Majesty's Government have consistently urged the adoption of a common aircraft? In that event, if we proceed with the manufacture of the P 1154 and the rest of the N.A.T.O. air forces have the Mirage III V, is it not clear that there will be no common aircraft for the N.A.T.O. countries?

Mr. Amery

The hon. Gentleman began by asking me a question in the past tense about what arrangements had been made or considered. I told him that none had been considered. He now asks me a hypothetical question. There is no action which could usefully be taken on his hypothesis.