Vote 7. Aircraft and Stores (Hansard, 10 March 1959)

§ Mr. Ross
In a total Estimate of £490 million we have this Vote for £213 million. I wonder how realistic it is. Last year, there was a considerable churning up of the Estimates as presented, in the light of what eventually happened. Vote A for airframes was estimated to be £74 million, which upset quite a number of people when they considered it in relation to what was to be spent on guided missiles, but eventually we spent £86 million under that Vote.
1201 Instead of spending £55 million on aero engines, we spent £48 million. It becomes a burden when we have arguments about Estimates and about the relative importance being placed on the traditional and modern rôle of the Royal Air Force as compared with the modern and coming guided weapons and missiles, and then we discover that things are so completely altered. For the same thing happened in relation to Subhead C, "Armament, Ammunition and Explosives", which includes guided missiles. We were told last year that we would spend £42 million, but we were out by about 25 per cent. and spent only £32 million.
Could we be told whether there is to be any churning up of policy within the Government during the coming year which will render these Estimates as unreliable as they were last year? It is important not only from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, but of industry. There is no Estimate that is of more importance to men employed in the aircraft industry. The widespread nature of this interest goes from the Isle of Wight, in the South, to an important place called Prestwick, in the North, where we make the Twin Pioneer; and I thank the Secretary of State for Air for giving us an extra four, which were welcomed in that part of Scotland.
We are entitled to ask the Minister whether or not there is now a settled policy, in the hope that the forecast of deliveries, which is all this is, is likely to be more accurate this year than it was last. We are threatened with an increase of £17 million, and that despite a decrease of £6¼ million in airframes and aero engines as compared with the original Estimate last year. It is nonsense to talk about a comparison, however, when we know that things were so completely changed.
There is one other point which worries me and that is under Subhead C, which is much more important than its title would make one believe. This is divided into two parts. The first concerns armament and the second deals with ammunition and explosives. Included in armament is ancillary equipment for guided missiles and under ammunition and explosives come the guided missiles themselves.
1202 In view of the increasing development and importance of these missiles, it is time they were taken out of the general melange of ammunition and explosives and given a heading of their own. We would then get a far better idea of the balance of the new R.A.F. as between the traditional means of fighting and delivery as compared with the modern weapon systems. We talk of weapon systems and we are promised new ones. It would give us a much clearer picture if we could get these separate and apart, so that we would know exactly the balance of expenditure in relation to these matters.
There is an increase of about £1 million on Subhead F, mechanical transport vehicles and marine craft, an increase from £5½ million to £6½ million. I should welcome an explanation of how it is hoped to spend this additional £1 million and whether there has been any standardisation of the needs of the Services for mechanical transport vehicles. It may be difficult with specialised types of vehicles required on airfields, for instance, to get standardisation, but with general purpose vehicles we would get some economy by that means.
Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the increased expenditure on marine craft? We were told in the Memorandum about the closing down of certain marine stations, and yet we are spending more money. That may be due to re-equipping new ocean weather ships, but I should be grateful for an explanation of this aspect of the matter and a reply to my criticism of the reliability of the Estimates.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
The total Vote is considerably increased, by about £20 million. At the same time, redundancy in Scotland is increasing. We have had a great struggle, which, in the long run, has proved unsuccessful, to keep open the Ministry of Supply factory in Dunbartonshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned Prestwick, and I agree with him that we have had some help in keeping the industry there going. I see that the amount for airframes is down and I assume that because of that there will be a general reduction in airframe production over the country as a whole. That is also 1203 true of aero engines. I should like the Under-Secretary to refer to that and to give an assurance that Scotland is getting a fair crack of the whip in the manufacture of aero engines.
There has been a good deal of redundancy in the Rolls-Royce factories. It is a legitimate complaint that when the total Vote is going up, there is unfair distribution in that the amount of work for Scotland seems to be decreasing. Glasgow is the most heavily hit city in the United Kingdom in respect of unemployment. And unemployment in Scotland is still increasing, even though in the United Kingdom it is decreasing.
This is the Vote which absorbs the greatest single sum of money and concerns industries in which Scotland is interested. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that Scotland's position will be at least maintained, and that he can say something about the manufacture of aircraft at Prestwick and assure us that our position there will improve and not deteriorate.

§ Mr. Neave
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members will recognise the difficulty involved in deciding the form of this Vote, which he criticised. The difficulty arises from the numerous imponderables involved in the development of new weapons and aircraft. The changes in the Vote were due not to changes in policy, but, very often, to shortfalls in deliveries, and in some cases to accelerated deliveries. This Vote is always liable to large fluctuations. I shall have something to say about what the hon. Member mentioned in regard to guided weapons.
Turning to the question of our responsibility to the aircraft industry, I would point out that my right hon. Friend's first responsibility is not to the aircraft industry as such; that is primarily the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. Nonetheless, the Royal Air Force is the industry's largest single customer, and we are well aware that a thriving and healthy manufacturing organisation is of prime importance to the future of the Service.
We assist in the promotion of sales in many ways. In the normal course of their duties air attachés keep other countries informed of the latest developments in 1204 British aircraft and equipment; we have special arrangements with many of our Allies to facilitate the supply of Royal Air Force type equipment, and showing the flag in various countries, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in the Air Estimates debate, evokes the greatest interest in the products of British industry. I accept what hon. Members have said about the matter, but there is nothing further that I can say now about my right hon. Friend's connection with and responsibility for it.
The hon. Member referred particularly to Subhead C, and asked whether the Vote could be split up so that recent deliveries of guided weapons could be shown. That point will no doubt be taken note of, but I cannot say anything further about it at the moment, except that there is an increase in the estimated expenditure.
As for motor transport standardisation, much work continues to be done on the standardisation of mechanical transport vehicles and components which are common to the three Services. The N.A.T.O. Military Agency for Standardisation is also active in this connection, to ensure the greatest possible degree of uniformity with our N.A.T.O. Allies, but we should bear in mind that the Royal Air Force needs a wide variety of specialised vehicles for its many purposes.
I was also asked about marine craft. We did not buy any new marine craft last year, but we are providing this year for the purchase of an ocean weathership and the conversion of two others. Last year we provided for the purchase of only one.