HC Deb 03 July 1963 vol 680 cc353-5
2. Mr. Farr

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if a decision has yet been taken on an aircraft carrier replacement programme.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay)

No, Sir.

Mr. Farr

I had hoped that my hon. Friend would be slightly more illuminating in this connection than his predecessor in office. Does he think it good enough for Members of Parliament to be kept in the dark like this on this very important matter which was foreshadowed nearly two years ago? Cannot he throw some light on the subject?

Mr. Hay

I can understand the natural anxiety of the House to have an early decision on this matter, but I think that it would be preferable for us to make the right decision rather than an early decision. I hope and believe that a decision will not be long delayed now.

Mr. Willis

Would it be right to assume that this decision might be held up until the Government have made up their mind about a multi-manned force?

Mr. Hay

No, that would not be right.

Sir J. Maitland

Does my hon. Friend realise the enormous importance of this decision? Can he say how on earth the Navy would carry out its proper functions if it did not have an aircraft carrier force?

Mr. Hay

I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend's second observation will not come to pass. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, we are certainly very well aware of the importance of the decision.

Mr. Cronin

Is not the untoward delay in coming to this decision part of the reason for the unemployment situation in the shipbuilding yards?

Mr. Hay

No, I do not think so.

10. Mr. Cronin

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it is intended to cut the aircraft carrier replacement programme in favour of the proposed expenditure on Polaris submarines.

Mr. Hay

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence informed my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 11th February, whatever decision is taken on the carrier programme will be taken upon its merits and will not be related to what any one Service is spending in some other rôle.

Mr. Cronin

Is it not the case that it will not be financially possible to have both an adequate carrier replacement programme and the Polaris submarine fleet? Is it not also the case that there is considerable resistance in the Admiralty to the Polaris submarine fleet for this reason?

Mr. Hay

The second part of that supplementary question is quite inaccurate. As to the first part, if it were decided to order an aircraft carrier, the Admiralty would have sufficient funds to pay for both.

Mr. Burden

Is it not obvious that the answer is to build hunter-killer submarines and that the best way of doing this and of getting delivery is to ensure that they are built in yards that can build them, such as Chatham?

Mr. Hay

This is the first time I have heard that hunter-killer submarines can carry out the functions of aircraft carriers.

Mr. Willis

Whilst the decision might be made on its merits, is it not true that already the programme of hunter-killer submarines is being held up and that there is no guarantee whatever that this programme also will not be held up by proceeding with the Polaris programme?

Mr. Hay

No. The position is absolutely clear. As has been explained to the House on a number of occasions, we have interrupted temporarily the programme of building hunter-killer submarines so that we can handle the Polaris building programme. The main outline of the programme remains completely unchanged.