HC Deb 10 July 1963 vol 680 cc1373-84

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

The fact that this is the third Adjournment debate on the Royal Navy since we debated the Navy Estimates shows that 1963 has been a memorable year for the senior Service. There has been the decision to build the Polaris submarines, there has been the commissioning of our first nuclear-propelled submarine"Dreadnought", and I hope that very soon there will be an announcement of the aircraft carrier replacement programme—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

Mr. Wall

Those events, and the start of building of two assault ships constitute a record of which any Government can be proud, but I hope to show that this record is not yet enough.

Dealing, first, with Polaris, I share with most hon. Members a belief in an independent nuclear deterrent, and I be leave that the best method of delivering it is by submarine rather than by aircraft. I wonder whether four of these vessels are enough, but I shall not dwell on that as it has been debated time and time again in defence debates. I will only repeat that there is a danger that if we do not take the cost of the delivery of the deterrent out of the Service Estimates we will unbalance those Estimates, and I again plead that whatever means the Government of the day choose to deliver the deterrent, the cost of delivery shall be borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Defence and not on that of one of the Services. I also hope that the Minister will ensure that the construction of Polaris submarines will not unbalance our manning position particularly in certain specialist categories.

The real essence of the debate concerns aircraft carriers. In the Adjournment debate on 15th May last, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) pleaded for the introduction or completion of a surface-to-surface weapon system. In reply to that debate, the Civil Lord virtually said that he accepted that surface-to-surface missiles were necessary, but that, as a country, we could not afford those and the aircraft carriers. He went on to say that in many respects the aircraft carrier was superior to the surface missile system; it was more flexible; from the carrier one could reconnoitre, one could get early warning, one could instigate air defence and strikes in support of amphibious operations; one could strike at inland targets, and locate and identify enemy targets, many of which things could not be done by the surface-to-surface missile.

If that is true, and there is much in the suggestion, it shows how vital the aircraft carrier is in conventional warfare. In nuclear warfare we depend on the deterrent, or rather perhaps I should say that if we have to use the nuclear weapon the deterrent has failed. I believe that conventional warfare is far more likely than nuclear warfare. That means that the hinge of the Fleet is the aircraft carrier. We have four, or, perhaps, five of these ships—"Eagle","Ark Royal","Hermes","Victorious" and"Centaur"—although I hope that"Centaur" will soon be converted to a commando carrier.

The House must face the fact that in the world of today our communications are threatened in many places and, in particular, in the Persian Gulf area—and the House knows how important the oil of Kuwait is to this country—and South-East Asia, where we are committed not only to S.E.A.T.O., but to our Commonwealth partner, Greater Malaysia, which is to be formed in a few days' time. These are positive threats. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that Royal Navy could protect us against them because, in these cases, operations might have to be undertaken outside the range of land-based aircraft? Is he satisfied that the four carriers in commission and the one in reserve could tackle those threats, not one at a time but, if necessary, both together?

My hon. Friend will realise that the commando carrier is useless unless it is supported by a conventional carrier carrying fixed-wing aircraft. I suggest, therefore, that there is a need for a conventional carrier carrying fixed-wing aircraft in the Gulf, the need for another in South-East Asia, and the need for a third, moving as reserve or support between these stations in an emergency. There is need for one at least in our commitment to N.A.T.O. and for trade defence elsewhere. In addition, I think that, certainly in times of stress or war, there is need for at least two refitting or repairing.

That gives us a minimum of six. Today, we have only five. The"Victorious" will probably fall to pieces by the 1970s. If the carrier programme is not started next year and a decision is not taken this year, I believe that the security of this country is—I put it strongly—gravely and seriously in danger. I do not believe that we can carry out our proper concept of maritime strategy and protect not only our own trade routes, but the Commonwealth countries that depend on us, unless we have six modern fixed-wing aircraft carriers.

I think that the House will recall that we have heard the expression"task force" in a number of Defence White Papers. We heard"task force" mentioned in the Adjournment debate on 15th May. The old post-war concept of a task force was a carrier acting as a strike weapon supported or protected by a battleship or cruiser for anti-aircraft defence together with the necessary escort forces.

I suggest that the new concept of a task force is an amphibious task force again based on the conventional carrier and the commando carrier. If this amphibious task force is to be effective, it must have at least one assault ship and I suggest that it must have adequate air protection, presumably by the new guided missile destroyers and it must also have a headquarter's ship.

Could we not consider adapting our existing cruisers so that they can also act as headquarter ships in amphibious or naval operations? If these ships have to be replaced, as they must be replaced, the"Belfast" will have to be replaced very soon, could she not be replaced by a dual-purpose ship such as the U.S.S."Northampton".

Then what about the assault ships themselves? Their basic function is to land armour. This armour will be landed from these brand new vessels"Fearless" and"Intrepid" in L.CM. (9) a modification of the old L.C.H.S used in the last war. The assault vessels, for defensive reasons, have to anchor 5, 6 or 10 miles off the beaches and armour is then landed in a slow and vulnerable landing craft. Surely here is a rôle for the hovercraft. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into this and consider whether the Royal Marines and others who develop our amphibious strategy are given adequate facilities to develop this new British invention which would be so vitally important in supporting amphibious operations.

The first infantry goes in in helicopters, but those aircraft will not be able to carry tanks for some time, but the hovercraft will and are faster and might be able to achieve surprise. I do not believe that enough has been done in developing hovercraft for this form of maritime operation and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about it.

Then there is the question of what happens until"Intrepid" and"Fearless" are completed. We have I believe two liners which have just been taken off trooping and are no longer needed for trooping, which is now done by air. Has the Admiralty given some consideration to retaining one of these ships as an emergency infantry landing ship until the assault ships come forward and perhaps even then as a follow up for those ships?

I turn from amphibious operations briefly to my final point, and that is trade defence. I think that we all agree that our present destroyers and frigates are good. We all recognise that hunter-killer submarines are essential and that probably the only method of killing a nuclear submarine is by another nuclear submarine. I know that some of my hon. Friends are worried by the fact that the programme of hunter-killers had to be interrupted in order to start on the Polaris submarine programme.

But there are other things we can do. Trade defence is spread too thinly. I have suggested that the minimum number of carriers that we require is six, and that will not leave very many for trade protection. We need to develop 10,000 to 12,000-ton ships to carry helicopters which would be available for trade protection and, in emergency, could be used to support a commando carrier in amphibious tasks. There is a French vessel of 12,000 tons which is a good prototype of the ship I am thinking about.

During the last war we equipped merchant ships with 6 in. and 3 in. guns as well as smaller anti-aircraft guns. Might not consideration be given to seeing that merchant ships are now able to be fitted with platforms to operate helicopters? Would not this be the best protection for fast merchant ships not in convoys in a future war and could not they be operated by the R.N.R.? Are arrangements being made for this? My hon. Friend will see the line of thought I am following. We should do more to spread our limited trade defence and should make use of the R.N.R.

On the subject of helicopters, has my hon. Friend noted the article in the Daily Telegraph today which refers to the Wessex which is the only aircraft which makes the commando carrier concept possible at all, because the old Whirlwind helicopter has a ridiculously small capacity for carrying troops? This article states that there have been snags with the Wessex and that there is something wrong with this helicopter on which so much depends. It implies that there has been trouble with the engines and the Fleet Air Arm has not been allowed to fly the helicopter over sea because of certain defects. I hope that this is wildly exaggerated. I am sorry that I did not give my hon. Friend more warning about this. If he cannot reply today I hope that he will look into the matter, and that if the report is wrong he will take the opportunity, perhaps at Question Time, to say so. It is of interest to the House, because so much depends upon this aircraft.

I believe that conventional war is more likely than nuclear though we hope not to have either. Certainly, as far as the Navy is concerned, conventional war is the real threat. As for nuclear war, we offset the cost of Polaris with the fading out of Bomber Command and if we take the cost of the delivery of the deterrent and keep it separate it does not matter which Service actually delivers it.

In conventional war, the main role of the Navy, it seems that the carrier is absolutely vital. I think that my hon. Friend in the last Adjournment debate on this matter made that perfectly plain when he was winding up. I hope, therefore, that he will agree that six is the minimum we want today. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is essential to start a planned replacement programme this year. In other words, it must be announced and the arrangements made this year.

I hope that he will agree also that we need two balanced amphibious task forces. I hope that he will give consideration to the question of control and command cruisers and of hovercraft for landing assault armour and will consider carefully what we can do to spread our limited resources over the whole of trade defence by using our wonderful Merchant Navy and by using the R.N.R.

My hon. Friend may say that this is all very well and that there are not enough resources to achieve it and the main difficulty is cost. I do not think that this is a correct argument. I hope that he will press the Treasury, show that we are threatened in certain parts of the world, that we could be defeated in the Persian Gulf and could lose much of our oil supply and could find ourselves at the same time in a very difficult position in South-East Asia. That would be far more costly to the country and the Treasury than a planned replacement programme for naval construction starting this year.

10.15 p.m.

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

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for initiating this Adjournment debate and giving thereby one more example, if it were needed, of the very considerable interest that he rightly takes in the affairs of the Royal Navy and of the jealous way he challenges anything which could be even remotely interpreted as prejudicing the ability of the Navy to carry out its rôles in defence of the free world. On this occasion his main points have related to the need for an adequate naval replacement programme and he has brought forward a number of telling arguments in support of his case.

My hon. Friend, I hope, will forgive me if I do not, in the time available to me, answer each and every single point, of which there were quite a number, but I assure him that I will look very carefully at everything that he has said tonight.

The House is, of course, very well aware that it is the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide the Fleet with modern versatile ships fitted with the most advanced equipment. As my noble Friend the First Lord stated in the Memorandum which accompanied the Statement on Defence this year, the past 12 months have seen a striking advance in the fulfilment of this policy. Ships, aircraft and weapons which are entirely novel to the Royal Navy have come into service, and others will be accepted into service during the current year. The House may like to know that we shall be spending substantially more on the shipbuilding programme than we did last year. We are, in fact, increasing the amount by £5½ million to a total of £63½ million.

All who take an interest in these matters know very well that modern ships with their more sophisticated equipment cost more to equip, to run and maintain, and it is of paramount importance that we should plan the future Navy bearing in mind the limited resources that we have for defence, the variety of rôles that the Navy will be called upon to carry out and the need to create a balanced force with which all these various rôles can be adequately carried out within the fixed limits which have been decided. We have to keep pace with all the latest technological advances, and in some of them I think we can justly claim that we are leading the way, but we must do so without making each ship so expensive that the total numbers of ships that we can afford are inadequate to the task.

My hon. Friend has drawn particular attention to the balance of the Fleet, and perhaps I should say a word about that and also on the question of the limitation of our resources. Unfortunately, we have not got the resources to make it possible to have all the ships and all the equipment that many of us would like to have. We have to strike, so far as we can, the right sort of balance between ships on the one hand and aircraft on the other, between one class of ship and others, so that we can comply with our various commitments in collaboration with our allies. Also we have to get the best value from our ships that we can for the money that we spend on them. I think the balance that we have got now is just about right.

There has been no remarkable reduction in the number of ships, either operational or on trials or training, in the last few years, but the Fleet has now a much higher content of modern ships which are infinitely superior to their predecessors. For example, H.M. ships"Devonshire" and"Hampshire", the first two of six County Class 6,000-ton destroyers armed with the Seaslug missile, have now been commissioned. I had the opportunity the other day of visiting H.M.S."Hampshire" and was enormously impressed with what I saw. Two of their sister-ships,"Kent" and"London", are expected to join the Fleet this year and we are making good progress with the building of H.M. ships"Fife" and"Glamorgan". Short-range anti-aircraft missiles also became operational with the Fleet with the Seacat system, in service first in the"Devonshire" and the"Hampshire" and in the four Battle class aircraft direction pickets.

The Royal Navy has pioneered the very advanced steam propulsion with gas turbine boost machinery which has been introduced in the Tribal class frigate. Moreover, many of the older ships have been or are being modernised and fitted with the most up-to-date equipment. For example, H.M.S."Eagle", which will fly the Buccaneer aircraft, is being fitted with modern methods of processing and displaying action information and will have the latest accommodation standards for the crew.

We can say that the Fleet today is more modern than it has been for a long time and, in the years to come, it will keep ahead of developments.

Now, a word about the problem on which my hon. Friend touched, the question of the nuclear hunter-killer submarine programe. The House may be interested to have some details of how we are getting on with this. H.M.S."Dreadnought" was accepted from the builders on 23rd April last, and, following a series of trials, she should become fully operational next year."Valiant" was not laid down until this year but it is now well advanced. Fabrication of components has already started for the third nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarine. After this, because of the Polaris programme, there will be a temporary suspension in the programme of new building of nuclear hunter-killers. How long the suspension will last will depend on a number of factors, but we intend to keep it to a minimum. Of course, we shall review the rate of production from time to time.

I am aware that there is concern in the House and the country that decisions about the nuclear deterrent should not prejudice the conventional Navy and, in particular, the new construction programmes. My hon. Friend made this point. I have already mentioned our intention of making good the temporary suspension in submarine building, but I remind the House also that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence assured hon. Members on 4th March last that the Nassau Agreement did not jeopardise the Navy's chance of getting conventional ships. He was at pains to explain that the defence budget has to be considered as a whole and that Naval decisions have to be taken on their merits, not according to which particular Service happens to be charged with the duty of carrying the deterrent. There has been no decision to contribute to a N.A.T.O. surface force nor an how much we should contribute if we did.

The main subject of my hon. Friend's remarks was die replacement of aircraft carriers and, in particular, the replacement of the"Victorious" when she completes her useful life in 1971. This has been the subject of several Parliamentary Questions recently, and I, as a comparative newcomer, have been left in no doubt whatever of the views of hon. Members about it.

We have already explained that design work on a replacement is in hand, and we are giving a great deal of thought to the proper timing of the programme. In these days, when shore-based facilities are steadily diminishing, there is little doubt that aircraft carriers provide the most politically secure, unobtrusive and self-contained bases for the deployment of military power. They can and they do operate in areas far beyond the reach of fixed bases ashore. Not only can they be used to support amphibious forces on passage and during a landing but they also provide a platform for our airborne early warning surveillance and for surface strike and anti-submarine aircraft to protect our merchant fleet and other interests throughout the world against the threat from the air, from surface forces and from submarines.

My hon. Friend feels that we need a minimum of six carriers, two to support amphibious task forces east of Suez, the others to contribute to N.A.T.O., to operate with the Home and Mediterranean Fleets, for general trade protection, with, of course, a reserve always undergoing refit. As we announced in the Statement on Defence, there will in future be two carriers east of Suez at all times. I do not quarrel with the other commitments which my hon. Friend stated, but we have for some years had to meet these requirements—and all of them do not usually coincide—with four operational ships. This is a very difficult task and an arduous one for the ships' companies concerned, and I feel sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in a tribute to the work done by the ships' companies under very difficult conditions.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hay

Somehow, despite our handicaps, we have managed to fulfil this rôle and task and I hope that we shall continue to do so.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will not press me further on the issue of carriers tonight. I have said all that I think I can at this stage to make it clear that we take the matter extremely seriously, and I hope that we shall be able to come to a conclusion on it fairly soon.

Mr. Wall

Is that likely to be before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Hay

I have been warned since coming to my present office that I should not speculate too freely on these matters. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have the same patience that I am trying to show.

May I now say a word or two about amphibious forces to which my hon. Friend referred. His point was, I think, that we should have two amphibious task forces, one based on either side of the Indian Ocean. We are alive to the importance of amphibious forces. As I say, there are two carriers east of Suez. From 1964 there will normally be two commando ships there as well, and the two assault ships"Fearless" and"Intrepid", as soon as they are in commission, will also be based there. We do not plan to provide headquarters ships, but the assault ships and cruisers have a command capability, and, of course, minesweepers, escorts and afloat support ships are deployed in general support. We have a large building programme for faster and better-equipped support ships.

My hon. Friend returned to a point which he has raised before in the House, namely, that we should have small support carriers somewhat on the lines of the French"La Resolue". I am advised that such a ship of about 13,000 tons would not be large enough to operate fixed-wing aircraft in support of a landing. This type of ship is really a helicopter and commando carrier. We already have two ships with a far greater capacity to carry helicopters—that is, around 20 per ship—and also commandos, carrying over 800 men compared with the 700 carried by"La Resolue".

We have adequate bombardment capability for the support of a landing in the Tiger class cruisers. One of the twin 6-in. gun turrets in the Tiger class cruisers is more than equivalent in rate of fire and weight of shell to the medium artillery normally deployed in support of a brigade group. There is also bombardment capability in other conventional ships. But we are interested in the idea of carrying helicopters in ships which could combine the special characteristics of the cruiser with those of the helicopter carrier. This is a concept to which we are giving very careful thought in our future planning.

Captain John Litchfield (Chelsea)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the view of the Board of Admiralty that there should be a carrier replacement programme?

Mr. Hay

I stated as clearly as I could in my earlier remarks what our general thinking is on this matter. A great many factors have to be taken into account and the Board of Admiralty's view is one of them. As far as we are concerned, we will try to come to a conclusion in the light of all these factors as quickly as possible.

I should like to say a few words about Hovercraft. A few months ago we announced that the SRN3 was to be built by Saunders Roe. This is really a research craft. We are well alive to the potentiality of Hovercraft for anti-submarine work. There may equally be some kind of application for amphibious operations. We shall therefore watch with the greatest interest the development of the SRN3project.

May I say a word or two about the Wessex helicopter. I saw the report in the Daily Telegraph to which my hon. Friend referred. I am advised that virtually everything in that report this morning was wildly inaccurate. I regret having to say that for I have a great respect for the Daily Telegraph and its accuracy. However, I think that some of the people to whom the reporter was speaking must have been pulling his leg.

In conclusion, so long as the present strategy and defence commitments of the United Kingdom remain unchanged, we envisage that we shall continue to require an effective strength not less than we now deploy in the operational fleets. Our present plans are to replace ships as necessary, and for each new generation we shall consider the latest development in naval construction, machinery, weapons and other equipment, and we have every intention that our ships shall remain, as they are today, among the finest and most efficient in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock