§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
§ 11.31 p.m.
§ Sir Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)The topic for the Adjournment Motion this evening is the TSR2 aircraft, which has already been made the subject of heated exchanges in this House, notably at Question Time last Wednesday. I am a very strong supporter of the policy of building the TSR2 aircraft for the Royal Air Force, and building it in substantial numbers, as a contribution to the British independent nuclear deterrent. Those words are, of course, anathema to the Labour Party, which does not believe in an independent British deterrent. I do. That is the schism between Socialist thought on defence matters and my own and that of my hon. Friends—
§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)Have a good time, Gerald.
§ Sir G. NabarroI shall have a very good time, but I wish hon. Members opposite would not refer to me as Gerald.
This aircraft is a magnificent British scientific achievement—
§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)How does the hon. Gentleman know?
§ Sir G. NabarroI know because I am advised to that effect by aeronautical scientists and engineers who are in a position to know, and who are not entirely ignorant of aeronautical matters 242 as is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
It is a sophisticated and versatile aircraft, capable of flying at very high speeds at altitudes of from 100 ft. up to, I believe, a ceiling of 60,000 ft.—
§ Sir G. NabarroBelieve, because the aircraft has not yet been tested at altitudes of that magnitude—
§ Sir G. NabarroOr any magnitude, but it will be tested shortly, and as I prefixed my comments by a statement of faith in this aircraft, I am entitled to take the reliable estimates of aeronautical engineers and scientists in this important matter.
The aircraft is capable of both a nuclear and a conventional role, and of penetration of radar and air defence paraphernalia of potential enemies in great depth. It is an aircraft, of course, of very great complexity. Those who have seen illustrations of it will at once recognise from them, and from its brief specification published, that it is really a torpedo tube packed with electronic equipment.
Hence the cost of the aircraft may be expected to be high. I accept that the cost will be high, though I believe that, so far, there have been violent exaggerations, generally by hon. Members opposite, in order to endeavour to discredit the aircraft for reasons I have not yet been able to ascertain. I believe that their estimates of probable costs have been wildly exaggerated, and I hope that later this evening we may have something more reliable from my right hon. Friend than the speculation that has come from uninitiated and ill-informed Socialist Members.
The TSR2 is, of course, an important supplement to Britain's nuclear deterrent, and no doubt that is what rouses Socialist hostility to it. That hostility has been widely stated, not only in this House but in another place, and in public speeches by Labour Members in the country, because a nuclear deterrent in Britain's hands is anathema to them, especially to their pacifist wing. They also claim that the aircraft is too sophisticated and too costly, as if we 243 should arm ourselves with aircraft which are obsolescent in the face of possible threat from other nations with, for example the Mig 19 or Mig 21, which are approximately in the class of aircraft which I am discussing.
The most derogatory statement concerning this magnificent British aircraft, the TSR2, was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who, as the Socialist spokesman for defence, the shadow Cabinet member for defence, should have been in his place tonight but is absent.
§ Sir G. NabarroBecause the hon. Member for Dudley is an insignificant ornament on the benches opposite. He is not the shadow Cabinet spokesman on defence. Where is the hon. Member for Leeds, East? He ought to have come here.
§ Sir G. NabarroYes, to listen to me refer to the disgraceful statement he made a few days ago to the effect that the TSR2 was the biggest scandal since the South Sea Bubble.
§ Sir G. NabarroI note that the hon. Member says "Yes." This is supporting the hon. Member for Leeds, East.
I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation for coming here to answer. It is unusual to have a senior Minister answering an Adjournment debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refute absolutely this scandalous statement by the hon. Member for Leeds, East. The case of Labour Members is that we ought to have waited for American aircraft. I wonder what would have happened to this country in 1940 if we had waited for an American aircraft better than our own Spitfire or Hurricane. I believe that in contemporary Britain and the times in which we live the TSR2 is approximately equal in importance to what the Spitfire and Hurricane were 25 or 27 years ago.
§ Sir G. NabarroThe hon. Member says "balderdash". I am glad to have 244 his opposition. It reinforces me always, for I know that when he opposes me in defence matters I am certain to be right.
The further point made by the Labour Party is that the TSR2 cannot be any good, otherwise the Australians would have bought it. The Labour Party are evidently seeking to derogate this aircraft and to denounce it in order to make quite sure that Britain cannot sell it to potential customers abroad. They are endeavouring to prevent Britain exporting this magnificent aircraft, and undoubtedly there will be export markets available.
§ Sir G. NabarroConservatives, the Labour Party say, will cancel orders for this aircraft. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it perfectly clear tonight not only that we have ordered the aircraft, first on an experimental basis and later for squadron service, but that deliveries may be expected at an early date.
§ Sir Gerald NabarroPerhaps the hon. Member will not make bogus points of order—
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) should behave himself.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. Surely the hon. Member for Kidderminster has some responsibility for the accuracy of the statements he makes.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think any more than on any other occasion.
§ Sir G. NabarroThere is, of course, no substance whatever in any of these Labour Party allegations. They are vicious and mendacious pre-election Socialist propaganda, designed to discredit the Government. I do not believe they will do so.
My purpose this evening is largely exploratory, and I wish to ask my right hon. Friend several questions about this aircraft, of which I have given him notice. I hope that he will answer them in the form of a policy statement, which we have not yet had, about this aircraft, because our exchanges last 245 Wednesday at Question Time were necessarily short and disjointed.
First, will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent Press statements, reinforced by hon. Members opposite, that the cost of the TSR2 will add up to the fabulous figure of £1,000 million?
Second, will my right hon. Friend say whether a simpler, less versatile, less sophisticated and less complicated aircraft could achieve the same purposes as the TSR2?
Third, will he say why the Buccaneer, for instance, would not have fulfilled the role which is assigned in Ministerial minds to the TSR2?
Fourth, will my right hon. Friend answer the important question as to when the TSR2 will be in operational service in Royal Air Force squadrons?
Fifth, will he say, since a large sum of money has, undoubtedly, been spent on this aircraft, what will be the technical or technological advantages in other forms of advanced aircraft construction, notably the Concord—or, in the jargon of the aeronautical engineer, what will be the technological fall-out of the TSR2?
Sixth, if the TSR2 were cancelled, as the Labour Party wish it to be, how many people in this country would lose their jobs?
Seventh, will my right hon. Friend clear up the confusion about the role of the TSR2? Am I correct in stating, as I did earlier, and at Question Time last Wednesday, that it is both a tactical and a strategic aircraft and that it can perform, with distinction, both a conventional and a nuclear rôle?
Eighth, can the TSR2 undertake reconnaissance rôles?
Ninth, will the TSR2 be confined only to the N.A.T.O. theatre, or can it be used elsewhere, particularly in the Far East theatre and as part of fulfilment of our S.E.A.T.O. obligations?
Tenth, is the TSR2 dependent on elaborate ground support?
Eleventh, can it penetrate enemy defences in the face of counter-attacks?
Twelfth, why did the Australians prefer the TFX aircraft which they bought from the United States of America, and are there other possi- 246 bilities of Britain exporting this TSR2 aircraft?
Those are the questions which I put seriatim to the Minister in order to extract from him a detailed statement of policy in regard to the TSR2 aircraft. I have occupied nearly fifteen minutes of this Adjournment debate in putting the questions, and I am leaving my right hon. Friend fifteen minutes to reply with a detailed statement. I hope he will denounce the malicious propaganda of hon. Members opposite in regard to this magnificent British scientific achievement.
§ 11.44 p.m.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. As the selection of Adjournment subjects is a matter in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and in view of what has happened, may I submit to you that I raise the subject again when it is possible to have the real facts of this case so that it can be answered? After all, this House is for debating. May I ask that this may receive your consideration?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. With all respect to the hon. Member, he is mistaken in thinking that I select subjects for the Adjournment on Tuesdays. That is not so. I have been looking for the Ruling, which I do not find at this moment, but it exists, and if the Minister rises in the Adjournment debate I must call him. Mr. Amery.
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)On a point of order. While realising, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I desire to hear the point of order. What is it?
§ Mr. CallaghanWhile realising, Mr. Speaker, that the selection of those who rise to speak is a matter entirely for you, as the hon. Member having the Adjournment debate, instead of using it for the purpose of raising a constituency question or some other question—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) may as well take it: he has been giving it out for the last fifteen minutes—has used it for the purpose of making a party attack, do 247 you think it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member, other than the Minister, wishes to speak, that you allow him to make his remarks in reply?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. I have already explained the situation. I am bound by the Rulings of my predecessors. When the Minister rises in an Adjournment debate I have to call him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is quite obvious, when time is short, that repetition of points of order may become an abuse. I have made the position quite clear. I rest in the hands of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerAn hon. Member has another point of order?
§ Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)In view of the traditions in Adjournment 248 debates, when an hon. Member, instead of raising constituency points, makes a number of allegations about the party on the other side of the House, is it not traditional for the Minister to give way to enable another hon. Member to intervene?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat cannot be a matter for me. I hope the House will pass on, because the point has been cleared.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. If the right hon. Member will not give way, I beg to give notice that there are not 40 Members present.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat practice, in an Adjournment debate, has, of course, been deprecated.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
§ House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, adjourned at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock till Tomorrow.