§ Mr. Thorneycroft(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the procurement of aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not your decision to allow this Private Notice Question offend the rule, the Standing Order, or at any rate the custom, that no Private Notice Question can be accepted if it anticipates Questions on the Order Paper?
May I direct your attention to the fact that for Wednesday, 3rd February, there is a Question to be asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), Question No. 47, which is similar or in almost the same terms as the Question which now appears as a Private Notice Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. I am not able to take the same view as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The Questions are, in fact, distinct in my view. All these things are difficult, but I do not feel lack of confidence about that one.
§ Mr. ShinwellIn those circumstances, may I read Question No. 47, which is:
To ask the Minister of Aviation, what United States aircraft he is studying with a view to their purchase in substitution for the HS 681; and what is his estimate of the total cost of United States aircraft to satisfy United Kingdom defence requirements."?Surely the reference to "United Kingdom defence requirements" is similar to this Private Notice Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf I may assist the right hon. Gentleman by reading to him the Question which I gave leave to be asked as a Private Notice Question, it is:
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the procurement of aircraft for the Royal Air Force.I am sure that I was right to allow it.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Answer is: I hope to deal with this question fully tomorrow.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftWhile thanking the Prime Minister for the courtesy of his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware of the widespread rumours that there is to be large-scale switching of procurement from British firms to our American competitors and the fact that there is deep concern among wide sections of the public, including the aircraft workers, in the light of the pledges which were extended to them, and 729 whether he does not consider that it might be better to await a debate either tomorrow or at some other time before he makes any firm pronouncement on matters of such far-reaching importance?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not quite clear now whether the right hon. Gentleman wants a statement today or wants to await a debate, but he will be aware that this is a matter which has been occupying the very full-time attention of my colleagues and myself for a very considerable time.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that no responsible Government coming into office and finding what we found, both on the prospective cost of these aircraft, going far beyond anything the House had ever been told before, and also, which should be at least as important in our minds and perhaps more important, the decision of the Royal Air Force in the matter of the supply of aircraft urgently needed, could do other than have the most vigorous and full review of this question.
The right hon. Gentleman, I think, knows most of the issues involved. What perhaps he underrates is the question of the time-scale of the supply of particular aircraft which are to be urgently needed long before the plans which were made by the previous Government mature in terms of aircraft being in squadron service.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThe right hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the question I put to him. I was not pressing him for an answer. What I was asking him was, in view of the extreme gravity of this decision, both from the point of view of the defence of the country and of the future of the aircraft industry, would he not think it wise to postpone any final decision by the Government until after he has listened to the views expressed from both sides of the House of Commons either in the debate tomorrow or in a later debate?
§ The Prime MinisterI apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I misunderstood his question. The version sent to me by him was whether I,
Will now make a statement on the procurement …".730 If it was a misprint, and he meant whether I would not make a statement, I apologise to him. Whatever he may have had in mind on this, I agree with the last remarks he has made about the gravity of the decision that has to be taken one way or another.I have said that if I catch your eye tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal with this whole question more fully, both in all its economic and defence aspects. It is not for me to anticipate what will be in order, or what Amendments you will call, but, if it would not be in order in the terms of the rather wide-ranging Motion put down by the Opposition for tomorrow, if you allow me to move my Amendment tomorrow it will certainly be in order on that.
§ Mr. BellengerIn view of the admission by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) that he did not expect his Question to be answered today, is this not an abuse of the purposes of Private Notice Questions, presuming that when the Question was put before you to allow or disallow you assumed that it was bona fide? It is certainly discourteous to other hon. Members who are back benchers and have less opportunity, owing to the crowded nature of the Order Paper, of putting Questions to Ministers, to allow this privilege to be so abused.
§ Mr. SpeakerI discover no abuse in the Question asked.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonSince the Prime Minister complained of having been kept in ignorance, and of the House being kept in ignorance, of the cost of these defence projects, does he not recall that he was a member of a Government who not only concealed the cost of the first British nuclear defence project from the House and the nation, but concealed the fact that they were making it?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must get on.