HC Deb 19 January 1965 vol 705 cc31-8
Mr. Thorneycroft (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make available to the House of Commons the information which he gave at a briefing of journalists during the Recess on the future of defence policy and the prospect of orders for the aircraft industry.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

No, Sir.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that to attempt to deal with the future of a great industry by a series of inspired leaks is a deplorable way for any Government to act? May I ask him to clear up these points? Is it the Government's intention to keep or to break the pledge given to the aircraft workers that Labour will not cancel the TSR2? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by all who work in the industry at the phrase "wet nursing mentally retarded children"? Will he withdraw that phrase and apologise for it, as it reflects on the whole integrity of the Government's approach to this problem?

Instead of unofficial and semi-official leaks, could we have a White Paper dealing specifically with the various projects and the cost of purchasing the American TFX, the cost of purchasing the additional Phantoms, the cost of buying the American C.130 and the effect on the balance of payments, so that we can see what the problem is in that way?

Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are already making full use of the right hon. Gentleman's activities? They are doing their level best to knock our exports of the BAC.111 on the ground that the damage the right hon. Gentleman is doing to the British industry will make it impossible satisfactorily to produce that and other planes?

Mr. Healey

The right hon. Gentleman should know that no information has been given, either in public or in private, to the Press, or to anybody else not directly concerned with aircraft, on decisions about some of the possible changes in the aircraft procurement programme which are now under review. If there are leaks in the newspapers they are certainly not inspired. Indeed, I think that anyone who has read the various newspapers will recognise that the stories appearing in them, sometimes under the name of the same correspondent, are totally self-contradictory.

I am, of course, aware that there is deep concern in the aircraft industry about its future. The Government are taking that fully into account in the review of aircraft projects they are now undertaking and which was announced to the House as far back as last November and repeated in a debate in December. No statement was made by me or anyone else describing the aircraft industry in the terms that the right hon. Member has used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Right hon. Members opposite, if they are interested in the facts, should be prepared to listen to what I have to say.

The words were used, but not for publication, at a confidential briefing of the kind which right hon. Members opposite frequently made use of when they were in power. They were not applied to the aircraft industry. They were used in the context of discussion of the whole problem of trying to stem the rise in defence expenditure by getting better value for money. I should hope that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that this should be a major responsibility of the Minister of Defence, to whatever party he belongs.

Mr. Marten

Now that he has admitted he used the words, will the right hon. Gentleman say to whom he was referring?

Mr. Healey

The words were used in reference to a whole series of projects, many of which were cancelled at a cost to the nation of £300 million by right hon. Members opposite when they were in power.

Mr. Monslow

Will my right hon. Friend say what steps he proposes to take in relation to this grave violation by breach of faith?

Mr. Healey

This is a serious question which my hon. Friend has raised. I am, of course, not responsible for the conduct of journalists, but, naturally, I deplore any breach of the confidence which must be the basis for discussions of this kind; and there have been a good many cases of this type of breach of confidence recently. These breaches of confidence must call into question the possibility of continuing this form of background briefing, which I believe the Press values as much as Ministers of all parties.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representatives of large American aircraft companies are going round the world undermining the British position by saying, "Do not buy British aircraft now, because in 10 years' time you will not get spares"? Will he do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has suggested, publish a White Paper to allay all fears so that people and Parliament can have facts and we can debate the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Healey

On the question of behaviour of American industry representatives, there has been much of what the hon. Member has said and it has been going on for many years, but on the question of aircraft decisions—this also answers the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft)—when the Government have made those decisions they will communicate them to the House eat the earliest possible moment and will give sufficient background of costs to enable the House to judge the wisdom of their decision.

Mr. Paget

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Armed Forces will obtain the equipment, of which they are woefully short, from the most efficient and cheapest sources regardless of where they are and that the Armed Forces shall no longer be regarded as a convenient field for exploitation by the aircraft interests?

Mr. Healey

With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, there are many considerations to be taken into account when taking decisions of this nature. For example, although it is important both to the House and the country to ensure that the country gets value for every £1,000 spent on defence, there are considerations from the defence point of view which must be borne in mind other than the actual cost of a given aircraft. There is, for example, the need for the country to maintain the capacity for bargaining and the capacity for evaluating foreign aircraft and many considerations which must affect such a decision quite apart from the unit cost of one aircraft compared with another.

Sir W. Robson Brown

The Minister will be aware that a decision to buy American aircraft will have a terrible impact on my constituents and may well drive my constituency into being a distressed area. I would like one assurance, and one only. I know that this is a complicated problem, and I do not want to make it more complicated. I would like an assurance that this matter will be debated openly in the House before a decision is made to buy American aircraft as opposed to the TSR2.

Mr. Healey

I cannot give such an assurance, but I can assure the House that it will have an opportunity of debating the decisions when they are taken. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Monmouth created a precedent here when he decided to buy American Phantoms for the Royal Navy before communicating his intention to the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

In view of the need, and the urgent need, for reducing defence expenditure, will the Minister take into consideration the statement by President Johnson which appears in The Guardian today, which means, if true, that the whole question of the Polaris submarine is to be reconsidered? Will he assure us that we shall not spend enormous sums of money on what may turn out to be an obsolete weapon?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Everything that the Minister has said in answer is quite apart from Polaris developments. It has all related to other matters.

Mr. Healey

If I may answer the last point made by my hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, it is my firm intention that we shall not spend money on obsolete weapons.

Mr. Hogg

Among the criteria which the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind, will he remember all the time the vital part which defence orders still play in the advance of technology and science in this country and the fact that we simply cannot afford to allow the Americans to have all the advanced technologies, as they are, even if the criteria referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) are relevant?

Mr. Healey

This is another factor to be borne in mind.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Bowden. Statement.

Mr. Thorneycroft

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, at the appropriate moment. Later—

Mr. Thorneycroft

Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call attention to the widespread concern in the aircraft industry arising from the danger of cancellation of military projects and negotiations now proceeding and about to be concluded on the purchase terms of alternative aircraft from the United States.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call attention to the widespread concern in the aircraft industry arising from the danger of cancellation of military projects and negotiations now proceeding and about to be concluded on the purchase terms of alternative aircraft from the United States. First, I should like to express my personal gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me warning that he might wish to do this, so that I have had an opportunity to consider what the position is. It is that I cannot accede to his application. It does not in the circumstances come under the Standing Order, in my view.

Sir J. Eden

Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that considerable comings and goings have been taking place during the Recess, all concerning the future of the British aircraft industry, and that, had the House been sitting at this time, the Ministers concerned with this would have been pressed for fuller information than we have been vouchsafed by the Ministry of Defence this afternoon? Is it not also a fact that decisions are pending which may well alter the whole shape of the British aircraft industry, if not altogether cripple it? In these circumstances, is there not a great element of urgency here which it behoves the House to debate immediately, if possible? In these circumtances, may I ask you to reconsider your Ruling, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

No. I should have explained what is really fatal to the application. There are two principles. One is that a debate under this Standing Order cannot be asked for when the facts are not available or are in dispute. That covers most of the ground, because nobody has got any of the facts out of the Minister, to put it bluntly. The other principle is that a refusal by a Minister to give information is not a ground for a successful application under this Standing Order. I am quite sure about this, and I do not propose to argue about it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Further to that point of order. One fact has emerged from the exchanges we have had over the last five minutes. It was when the Minister of Defence said that he was not prepared to give an assurance that he would allow the debate to take place before orders for American aircraft were placed. As that has been stated from the Treasury Bench, I should have thought that the House ought to take every step and make use of this Standing Order, if you, Mr. Speaker, could be prevailed upon to give it further consideration, to ensure that the aircraft industry is discussed in the House before such orders are placed.

Mr. Speaker

There are two objections to that point. First, it is not in the Motion submitted to me. Secondly, if it were, it would not be a ground for granting the application.

Sir W. Robson Brown

Further to that point of order. The House will be aware that on Thursday of last week over 10,000 workers from the Weybridge factory marched through London streets in an orderly fashion and also held a mass meeting in Hyde Park. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may jeer, but the House is not being allowed —neither is the hon. Member for Esher being allowed—to debate this particular decision, which may go against the whole of the interests not only of Esher but of the whole of the aircraft industry in this country. I feel that it is a matter of urgent public importance, otherwise there is contempt of this House.

Mr. Speaker

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no Ruling of mine is made in contempt of the House. It follows our practice. If the hon. Gentleman looks in the seventeenth edition of Erskine May, at the appropriate pages, one of which I think is 351 and the other of which is 364, he will find justification for my Ruling.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Sir W. Robson Brown

I withdraw any reference to contempt on your part, Mr. Speaker. My reference was to the Government side. I do not withdraw on that point.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate a Ruling about this now.

Sir H. Butcher

Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is not the House likely shortly to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply? As there will be no specific Votes before the Committee, would it not be appropriate for a discussion on this question then to take place?

Mr. Speaker

I am not in a position to say what could happen in a Committee of Supply, because if ever we get there I shall not be in the Chair. My expectation is—of course, I must not put it higher than that—that we shall not get there because it will take the House so long to decide whether or no I should leave the Chair.