§ 21. Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm.
§ 40. Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm.
§ Mr. HealeyI have nothing to add to the statement in Part I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1966.
§ Mr. WallSince the Government have ordered the destruction of the Fleet Air Arm by the mid-1970s without giving the Royal Navy any alternative form of strike capability will he consider the provision of far less sophisticated aircraft carriers operating vertical take-off aircraft in the strike rôle for which helicopters are not acceptable?
§ Mr. HealeyWe are looking at every possible way in which to meet the needs of the Forces, including the needs of the Royal Navy for support in the strike rôle, but I ask the hon. Gentleman—I know that he has the interests of the Navy and the Fleet Air Arm very much at heart—to recognise that at least half the Fleet Air Arm is concerned with flying helicopters and that the Government have already—the agreement which we reached on Monday contributes to this—developed a plan for the greater use of helicopters in the service of the Fleet.
§ Mr. HamlingHas my right hon. Friend any plans for using small carriers?
§ Mr. HealeyAll these matters are under discussion.
§ Mr. PowellHave not the right hon. Gentleman's replies disclosed that he deprived the Royal Navy of one form of 417 armament before he had decided what form of armament it should have instead?
§ Mr. HealeyNo. What my answers reveal is that this Government, unlike their predecessor, took care to take a decision on the replacement of the aircraft carrier force in time to meet the needs for replacing the capability when carriers had gone. We did not delay a decision year after year as the previous Government did in the hope that a future Government would grasp this nettle.