Aircraft Carriers (Hansard, 5 July 1967)

§ 22. Mr. Fisher
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the recent events in the Middle East, he will now reconsider his decision to cancel a new aircraft carrier.

§ 38. Dame Irene Ward
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of recent events in the Middle East, he will reconsider his policy with regard to aircraft carriers.

§ 62. Mr. Murton
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of recent events in the Middle East, he will now proceed with the building of a new aircraft carrier.

§ Mr. Healey
I have never denied the value of aircraft carriers, and I propose to make the best possible use of them while we have them. For reasons which the House debated very fully last year, we would not be justified in prolonging the life of our carrier force after 1975 with a new ship in the light of our likely overseas commitments in the longer term.

§ Mr. Fisher
Is it not a fact that since the decision to cancel was taken almost every operation in which British forces have been, might have been or might in the future be involved, including the defence of Aden, has required carrier support? If we have any rôle left in the world at all outside Europe, surely we need carrier support to discharge it?

§ Mr. Healey
No, of course it is not. Carriers were not used in the re-occupation of Crater the other day. I find ii difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who, after all, is the official spokesman of the Opposition on defence matters, argued last weekend that we should have been better off with no carriers in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world except Lake Windermere.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Never mind my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). May 1803 I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more realistic about aircraft carriers? Will he bear in mind that though they may be very expensive to build they give a great deal of employment to shipyards where employment is very necessary? In the future the right hon. Gentleman might be very glad to have some aircraft carriers to fill our derelict shipbuilding areas unless he gets on with the proper job.

§ Mr. Healey
I do not quite know what the hon. Lady's feelings are on this matter, but I think most hon. Members on both sides of the House would believe that while it is important to give employment to our shipbuilding yards we should not do so at the cost of £140 million a year to fulfil a function which can be fulfilled by other means.

§ Mr. Murton
In view of Her Majesty's Government's apparent inability to look after our interests in the Middle East, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that a sea-based force would be very much more appropriate than a land-based force in a base rented from a sovereign State?

§ Mr. Healey
I suggest that the hon. Member should have a chat with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on this matter and that, incidentally, he should try to find out the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on the matter. In debates on many occasions in this House we have said that it is the view of the Government that the jobs which are now very well done by carriers, in so far as they will still require to be done in the later 1970s, will be more cheaply done by other means.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Will the Secretary of State explain the advantages of the carrier for the Aden task over land-based aircraft which led to his decision?

§ Mr. Healey
Both land-based aircraft and the carrier have been offered to go to Aden to fulfil certain functions in the months following independence. I really cannot understand, if I may put this gently to my hon. Friend, how he now argues that all our troubles in the Middle East are due to the fact that we had carriers available there during the crisis, when he resigned from the Government a year ago on the ground that we were not 1804 ordering a new aircraft carrier for use outside Europe.

§ Mr. Robert Howarth
Can my right hon. Friend say what other European countries are proposing to build carriers in future?

§ Mr. Healey
None to my knowledge.

Earl of Dalkeith
What sort of crystal ball has the right hon. Gentleman used which leads him to recognise the need for carriers now and to the belief that circumstances will have so changed in a few years' time that it will not be necessary, bearing in mind that fighters operating from this country cannot replace the rôle of aircraft carriers, especially operating so far away as the Red Sea?

§ Mr. Healey
I do not think I have a better crystal ball than the hon. Member, but the Government have a responsibility to make up their mind what sort of military tasks will make sense for Her Majesty's Government in 10 years' time. This is a very important consideration in deciding what weapons we shall then require. I have never denied the value of carriers while we have them. [Interruption.] Certainly—otherwise I would have been prepared to lay off the carriers last year, because they are costing a great deal to run even now; but I do not think it makes sense to incur the capital cost of a new carrier and equip it with aircraft when, as I said, all the functions can be carried out much cheaper in 10 years' time by other means.

§ 32. Mr. Wall
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state what service is to take over the rôle at present filled by the aircraft carrier in the late 1970s.

§ Mr. Healey
I would refer the hon. Member to page 10 of Part 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1966.

§ Mr. Wall
Will the Minister not agree that the rôle of an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean cannot be undertaken by a small number of expensive American-built aircraft operating from mythical island bases, and that his decision to cancel the aircraft carrier replacement programme stems from the Government's desire to end all British commitments east of Suez?

§ Mr. Healey
I wish the hon. Gentleman would have a chat with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who has always argued that we should not have cancelled the aircraft carrier because we intended to go on with the commitments. If the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asks me to agree with him, he knows that I do not. As I explained earlier today and on many occasions previously—we have debated this, and the House has taken a decision—the task which we foresee for the aircraft carrier in the late 1970s—when the new aircraft carrier, if commissioned and built after 20 years' delay and shilly-shallying by the previous Administration, would have come into operation—can be carried out more cheaply by other means.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the experience of military operations in recent years proves that if we are to maintain a rôle east of Suez we must maintain a carrier force, and that having cancelled the carrier, the Government must now, in honour, run down their east of Suez commitment?

§ Mr. Healey
The question of the Government's intentions and east of Suez commitments is one which we have often discussed, and which we shall be discussing later when the conclusions the Government have reached after consultations with their allies are put to the House, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making it clear that he thinks we should have had an aircraft carrier. I only say that I find it difficult to understand why he should argue now that we should have no carriers in the Middle East, when he recently resigned from the Government, and made this clear to the public, because we did not order a new carrier.

§ Mr. Humphrey Atkins
Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that no fewer than four times today he has said that anything an aircraft carrier can do will be done more cheaply by some other means? Why, in that case, is he proposing to support Aden after independence with an aircraft carrier, instead of by some other means which would be cheaper?

§ Mr. Healey
With respect, I did not say that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I say. I said that the tasks 1806 which the carrier is now carrying out, and which will remain as the Government change their commitments during the 1970s, can be done more cheaply by other means. But the fact is that with regard to Aden we have an extremely efficient carrier force now, and I propose to use it whenever this can usefully be done. I do not think that it would make sense to start building now a new aircraft carrier for use in a completely different situation in 1975 to 1995 when, incidentally, we shall have left Aden.

§ Sir Ian Orr-Ewing
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the other means which will be used to carry out these tasks, and has he given a brief to the Future Fleet Requirements Committee about what form of seaborne aircraft are to be used after 1975, when there will be no carriers?

§ Mr. Healey
We have discussed this matter on many occasions. Some of the tasks of the carrier will be carried out by other ships; others will be carried out by aircraft from existing ships, or from new ones, and others will be carried out by aircraft from land bases. We have discussed this in detail. I know that some hon. Gentlemen do not agree with me, and I respect their views, but to suggest that we have not discussed this in detail is, frankly, to fly in the face of recent Parliamentary history.