HC Deb 14 May 1969 vol 783 cc1411-7
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

As the House knows, four European Governments—West Germany, Italy, Holland and the United Kingdom—have been working together over the past year to harmonise their national requirements for a military aircraft which would enter service in the later 1970s. Feasibility studies have shown that these requirements can be met in a multi-rôle aircraft built to a substantially common design.

Representatives of West Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom have today signed Memoranda of Understanding under which they will co-operate on the next phase of Project Definition, which will last about a year; and I hope that within a month or two the Dutch Government will also sign.

The countries co-operating are likely to require over 1,000 aircraft, of which the Royal Air Force plans to take about a third. We propose to introduce it in 1976 in the tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle and subsequently in the air defence and maritime strike rôles. We are thus planning eventually to replace Vulcans, Buccaneers and Phantoms by variants of a single basic design. This will have very substantial advantages in the logistic and training fields.

By sharing the cost of developing and producing this aircraft, the European countries concerned will meet their defence needs much more cheaply than any one of them could on its own. Technically, it can help to provide a solid foundation for the future of the aerospace industry in Europe. The British Aircraft Corporation, Messerschmitt-Boelkow, Fiat and Fokker have formed the Panavia Company jointly to develop and produce the aircraft. Although the engine and avionics will not be chosen until the project has been more closely defined, importance will be attached to making the project entirely European.

Agreement on this project marks a great step forward in harmonising the operational thinking of the major European N.A.T.O. Governments, and in demonstrating their conviction that in the field of advanced technology, no less than that of defence, survival depends on unity. For these reasons it has a political significance for Western Europe extending well beyond the military and industrial needs it will meet.

Mr. Corfield

May I, first, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, welcome the general tenor of the statement by the Secretary of State, particularly in view of the urgent need for a tactical reconnaissance strike aircraft replacement.

Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? He says that the engines and avionics will not be chosen until a later date, which means, of course, that there is no automatic selection of a Rolls-Royce engine. Will he bear in mind the enormous importance to this country, and to Europe, of a Rolls-Royce engine being chosen when the time comes?

As there is no automatic choice, will he also tell us whether we can be assured that B.A.C. will not be relegated to any subordinate rôle over the airframe?

Mr. Healey

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Government are very conscious of the considerations about the engine. We believe that Rolls-Royce can and will win this competition on merit. Our partners, naturally, want this demonstrated, as I believe it will be in the next few months.

As to B.A.C., I can say that the company is highly satisfied with the basis upon which it is collaborating with the new Panavia Company to develop and produce the aircraft.

Mr. MacDermot

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I return to the question of engines. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Rolls-Royce engine should be able to win the contract on merit, but would he also bear in mind the vitally important political consideration that this European aircraft should be genuinely a European aircraft? Will Her Majesty's Government press this most strongly in negotiations?

Mr. Healey

I can certainly give that assurance. I intended to imply it in the words of my statement.

Mr. McMaster

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that in the division of work on this aircraft a reasonable proportion of the design work will rest in this country?

Mr. Healey

I can say that we have this assurance already.

Mr. Richard

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on both sides of the House regard this as a very major step forward in European co-operation? Could he tell us whether in his opinion the major difficulties, which there clearly were, political, technological and military, over the development of this aircraft, have now been overcome?

Mr. Healey

This is a project the development of which will last for another six years, and production for probably seven years after that. I would be taking my life too much in my hands if I said that all the major difficulties have already been overcome. What I can say is that all the major difficulties so far foreseen have been overcome.

Mr. James Davidson

May I say how very strongly we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is there any possibility that France may be brought into the project, along with the other nations which are to co-operate? How is it proposed to reconcile the rôle of a tactical strike aircraft with that of a maritime strike aircraft, in view of the lack of aircraft carriers and the fact that the range will no doubt be restricted?

Mr. Healey

It is open to other countries, if they wish to do so, to join the project on the terms already agreed by the three Governments who have signed the Memoranda, and to accept as a basis the project as already defined. I very much hope that it will be possible for the French Government to join the project at a future stage. So far, the French Government have been unable to state a firm requirement for an aircraft of this nature, and the aircraft being developed by the Dassault Company does not meet the operational requirements of the other countries concerned.

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Buccaneer is now meeting the requirements for a maritime strike and land strike required by the Royal Navy and the Air Force.

Mr. Luard

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the economics of a project of this kind would depend vitally on the number of aircraft finally produced? Can he say how firm are the commitments to something like 1,000 aircraft which he mentioned, to be made by the other Governments?

Mr. Healey

At this stage no Government is prepared to commit itself finally to a precise number of aircraft. To decide on the way in which work is shared, it has been necessary for the Governments concerned to give an estimate of their likely requirements. I would remind the House again that production of the aircraft will not start until 1975 for Germany, and 1976 for Britain. We have envisaged that this will meet, for the Royal Air Force, the needs of about two-thirds of its combat front line, and almost the whole of Germany's combat front line.

Since, as the House will understand, Germany does not have all the rôles in N.A.T.O. which the R.A.F. has the order of magnitude I have stated is one which is likely to remain valid. It gives us a collective domestic market equivalent to that for any American aircraft. On this basis we should be able to sell further numbers of this aircraft to third countries, even in competition with anything the United States can produce.

Mr. Hastings

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Will this aircraft have a terrain-following capability? What will its approximate reconnaissance range be? Can he assure the House that there will be no question of trading the design leadership in this country for the engine contract?

Mr. Healey

The hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters, will not expect me to be over-precise on the range and radius of action. The aircraft will have all the avionic equipment which will equip it to fulfil its reconnaissance and strike rôles both at low level over ground and in a high-low-high profile over the sea. To give an indication of its radius of action, I may say that it will be comparable with that of the Buccaneer II, roughly the same.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and I pay tribute to the signal contribution made to the success of this project by the British industry. Can he say anything about the approach of the French to this project? Can he say why they dropped out and does he see any possibility of their reversing that decision?

Mr. Healey

The British industry is making a major contribution to the design of the aircraft. The House will recognise that the experience of the British Aircraft Corporation, particularly in swing-wing, which is one of the features agreed for the aircraft, guarantee it a continuing leading rôle in design. Mr. Heath, of the Warton design team, is one of the project directors. I think that I have said all that it would be right for me to say about France at this stage. The French never joined in the F104 consortium, or the consortium formed to consider the production of this aircraft. During recent months they have shown an interest in joining in, but at the moment they are not able to state a clear requirement for this type of aircraft and the area in which their own industrial firms are exploring does not meet the operational needs of the other countries concerned. But I very much hope that this situation may change as time moves on.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

The right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed on both sides of the House. We are delighted that some agreement has come about. It seems that the capability of the TSR2 is now to be replaced by this aircraft. Will he bear in mind the need to go through the phases as quickly as possible? In an earlier answer, he said that production would start in Germany a year before it started in this country—1975 in Germany. We hope that that does not mean that the design leadership is going to Germany, because after the experience of the Anglo-French VG, the Jaguar, and the Concorde, it is time that design leadership rested in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear particularly in mind that our avionic industry is unique in its capability and in its results in Europe and that we have an equal claim to that work as for the engines?

Mr. Speaker

That was a very long question.

Mr. Healey

I fully endorse the latter remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Germany wants this aircraft in a different rôle essentially for ground support rather than strike reconnaissance and it will be 15 per cent. different from the aircraft we require. This does not in any way affect the distribution of design effort in the development phase.

I make it clear that this aircraft is not a replacement for the TSR2, because the rôle of the TSR2, which was to have been introduced in the middle of 1960s, when originally designed, is not feasible in the same degree in the environment which we expect to obtain in the European theatre in the later 1970s.

Mr. Brooks

As the Germans will require roughly twice as many of these planes as we will, how will this affect the allocation of research and development costs? Will my right hon. Friend say at what stage it will be possible for those participating in the scheme to reconsider their decision in the light of any possible escalation of costs?

Mr. Healey

The German requirement is about 50 per cent. greater than ours, not twice as great. Although the overall work will be allocated in relation to the number of aircraft required, we now have an integrated company and inevitably it will wish, as will the Governments concerned, to take advantage of the peculiar national skills which may be made available, for example, the unique facilities available at Warton for various types of testing.

Provision is made in the memoranda of understanding for countries to withdraw from the project without penalty at the end of a series of defined stages, but, of course, we are not going into this project with any intention of withdrawing.

Mr. Corfield

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one possible misunderstanding? He talked of introducing the aircraft in 1976 and then spoke later of producing it in 1976. Production is generally several years ahead of introduction.

Mr. Healey

I should have said introduction. We expect to introduce the aircraft for the Royal Air Force in 1976. The Germans hope to introduce their version into their air force in 1975.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must protect the business of the day.