ROYAL AIR FORCE

HC Deb 19 April 1971 vol 815 cc829-901

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order. What is the strictly legal position of the Chair in the debate which is about to begin, Mr. Speaker? Am I not right in saying that, provided he does not raise a matter involving legislation, any hon. Member can raise any matter he likes, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) could raise the subject in which he is interested and my hon. Friends concerned with unemployment could raise that matter?

Although for convenience it has been said that the subject of the debate is to be the Royal Air Force, am I not right in saying that that does not preclude any hon. Member from raising any subject which he whises to raise, provided that it does not involve the introduction of legislation? I know that that may be untidy and unusual and perhaps not welcomed by the Government, or even the Opposition Front Bench, but am I not right in believing that, strictly speaking, the Chair would be unable to pull up an hon. Member who raised any of those subjects, even though such an intervention were unwelcome?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is quite right and in strict theory there is no rule of order to prevent an hon. Member from raising any topic not involving legislation on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is a convention, a rule which exists for the convenience of the House and so as to have some order for our business, but the Chair has no sanction. Of course, it has a certain discretion in the selection of speakers.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

It would be fair if I pointed out that it has been felt valuable to the House that this new procedure should be adopted in order to have a wider spread of debates on Service subjects. This has meant that the later debates would take place on the Adjournment. This arrangement has been made for the general convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

4.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lamhton)

As my right hon. Friend has said, this debate represents a break from tradition. In the past, it has been the custom for the debate on the Royal Air Force to take place in March as one of a series of debates on the Defence Estimates. The debate was on a Motion to approve the Vote A for the following year, and it always provided an opportunity for a debate about the Air Force. This debate, although different in form, offers precisely the same Opportunity and accordingly offers other opportunities for speaking.

This is the second year in which the Defence Estimates have been presented as a whole under the integrated Defence Vote Structure introduced by the previous Labour Government last year. Before preparing this speech, I looked back over many past debates on the Royal Air Force. Over the years, there has been a considerable change in the pattern of debates. Before the war, there used to be an empirical discussion on the expansion of the R.A.F., whereas since the war there has been a gradual reduction in the size of the Service, both in manpower and aircraft, as hon. Members will know.

But, despite that contraction, we still have the same number of debates on defence, and this has often encouraged repetition. This I hope to avoid. I do not plan to follow too closely the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who gave a wide ranging and interesting speech last year, ranging from such subjects as exercises in the Mediterranean and the protection of our air space, to aerial surveys carried out in the Maldive Islands and the giving of R.A.F. assistance at the dam in the Llwyrst Wen Reservoir in the Maerdi Valley, Glamorganshire. Despite considerable research I have been unable to find any previous mention of this locality in defence debates so certainly, on this matter, I will not be repetitive.

I would like to turn to some of the fundamental problems facing the R.A.F. and the first one with which I shall deal is perhaps the most important of all, manpower. I am glad that, with certain exceptions, the Royal Air Force is not seriously undermanned. Recruitment has improved in general and although there are certain shortages I am glad to say that the recruitment of officers and men has been generally good.

The chief worry concerns the Engineering Branch, but we are doing what we can about this. It is difficult to say whether this satisfactory recruitment will continue because there are certain problems which will inevitably arise. For instance among officers there is now a shortage of pilots under 47 and particularly of pilots aged between 27 to 37. If we look to the future, 1975–78, there will be a high rate of retirement among officers who joined in the last war. This could result in there being a deficit in the late 1970s.

Although this problem lies in the future it is only right that the House should be made aware of it. For the short term, over the next two years at least, apart from the Engineering Branch shortage, we would appear to have relatively few recruiting problems. This is a matter for considerable pleasure.

I would like to deal with other manpower considerations and in particular to say something this year, as my hon. Friend did last year, about the manner in which men and women are introduced into the Service and given training. As the House knows, 1970 marked the full introduction of the officers graduate entry scheme initiated by hon. Members opposite. This allows young men, helped financially by the R.A.F., to go through university and then enter full-time service, via a period of some months at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell.

The advantage of this, and it is a considerable advantage, is that those who are desirous of following a Service career but at the same time want a university education are now able to do both. Any one suitably qualified, if he wishes, can join the Royal Air Force in this way. Those who have gained degrees without going through this process and who then wish to join the Royal Air Force can continue to do so through the direct entry scheme. For the foreseeable future only about a third of those who enter full-time commissioned service will do so as graduates.

The remainder of those who receive commissions will do so either from schools, from civilian jobs or promotion from the ranks. The percentage of the latter is considerably higher than I had at first thought. This illustrates something very important—that any man, whatever his background, may know that if he joins the Royal Air Force and if he is good enough, then he will get a commission. Non-graduate officers will not on that account be at any disadvantage during their Service careers and their professional success or failure, like that of graduates, will depend upon their ability and nothing else.

Apart from this scheme in the last year another change was initiated by the last Administration. That is the change in the officer structure of the R.A.F. This had not actually taken place at the time of our last debate. As the House is aware, previously there were two lists of officers for each branch of the Service, the General List and the Supplementary List. The General List comprised full career officers, the Supplementary List those with a more limited career.

Now there is to be one list and officers will no longer enter upon a career to the age of 55 from the beginning of their service. They will now serve initially on an engagement to a mid-career point, which will mean approximately 16 years service or to the age of about 38.

Those who have by this time been promoted to squadron leader, in other words those who have done best in the Service, will automatically have the opportunity of going on until they are 55. Others who have not gained the necessary promotion will be offered retention to the same age with limited opportunities for promotion. I need hardly stress that their service will also be of the greatest value to the R.A.F.

In the General Duties Flying Branch there will be retention of officers as specialist aircrew with enhanced rates of flying pay resulting in a total income comparable with that of a Squadron Leader. It is hoped that this will keep officers, now leaving in mid-career, longer in the Service.

These changes have resulted from recommendations made by the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Derek Hodgkinson and they have the advantage of delaying selection for full career until officers have been tested by actual service conditions. It is a great advantage to do away with the two distinct categories. It does away with what could be called the ill-feeling which always exists when there are two grades of officers. Both these changes have been welcomed as has the graduate entry scheme. They have resulted in an extension of what I would describe as the "civilianisation" of the R.A.F. By that I mean civilianisation in the social sense. I do not in any way suggest the replacement of servicemen by civilians.

I do not want to criticise in the slightest the past character of the Service which has produced such magnificent generations of officers for whose actions we will always be grateful, but the fact remains that we now have had a long period of peace and in our society the retention of a static military outlook and image would not help us to get the men we must have by voluntary recruitment.

The Royal Air Force has managed to maintain the framework of its discipline and character while at the same time moving away from outmoded military concepts. The history and nature of the R.A.F. has enabled this successful transition to be made. Any visitor to any R.A.F. station cannot fail to be impressed by the extremely interesting jobs being done by members of the Service. Therefore, men who join now are able to convey to others that if they follow them they will be entering a highly technical profession rather than an old-fashioned military career. The modern Services offer jobs and opportunities totally different from those of the old military tradition and there is a wider selection, indeed choice, of occupation than in any industry that I can think of. The enlistment figures show that this fact is increasingly realised.

That brings me to the subject of recruiting. Two years ago it was decided to reorganise the Royal Air Force's recruiting organisation and a network of 27 recruiting areas was created, each con- trolled by a squadron leader. This has been a success and an R.A.F. presence has been established in heavily populated areas without R.A.F. formations, such as the North-East and the North-West. The value of this is that it allows R.A.F. recruiting officers and men to convey to others throughout the United Kingdom the changed atmosphere of the Service which I have just mentioned.

I turn to a less direct aid to recruitment—what is rather grandiosely called Royal Air Force participation in public events. This has been described by many as a waste of money, but I do not agree. The trouble with this type of publicity is that one can never nail down how effective it is from a recruiting point of view. But one cannot divorce the fact that last year the R.A.F. joined in hundreds of exhibitions, 30 of which were what one might call major, which were seen by millions of people, from the satisfactory recruiting figures.

The R.A.F. is not short of manpower, and this is the best reason for not changing recruiting methods as they are practised today. It would, however, be wrong to leave an impression with the House that the Service is not faced with any problems. As the House knows, the school leaving age is to go up to 16, and, although only a small proportion of R.A.F. recruits is below this age, we are looking very carefully, in conjunction with the Army and the Navy, at the possible repercussions of this development. It is obvious that there must be the closest liaison with schools in the future.

A further factor in our manpower situation is the Donaldson Report, which hon. Members will know provided options for 18-year-old boy recruits to leave the Service after a further three years productive service from the end of training. If these men are to stay in the Air Force they must, quite simply, enjoy themselves. Then not only will they stay but they will tell their friends to join them, which is precisely what we want them to do because it will help recruitment. It is not the slightest good getting people into the Service if we cannot keep them in it. Many of the jobs offered are of the greatest interest. Obviously more interesting opportunities occur after a few years in the Service.

What is equally important—and I stress this—is the conditions under which the men are living now and will live in future. We shall continue to modernise single accommodation by making barrack blocks more comfortable to live in. We plan to spend £250,000 this year on modernisation. In my visits I have been struck by the space which is wasted, frequently when space is very limited, by movable furniture. We are therefore planning to introduce built-in furniture on an approved scale.

In the long term, I should like to see the day when every man in what one might describe as a permanent station will have the option of a single room. A number of alternatives are being examined, among them the idea of single rooms in a 12 to 14 man complex built round a sitting room and other communal facilities, which would enable men to have privacy when they wanted it and company when they wished it. This is essential for the Service man of the future. Moreover, if a shift work system was in operation in a complex like this it would allow men to be undisturbed by that inevitable round-the-clock traffic which plays such a part in Air Force life. I should, however, be wildly optimistic and deceiving the House if I did not say that these improvements will take a lot of time. In the meantime, existing accommodation must be modernised even if it is not yet possible to achieve the ideal of one man per room.

The married quarters situation is improving considerably. When we take over Lossiemouth next year we shall acquire an additional 90 quarters for officers and nearly 600 for airmen. Our programme for married quarters improvements continues, including central heating. I have mentioned details about single room accommodation and other matters because concentration on these issues is of the greatest importance.

Besides living conditions, a side of the Service in which morale is involved is the inevitable separation which occurs when an airman is sent on an unaccompanied tour. The only answer to this problem which will satisfy him is to reduce the time of family separation. Some degree of separation is absolutely unavoidable in Service life but it should be, if possible, kept to the minimum. On 1st January almost all unaccompanied tours of duty were reduced in length by four months—from 13 to nine months. Also, the rules for the payment of separation allowance have been liberalised.

On specialised subjects, something which is unlikely to occur on the same scale again is the repatriation of families from the Far East and the Gulf. There must come a moment when this is a big undertaking and it will mean a considerable change of circumstances for a considerable number of people and it will cause very considerable problems. There will be a reception centre at the United Kingdom terminal to deal with accommodation matters when the families return.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

The conditions of service in the Royal Air Force which my hon. Friend is describing are admirable and we must hope that progress will continue in the direction he has indicated. He will, however, understand that they are very different from those which can be achieved in sea-going ships. Does my hon. Friend admit that what he is saying is the strongest possible argument for not going too far and too fast in integrating the three Services in such matters as pay and discipline?

Mr. Lambton

There is a very great difference between the three Services. When this big movement from the Middle East and the Gulf occurs, we shall make every effort to let personnel know as soon as possible what their new appointments will be.

Another thing which I know is of interest to hon. Members is the resettlement of members of the R.A.F. when they re-enter civilian life. Fortunately, this is less of a problem in the Royal Air Force than in the other Services because of the highly skilled nature of much of the work which the Royal Air Force does, which gives men the type of training which enables them to get good jobs on leaving the Service. They have good qualifications and can, if they wish, add to them by attending classes at their own stations for G.C.E. "0" and "A" levels, Ordinary National Certificate, Higher National Certificate and other technical and executive qualifications. These opportunities have a dual purpose. They increase the man's effectiveness when he is in the Service and offer him a better opportunity when he leaves it. Two years before any man leaves the Service he is interviewed by a resettlement officer who gives him advice.

I turn from these domestic details, which I still think are of great importance, to the subject of reservists, which has been raised frequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). It is important to differentiate between the two possible types of air reserves, the flying reserve and the ground reserve. There is a great difference between these two.

I will first say something about the flying reserve and the argument that it would be an effective and economic second force for emergencies. Although I am not optimistic enough to believe that I shall be able to persuade my hon. Friend to my point of view, I will give the House the background on this matter. For a reserve pilot to be useful today he must be efficient and perfectly trained. If not, he is of no value to the Royal Air Force, for the days of the Battle of Britain when a pilot could go into combat after a few hours' flying are gone for ever. For anyone to be an effective air combatant now he has to be master of highly technical machinery. He must be capable of flying aircraft of such an advanced type that his knowledge can be gained only by intensive and continuous training.

I should like the House to see what the creation of an effective flying reserve would entail if the pilots were to be of any value. A reserve pilot would have to belong to one of two categories; the first being that of a fully trained pilot who had become the reserve air combatant after completion of his regular service; the second being that of a part-time trained reservist from civilian life.

The first question we must ask is whether either of these categories could continue to be satisfactorily trained. It takes a long time to produce a pilot able to fly in an emergency. How long can be seen by looking, for example, at the Harrier pilot today. He may have had approximately 100 hours basic flying training and 300 hours or more on aircraft of increased complexity before he is considered to have enough experience to be an effective pilot. On top of this, it is considered absolutely essential that afterwards he should have continuous practice in the plane which he is to fly operationally. If we look at the two classes from which the reservist could come, it seems unlikely, therefore, that the pilot who had retired, and who today might be comparatively old, would in normal circumstances find the necessary time to train properly while holding down a civilian job. The training of a part-time reservist from civilian life, if he were to be effective, would have to be not dissimilar from that of a regular pilot.

The cost of training a fighter pilot is in the region of £250,000, over 90 per cent. of which is spent in actual flying training. The main costs are of the aircraft he is trained in, its maintenance, the machinery in it and the training equipment. The only conclusion that I can come to on looking at these facts and figures in an unbiased way is that if one were to have an effective reserve with a front line capability one would have to spend about as much money on a reservist as on a fully qualified regular officer. Therefore, it follows that, if more pilots are needed, it would be better to have full-time Royal Air Force officers rather than reservists who cost nearly as much and would not be so good. It is not possible to get effective combat-readiness on the cheap—

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

I have listened to my hon. Friend with rapt attention and great interest, but I would point out the record of the United States Air National Guard in Vietnam. It appears from the Air Force Magazine and Space Digest of September 1969 that up to that date the Air National Guardsmen flew 30,000 combat sorties, with more than 50,000 combat hours during their 11-month tour of duty in Vietnam. Most of the Guard units consistently led from their wings in sorties, abort and incommission rates, ordnance delivery reliability and other comparative fields. In other words, they were extremely professional and the United States Air Force was dependent on them.

Mr. Lambton

I only hope that some of these reservists were not the people who from time to time bombed their own men in Vietnam. To answer the question seriously, this is a totally different situation, and America has a totally different amount of money to spend on its resources. We have to look carefully at every single penny we spend. For these reasons I cannot hold out much hope of a flying reserve when resources are so scarce. Apart from that, it is no use training pilots at vast expense when they have not any aeroplanes to fly. I believe that there is a case for more reservists in other categories where training could be much cheaper. A general study is being made on this question and I will keep the House informed of its conclusions later.

I turn from manpower to more technical matters. No speech about the Air Force would be complete—and certainly has not been complete in the past—without some reference to the Meteorological Office, even if every year almost precisely the same optimistic forecast is made about it. It is in the Meteorological Office that much of the scientific effort in the Royal Air Force Department is to be found. During the past year preparations have continued for the arrival of the giant I.B.M. 360/195 computer which is to be at the headquarters at Bracknell later this year. The computer will be a valuable asset both in the preparation of routine weather forecasts and in research. Meterorological research will also benefit considerably by the decision to allocate a Hercules aircraft to the Meteorological Research Flight.

I turn to equipment. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) is not here when I do so, for last time he dismissed my remarks on the subject as "a catalogue of ironmongery". Nevertheless, it is a matter which should be discussed in some detail in this debate. The House will be glad to know that good progress has been made with re-equipment—

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas (Kettering)

The Minister must be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) since the subject was somewhat misplaced in a general defence debate. It is certainly relevant now and should be regarded as a fair point.

Mr. Lambton

I was not trying to be unfair, but it was an equipment debate—or had, by custom, become one. Obviously, it is a custom which the House does not particularly like, and no doubt this point was noted by the authorities this year. The last thing I desire is to be unfair to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East.

Good progress has been made with the re-equipment of squadrons with Harriers, Phantom FGR2s and Nimrods, and the Bucanneer, which is already in service in Strike Command, has also been deployed to R.A.F. Germany. The Puma, which is the first of the Anglo-French helicopters, has started to enter service with 38 Group, which will add considerably to our helicopter lift capability.

In the supplementary statement on defence last year we pointed out our concern at the shortage of front-line aircraft of all types. We announced that we plan to increase substantially the numbers of the combat version of the Jaguar which is now at an advanced stage of development. I think it would interest my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who is not in the Chamber at present, that we are also looking carefully at the possibility of introducing medium-lift helicopters, although we have reached no decision on this matter. In the longer term we look forward to the M.R.C.A. meeting many of the R.A.F.'s needs in a variety of roles, particularly for strike/attack and reconnaissance, and later for air defence. The initial development phase began last summer and is going ahead satisfactorily. We shall be reviewing the progress of this project with Germany and Italy this summer.

We are also studying ways of meeting our future requirement for training aircraft, which follows the decision announced last year to drop the plan for the Jaguar as an advanced trainer.

I do not think that I can stress too strongly the need for the maximum number of aircraft in the front-line if the flexible response strategy accepted by the Labour Government is to continue to be realistic. The quality of weapons and equipment is also of the greatest importance, and we plan to increase the efficiency of the Phantoms, both in Air Support Command and in Germany, in their conventional rôle.

I have briefly reviewed the position as regards aircraft coming into service in the 1970s, and some of these, particularly the M.R.C.A., will, of course, go on considerably longer in the front line. At the same time I think the House would be interested to know that we are already giving consideration to our possible future requirements for other aircraft in the 1980s and even later. As hon. Members will know, the Royal Air Force over the years has faced continuously rising costs of aircraft, and this has resulted in a marked restriction of numbers. Arising from this, I am carefully examining the fact that sophisticated devices continue to be invented and each adopted adds greatly to the cost of aircraft.

Looking into the 1980s and beyond, I think it is important for us already to try to plan the shape the Royal Air Force should take, and whether we should rely totally upon a wholly sophisticated air force which, due to costs, will be very small or whether we should aim to increase the numbers by accepting less sophistication in some areas.

Clearly, there are certain roles and functions which require a high degree of sophistication in the aircraft which perform them; lack of sophistication in certain aircraft would deny us the flexibility in the use of our air forces that the strategy of flexible response itself requires. However, there may be cases in the less demanding roles where aircraft with simpler equipment than is sometimes postulated today would function adequately, and where greater numbers would more than offset any lesser operational capability or vulnerability resulting from their greater simplicity.

We have to consider what should be the proper balance in this matter. We must not reach a point where aircraft, though equipped with every conceivable device and near-perfect fighting machines, are because of their high cost so few in number that this in itself is a great weakness.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Would my hon. Friend add that these very same factors can have the effect of preventing such aircraft having any market overseas, because what is too complex for us will be very much too complex for many of our customers?

Mr. Lambton

That is a rather different question. I am dealing with the tactical strength and weakness and the sort of balance we should aim to achieve. This whole problem must be considered in the allied as well as in the national context, but at a time when rapid technological advances and rising prices keep pace with each other, it is more than ever important that there should be some attempt to try to get the balance right.

Finally, I should like to say something about the training effort required if the R.A.F. is to use its modern weapons effectively. I spoke earlier about the whole question of the expense of reserves due to the great expense of training and equipment, and it is likely that the cost of training for the Armed Forces will go on taking a significant proportion of the defence budget. This is unavoidable and has been the experience of any Minister who has been in my position.

But it is very important to consider whether it is possible to save money anywhere. Specific studies both of flying and of ground training are, therefore, being carried out, and with a view to reducing expenditure a series of computer models are planned to investigate the extent to which parts of the flying training programme can be replaced by experience on aircraft simulators. I believe that we should make the greatest possible use of simulators. They can certainly never replace flying experience, but it may be possible to reduce the costs of training some air personnel. If this is possible, it would be a significant saving. Nevertheless, no matter how many advances are made in what I might call synthetic training, the fact remains that a large proportion of actual training will have to be done in the air. To pretend otherwise would be merely optimistic.

Two of these methods of training are of special concern to the House because they relate to the United Kingdom. Pilots and aircrews must train all the time, but one cannot train aircrews without two things. One is the use of air weapon ranges and the other is low-level flying training. This without doubt, as many of us know in our constituencies, causes great inconvenience and concern to many members of the public. The House knows that every possible step is taken to minimise annoyance, that no sortie is taken without specific authority, that all the routes are chosen with the greatest care and that the whole area of operation is frequently reviewed. The flying which is undertaken represents the minimum esential to maintain the pilots at a high level of proficiency. But there is no doubt that, despite all these precautions, this low flying causes the greatest irritation in many areas. I have looked most carefully into this matter, and it seems that there are only three things that can effectively be done to cure it: first, to invent a silent aeroplane, which seems a long way off; second, to increase the size of this country; third, to reduce drastically the population of this country. None of those courses is in any degree practical, and so I do not think that we can do anything but continue to watch this kind of training with the greatest care.

Luckily, there are other types of training which cause less irritation. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) spoke last year about the vigilance with which we guard our air space, and this in itself makes for very good training indeed. We have also recently had two large-scale exercises which deserve some mention, for they demonstrated the Services' increasing co-operational capabilities. The first was that of the Bersatu Padu last year in the Malaysian Peninsula, an exercise noteworthy for two things: first, the very successful liaison which it showed to exist between the forces of Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, and, second, the fact that this exercise was conceived and planned by the previous Administration to prove that they could fulfil the commitments which they retained when announcing the United Kingdom's withdrawal from South-East Asia. However, by the time the exercise was taking place hon. Gentlemen opposite were bitterly criticising us for planning to keep a limited presence in an area which they had been at great pains to show they could reinforce from the United Kingdom.

The second recent major exercise was Limejug, in the Mediterranean. The chief value of this was the co-operation between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. It enabled both Services to work closely together, and perhaps for the first time, and for once, the joint report—one is particularly suspicious of joint reports—was accurate when it said that the exercise had added greatly to the trust, understanding and good will between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I think that this kind of co- operational exercise is of the greatest value.

I hope that in the survey which I have undertaken I have made hon. Members aware of some of our chief concerns today.

In conclusion, it is right that I should say a word about the fundamental purpose of the Royal Air Force. It is a force which adds considerably to the deterrent in Europe, and its powers will be increased with the completion of the build-up of Harriers and Phantoms, and the entry into service of Jaguars and, later, M.R.C.A.s. It is not a force of aggression. We have no territorial ambitions anywhere in the world. It is purely a deterrent force whose use in action we all hope will never be necessary, but I think that it would be wrong for the House to close its eyes to events in Europe where the Soviet Union has increased its defence expenditure by about 30 per cent. in the last five years.

It has been argued in this House that the balance of conventional power is not increasingly favourably inclined to the Soviet bloc. I do not think that that case bears any weight. One has only to look at the Soviet forces which exist, not only on the Western front, but also on the flanks and in reserve, to see that vast numbers of men and machines, greatly outnumbering those in N.A.T.O., could be brought into the front line in a comparatively short time.

That is the situation today. What the position will be in the future, time will tell, but I do not think that we should shut our eyes to the fact that the U.S. is spending about 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. of its gross national product on defence without being engaged in a war. We are spending about 5½ per cent. on defence in this country, and in N.A.T.O. Europe about 4 per cent.

I think that those figures speak for themselves, but the fact is that in 1967 we accepted a policy of flexible response, and this justifies every penny that has been spent on the Royal Air Force. What we have to do is to try to ensure that every penny we spend is well spent and enables us to give the maximum support to N.A.T.O.

To conclude, I should like to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did last year, how struck I have been by the high morale and professionalism displayed at every level in the Service. I believe that this is reflected in the generally satisfactory recruiting picture. The Service today is worthy, and considers itself worthy, of its own high traditions.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

I am glad that the Minister was able to endorse what I said last year about the morale of the Royal Air Force, and that he found the Service in good shape when he took office. I was not able to follow all the Minister's remarks, especially when he compared our position with that of the United States, and said that that country had not been involved in a war. I thought that it had been very much involved during the last few years.

Mr. Lambton

I meant to say the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Morris

I misunderstood the Minister.

It was my pleasure and privilege on two occasions to introduce the Air Estimates to the House. This is an important day for the Royal Air Force. So many sections of it deserve, and indeed demand, to be mentioned in a debate of this kind that the Minister's greatest job is to edit contributions from all sections of the Service, and I compliment him on the way that he has done so this afternoon.

Since the last Defence White Paper we have had other statements about the Government's defence policy, and only a few days before the recess the Government issued an additional White Paper on "Organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace", which will undoubtedly affect the Royal Air Force to a large extent. I shall not debate that issue on this occasion, but I hope that we shall return to it when we debate the Transfer of Functions Order.

Last year the theme of my speech was vigilance and service-vigilant in the sense of the Royal Air Force being ever-watchful, ever-ready to protect this nation, and the interests of this nation, in its daily round of peacetime activities and operations, and service in the sense of being one of our great armed forces giving service to the community in this country and indeed to the whole world as occasion demanded.

Last year I had the privilege of listing some of the activities and the nature of the relief and assistance which the Royal Air Force had rendered in this country and abroad wherever it was needed. This year the White Paper sets out some of the great acts of service which the Royal Air Force has carried out. There was the assistance rendered by the Royal Air Force at the end of hostilities in Nigeria, Pakistan, Jordan and Tunisia, to name only a few. I join in the tributes paid to the teamwork involved in the Royal Air Force in carrying out these functions so effectively. I pay tribute to those at the highest level, charged with carrying out the decisions of the Government, as well as to those at the lowest level who ensure that the machines are in good order so that men can go out in difficult circumstances to bring help wherever it is needed. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force in that context.

The Government have substantially continued the previous Government's policy with regard to the Royal Air Force. The policy of rationalisation has gone on, and it is a little odd, when the Estimates are presented this year, to recall the criticisms made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who is not here today—

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

He is.

Mr. Morris

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I welcome his presence in the Chamber. We had to endure the hon. Gentleman's criticisms for many a long year, and I recall, too, the present Minister of Aviation Supply referring to the "intolerable burden placed on the Royal Air Force by the Labour Government". The right hon. Gentleman stressed the point that the "air defences of this country gave grounds for considerable anxiety". Bearing in mind those statements, one might have expected, if there was any foundation for them, to have seen a major departure in this Government's policy for the Royal Air Force.

After all the wringing of hands and all the moaning we heard year after year, in money terms—this is what matters—the position of the R.A.F. remains the same.

I noted the Under-Secretary's words when he said that we have to look very carefully at every single penny we have to spend and that resources are scarce. The position remains in 1971 as it was in 1970. If our stewardship was so bad, if the criticism made by the party opposite, in Opposition, was well placed, then, despite the fact that the gestation period for equipment is very long indeed, if we had been so wholly wrong one might have expected some indication of a change of policy, some funding of new equipment, some departing from the way we had provided either by new equipment or ordering of increased numbers. But in the White Paper one will not see any major or significant departure—indeed any change at all—save in two instances to which I shall come later. The position for the R.A.F. remains basically the same, and the criticisms of the past sound very hollow when the Under-Secretary has to introduce the Estimates for the R.A.F. today.

There are two differences, though they hardly bring a great deal of comfort to those who criticised us in the past. The first is that, after 1971, a detachment of Nimrods is to go to the Far East for maritime reconnaisance purposes and also some Whirlwind helicopters. We have not been told of how many the detachment will consist or how long the unit will stay there. Indeed, we have not been told how it will carry out its purposes or how it will be concerted with the defences of the Far East nations when they have carried out whatever reconnaisance they can over a very wide area.

The basic problem, having regard to the strictures uttered and the criticisms made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in Opposition, is whether, in the context of the defence of Europe, which is our priority, we can afford to allow these Ninrods to go to the Far East.

Last year the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), commenting from this side of the House on the suggestion that the Nirod might be used for an airborne early warning role, welcomed this proposal because, he said, of the "pitifully small order" for the Nimrod. If the order that had been placed for the Nimrod was regarded by the party opposite in Opposition as pitifully small, perhaps we might be told whether, in the context of sending some of these valuable aircraft to the Far East, there has been any increase in the numbers involved. I sense the answer will be that the order remains unchanged. There is no new money for the Air Force in these estimates.

The second difference is the change from the intention of using one version of the Jaguar for training, save for a small number which will be needed, as I understand it, for conversion. This will come into effect when the Gnat and the Hunter have to be replaced.

I welcome the increase in the four squadrons of Jaguars which will be available for the operational front line. However, that can be only limited comfort for the Royal Air Force in that they come from within the total buy which had been authorised by the previous Government. In effect, it means more one-seater and less two-seater Jaguars. This is small comfort, for whatever it is worth. Perhaps we can be told when their effect will be felt on the operational front line.

Concerning the new trainer about which we have heard so much in a rough and general outline since last October, what progress has been made? The Minister dismissed this subject today in half a sentence. When will the new trainer come in? Will it be produced alone in this country, in alliance or in concert with our allies, or shall we buy it off the shelf from the United States? I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall, every time I came to the House to announce any foreign buy, the trenchant criticisms which were made because it was a foreign buy. Perhaps we may be told in what context the plans for the new trainer are advanced. Does this lead to new money for Royal Air Force equipment, or does the new trainer, which is to be provided, come from the total of the money which has been authorised for equipment? Does it mean that other projects will be moved slightly to the right and that there will be no real increase in the money which has been provided for equipment for the R.A.F.?

I turn now to the availability of aircraft and the need to service and to refurbish engines from time to time. One matter which caused me a great deal of concern in my last few months in office was the time that it took to refurbish and service engines, particularly of aircraft of the front line. I have forgotten the period involved for engines to be taken from Germany to this country, to go on the production line, to be refurbished, and to go back. I think that it was about four or five months. It was not only the time lost on the factory floor—perhaps the Minister will say something about this—but the time taken in the pure logistic problem of removing the engines from the operational sphere, bringing them to the base factory, and taking them back again. I hope that the position has improved since my day. I caused many inquiries to be made. This is a matter in which real progress can be made by strong Ministerial action, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will carry out if he thinks it right, to ensure that there is an increase in the availability of aircraft by cutting some of the corners in what I regarded as the intolerable time taken to make engines available and to have the greatest possible number of aircraft available. Although the Minister cannot comment about it today, perhaps he wil consider it in due course.

I endorse the Under-Secretary's words about training being very costly. Having regard to the suggestions made in all honesty by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) I do not think that, in an era of highly sophisticated aircraft, which involve continuous and expensive training—it costs about £250,000 to train pilots for some of the more sophisticated aircraft—these highly professional duties can be undertaken by amateurs, half-trained or, indeed, not full-time people. I endorse the analysis given to the House by the Minister.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

I should point out that the Israelis, the Swiss, the Canadians and the South Africans manage. In particular, the Swiss are extremely careful in the allocation and disposition of their defence budget and it is extremely cost-effective. The whole exercise is one of cost-effectiveness, not of increasing defence costs.

Mr. Morris

From the point of view of operational efficiency and the money involved, which the Under-Secretary set out, in my considered view this is certainly not on. The conditions are wholly different from some of the matters set out in the articles written by the hon. Member for Bradford, West, which I have read, in which he referred to the era of Trenchard. These are some of the examples which he gave. One was living in a different era when talking of Spitfires and less sophisticated aircraft. The highly sophisticated aircraft with which the Royal Air Force has to deal today and the immense amount of money involved in training and the continuity of training of pilots today—

Mr. Wilkinson rose—

Mr. Morris

Perhaps in due course the hon. Gentleman will make his own comments on these matters. We shall be very interested to hear him.

The position as I see it is that one of the anxieties of the past—perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on this today—is the need to give continuity of training to our own young regular pilots. There are bound to be gaps in continuity when these highly-trained young men must kick their heels and do a host of other jobs, possibly because aircraft are not available to ensure that they move smoothly from one type of aircraft training to another.

This may represent the main problem which the R.A.F. will have to face in future. Highly skilled young men of this kind should be given as much continuity as possible, but because of lack of aircraft from time to time, they may have to be given other work. I therefore welcomed the Under-Secretary's comments about simulators. I have seen them in action and the necessary money should be made available to provide them in the numbers required.

Every step should be taken to see that there is the greatest availability of aircraft for training. There should be the minimum amount of break in continuity for the training of these highly-skilled young men. Only by this means shall we ensure that they do not lose heart. I appreciate that a host of other duties will have to be undertaken by them and that some of these duties will be good for them. These men should be trained as fully and effectively as possible on what are extremely highly sophisticated machines.

When in office, I spent much of my time —my chief advisers spent much more of their time—dealing with the multi-rôle combat aircraft, the M.R.C.A. and particularly with the planning and organisation of this enormous joint effort with Germany and Italy. I was cheered to see on television the other night a description of some of the work that is currently going on in Munich.

I regard the M.R.C.A. as one of the most, if not the most, significant efforts ever undertaken for the joint provisioning of equipment for the defence needs of Europe. It represents a major practical step to meet the common needs of Europe in an orderly way, using the resources of the three nations concerned to the maximum. In my view, only by co-operation of this type can we have the sort of cost-effectiveness that will produce a useful aircraft to provide for our common needs.

There were a host of problems to be faced in setting up the organisation leading to the M.R.C.A. Many discussions took place between the nations concerned, and since then there has been the large problem, discussed in the House on many occasions, of Rolls-Royce. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will say whether other countries are content and satisfied with the arrangements that the Government have made for Rolls-Royce and if they consider that their needs will be met by these arrangements.

I suggest that at least two lessons can be learnt from the planning that went into the M.R.C.A. Hon. Members may recall the Questions which I had to answer in the House from hon. Members who wanted me to ensure that Britain s share of production would be proper and fair. Questions of this kind are always asked when great firms and nations are involved in joint efforts of this type. We are anxious to ensure that we get a fair crack of the whip, and the same applies to the other parties in other countries. I believe that the assurances which we gave at that time have proved to be reasonably satisfactory.

Thus, the first lesson to be learned is that if some of these great firms throughout Europe were part and parcel of one another—if they held joint equities and were tied in this and other ways—some of the problems concerning the share-out in producing these highly expensive articles would be lessened. I hope that gradually the great commer- cial firms in this country and in other parts of Europe—I have particularly in mind the great concerns which are involved in the armaments sphere—will note the success of the M.R.C.A. venture and will come closer together in an effort to avoid some of the problems that have arisen in the past.

The second lesson to be learnt is the avoidance of some of the difficulties which arose over the needs of the various general staffs in this country, in Germany, Italy and in the other nations that were involved at an earlier stage. The general staffs should also come together at the earliest possible moment in the planning of a venture such as the M.R.C.A. It is a tribute to the general staffs of the three nations concerned that they were able to agree common requirements. I hope that, in other arms procurement ventures, they will come together at an earlier stage.

In hoping that all steps will be taken by the Department to see that the general staffs come together earlier, I must comment that a problem which is likely to arise in, say, the '80s—it does not affect the R.A.F. but it is worth putting on the record—will be the provision of a common tank for Europe. The defence needs of our European partners are very similar to ours and the tactical views held on the mainland of Europe are in many way not always the same as ours. Considering the expense involved in the M.R.C.A., we must agree on common specifications for the provision of other common weapons.

We have not been given a full statement since last July on the development of the M.R.C.A. I appreciate that other matters have intervened, and while I hope the Minister will say when a statement is likely to be made, I regretted that the Under-Secretary did not deal at considerable length with this matter. When is a statement likely to be made to the House giving details of the progress made with the M.R.C.A. since last July?

I wish to make that perfectly clear as I turn to the question of sales to overseas' customers that the R.A.F. has a record of helpfulness in the provision of aircraft and personnel. However, from time to time there are clashes between the immediate needs of a single Service, be it the R.A.F. or one of the others, and the needs of those responsible for sales.

Each Service wants its new equipment now or, better still, last week. In the same way, those responsible for sales want to provide the equipment for their overseas' customers at the earliest possible moment. I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary when I say that charged, as he is, with responsibility for one Service, it is vital that, when there are clashes in a field like sales, an across-the-board Minister can take a more objective view of needs than might be taken by a Minister who is primarily concerned with the needs of one Service.

I hope that the machinery in the Ministry of Defence is such that where there is a clash of view over the needs of a single Service compared with the needs of overseas customers—clashes of this kind have occurred in the past and they will no doubt occur again—it can be referred to an across-the-board Minister in other words, that arrangements prevail in the Ministry to enable this type of general examination of the problem to be made.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a completely valid point. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Minister of State for Defence both have across-the-board responsibilities. Only recently the R.A.F. agreed, indeed suggested, the postponement of some equipment of a particularly valuable kind to assist sales overseas. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of a problem, but it is one of which the R.A.F. is not only aware but is anxious to assist to overcome.

Mr. Morris

I am glad to hear that. I began my remarks on this matter by saying that the R.A.F. had a record of helpfulness in the provision of aircraft and personnel. I accept that the R.A.F. has made both available for, for example, training. However, clashes of view arise. Such instances have occurred and they are bound to arise again. It is difficult for a Minister who is responsible for a single Service to take an across-the-board view, which makes it vital to have a Minister to whom such a clash can be referred.

Mr. Onslow

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be helpful on another occasion if the Defence White Paper included information similar to that dealing with the disposal of ships? I refer to aircraft which are made available, after refurbuishment, for disposal to overseas air forces. We might find that is much money is to be derived from these sales as from selling, for example, coastal minesweepers.

Mr. Morris

I have never understood the historical difference between giving total disposal figures for ships and aircraft. I recall being questioned on many occasion by hon. Members on this subject, but for historical reasons I was not able to give aircraft figures. The answer I was briefed to give was that real security problems were involved. The policy, which has not changed, is that one does not generally give details of overseas sales, because some overseas customers are hesitant about their needs becoming known by the outside world. This is a matter which is entirely within the Government's hands, but the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is right to say that there is a disparity between the large amount that the Navy reveals and the much smaller amount revealed by the other Services.

I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woking about sophisticated aircraft. One of the tragedies of the past has been that decisions have sometimes been taken to stop the production of comparatively simple aircraft, which are frequently the types of aircraft so much in demand by so many countries. With hindsight I regard this as a tragedy.

This is one reason why, when British industry receives an order for a new aircraft, it should also make provision for overseas sales, but it does not do this as a matter of practice. This is where the clash occurs between the immediate needs of the Air Force when it has placed a firm order, if an overseas customer suddenly appears on the scene: the Air Force has to be robbed so that the needs of the overseas customer can be met. The aircraft industry should provide for overseas sales in the same way as the motor car industry does and not meet the needs of overseas customers at the expense of an existing and established home customer.

Large amounts of money are involved in the training of pilots for overseas customers. A figure of £¼ million has been mentioned as being involved in the training of some pilots. Much smaller amounts are involved in training some of the pilots for the planes that we sell overseas, but frequently £50,000 to £100,000 a pilot is involved. Such sums frighten an overseas customer, even though he will be paying a much greater sum for the aircraft.

In view of the use of simulators, I hope that everything possible will be done to keep down the cost of training for overseas customers; because this high cost sticks out like a sore thumb. The sums, though large in themselves, are admittedly smaller when compared with the cost of the aircraft purchased, but they are very high indeed in comparison with the sums charged by other countries which have found a way of placing the charge on their Government's central accounts so that the customer is not unduly frightened at the expense of training.

I welcome the remarks that the Under-Secretary made about recruiting. Last year I said this: Recruitment to the Royal Air Force continues to provide a challenge for everyone concerned with it. This is certainly true in branches such as the engineering branches, the medical branches, and one or two others. Last year I was able to say this: Yet I am happy to say that there were distinct signs of improvements last year, especially towards the end, and that the impetus seems to be maintaining itself this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 50–1.] That prophecy seems to have been justified. We have seen the figures in the White Paper. The number of cadets at university has risen from 266 to 350. In the first nine months the number of direct graduates has risen from 51 to 85 and the total expected for last year will be 115 compared with 63. There is an increased interest in other entry to the commissioned Service and a 12 per cent. increase in recruitment of other ranks. These are significant figures.

We commend those who have taken part in the recruiting campaign. There will be added impetus this year in that the pay scale for single men and the concept of the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) became fully effective on 1st April of this year.

The latest ghastly unemployment figures were published today. The tragedy now facing us all is that there is a new recruiting officer and we do not know what effect this will have on recruiting.

I hope that the Minister will examine the balance within the Air Force. I was glad to hear his remarks about age and other matters. Given that more recruits are coming forward and that the trend will continue, I hope that he will examine the tasks and the age structure of the general duties branch.

As to general equipment, the Minister mentioned the Puma. Perhaps in the wind-up speech we can be given a fuller picture about the other helicopter projects with France. The Rapier is not a weapon for the Air Force, but the Air Force has a great interest in it in that one of its major roles will be the protection of our airfields. We hope that the Minister can assure us that good progress is being made in the development and production of this weapon.

I have been at the receiving end and also at the complaining end of representations about low flying. The assurances given by the Minister in this regard were worth while. I hope that every effort will he made to keep low flying to a minimum in the future as in the past, that warnings will be given wherever possible, and that the closest possible liaison will be maintained with local authorities and local inhabitants in areas where low flying is to take place.

At the beginning of the year I had correspondence with the Under-Secretary. It was odd that two months later the Ministry of Aviation Supply, perhaps without the knowledge of the Air Force, announced a programme of low flying in my constituency. This caused great concern. I hope that the division between the two Ministries will no longer obtain now that there has been a transfer of functions.

Within our resources the Royal Air Force has excellent aircraft which have either recently entered service or which are coming into service. Plans are well advanced for their replacement in the latter part of this decade. In practical terms this replacement is the greatest step in the fusion of Europe's defence. I look forward to 1976 and the years thereafter when we shall see the product of a great deal of work which has been put in to bring these aircraft to an operational state, because that is the end project of the efforts of so many people.

I join in the tribute which has been paid to the service and vigilance of the Royal Air Force, which is ever ready to serve humanity in every part of the globe and which regards no task as too challenging if human resources and ingenuity can enable it to be tackled, and which is ever vigilant night and day in the defence of Britain and her interests. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending the Royal Air Force for the tasks it has carried out in years gone by, particularly last year, tasks well and truly performed.

5.28 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

The debate is about the bits and the pieces of one Service. It is not a general strategic debate. I shall speak briefly about, first, procurement, next about the deployment of the Royal Air Force, and finally about recruitment.

As to procurement, I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks about the M.R.C.A., and I hope that the project will be very successful. If it is not successful, if it hits trouble in any way, I hope that the Government will resolve not to try any more international ventures. The A.F.V.G. came to nought. The F111 took off only because of the earth's curvature, as the pilot said. I believe that the difficulties of technology added to the difficulties of achieving international agreement in matters of this sort make it likely that such projects will be a bad compromise designwise, and will always be so late that they miss the bus for export sales. Unless the M.R.C.A. is a resounding success, let us always go it alone in future. I suspect that even in this period of history when "international co-operation" is on everybody's lips, production of our own primary defensive weapons should be kept in our own hands in this country. Apart from anything else, we owe it to the British aircraft industry that as much as possible of defence procurement should be at home.

Next, on the matter of the deployment of the Royal Air Force, I would hesitate to describe my noble Friend the Minister of State as an ostrich, but I believe that he has inherited a Department whose head is firmly buried in the N.A.T.O. sands. I am delighted that the Government have carried out their pledge so promptly and successfully to keep a presence east of Suez, and that the five-Power meeting in London last week made such excellent progress, but the threat is not localised in Singapore or Malaysia or even at the Cape. The threat is one which President Kennedy described as being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. This threat of being nibbled to death is world wide; it is not only in Europe.

The most obvious development or change in recent years in the threat which faces us is the growth of Soviet naval power and their centrally-directed merchant fleet. This, of course, is a worldwide threat. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have the means of effective surveillance of our sea trade routes; and, indeed, I believe that our presence east of Suez is a nonsense unless there is some evidence of our intention and ability to protect the trade routes of a very large area, to protect the oil from the Gulf and our valuable trade with Australia and New Zealand.

This means shipborne aircraft in some shape or form. We are told that this in future is to be a task for the Royal Air Force, and I do not complain about this so long as the Royal Air Force does it. I am not arguing for a dark blue Fleet Air Arm today, but I am arguing that the Government should show a lot more evidence of their understanding of the importance of shipborne aircraft. One single aircraft carrier, the "Ark Royal", is absolutely inadequate. There is no possible sense in saying that the Fleet Air Arm will still go on, that it will have twopenny-halfpenny fiddling helicopters operating from frigates. I realise that the Government have got a sticky inheritance in this matter, but I do not want to go into that today. I merely make the basic point that the deployment of the Royal Air Force, if it is to have the main maritime task, must include shipborne aircraft.

Nimrods were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). It was interesting to hear him make the point that we should spend more on defence and that we should have more Nimrods. I agree. Nimrods are necessary to fly from South Africa and from Singapore. Co-operation with the Royal Australian Navy westwards from Fremantle and into the Indian Ocean is fine.

Having during the period of the last Government often argued for smaller and less sophisticated aircraft carriers, I am pleased to see in the Defence Estimates this year that the defence staff behind the scenes have apparently been clever and that the command cruiser is a very thinly disguised carrier. I should like to see the Government pay more attention to the way in which the shipborne aircraft are to be manned and handled. The Minister of State, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has given extremely evasive answers, and so have his Ministerial colleagues, on the question of how shipborne aircraft are to be flown, manned and serviced. If the Royal Air Force is to do it, firm plans and commitments are required, and the Government should make the importance of this task clear for all to see, both in the Services and among the public at large.

I should like to see more urgency in the production of the through-deck cruiser. The White Paper says that work continues on the design of this through-deck cruiser. This is much the same as was stated in the 1970 White Paper. We would like to see the Government get their finger out about this.

I should like much more recognition by the Government of the importance of the use of the Harrier at sea. I think it was 10 years ago this summer that I went to Farnborough and had the extraordinary sight of a jet aircraft taking off vertically and suddenly shooting forwards. This was a most amazing sight. I went away into the tent thinking that I must take more water with in in future. However, the development of this principle has been catastrophically slow. The last time my right hon. Friend spoke about this he said that tests continued for the use of this aircraft at sea. It is obvious that the Harrier is God's gift to naval aviation and to shipborne aviation. A great deal more urge is needed behind this project.

Lord Balniel

I also, as a layman, had the same feeling that the period of development of the Harrier seemed to have taken an extremely long time. My hon. and gallant Friend has raised this matter in the House before, and immediately after he raised it I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to make inquiries to assure himself that progress was being pursued as rapidly as possible. I am assured that it is the case. I am also visiting "Ark Royal" later this week to see evaluation trials proceed. The point that my hon. and gallant Friend makes is valid, but I assure him that the information I have is that the trials are proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

I am glad to have that assurance. I hope that if the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to "Ark Royal" is as hopeful as I imagine it will be, he will come back and, together with the Secretary of State, go to the Cabinet and, say, "We could go faster with this if we had more money." They should not be ashamed to do so. The Government must not be afraid to spend more to get ahead faster with the whole question of the surveillance of the trade routes. It should be unnecessary in the House to make the point all over again how completely dependent we are in peace, in time of threat or in war, upon the trade and the supplies which are brought to these islands by sea.

I hope that in the wind-up speech we can have a statement about the retirement or the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief, Western Fleet, Admiral Sir William O'Brien, if only to scotch the rumour at the weekend that his departure might have been associated with dissatisfaction over the maritime air effort which is available. I do not want to start a canard about this. I remember the occasion, during the period of the previous Government, when one of the "top brass" of the Royal Navy resigned, namely, Admiral Sir David Luce. It was brushed off by the then Government Front Bench with, I thought, just a wave of the hand, but when a man at the top of his career resigns, it is obviously for some deep and fundamental reason. I hope that I am wrong in the present case and it was merely that Admiral O'Brien was reaching the end of his career in the perfectly normal course. I hope that that is right, but it would, perhaps, scotch some misunderstandings which have been current if the Minister could say so in winding up the debate.

Now, the question of recruiting. My hon. Friend gave some interesting figures about Service conditions, accommodation, separation and so on. May we be told a little about the results so far of the new military salary introduced by the previous Government for all three Services? Specifically, could the House be told the pay and allowances of a squadron leader flying a VC10 of the Royal Air Force from Britain to Singapore, and how his total emoluments compare with the salary of a B.O.A.C. captain flying the same aircraft on the same route to Singapore, with the same load, the only difference being that the passengers sit in backward-facing seats?

Manpower is the greatest single factor in the Royal Air Force, just as it is in the other two Services. I disagree somewhat with the Opposition Front Bench about the degree of Service integration which is possible. I believe it to be extremely important that the three Services retain their own identity. There should be common operational control, of course—that is agreed on both sides —but I think it wrong to take that process a stage further to the point where one merges or mixes the identity of one Service with another. They will always he different, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend admit today, in reply to a question from me, that, of course, the three Services are different.

I come now to one expedient which I propose for obtaining additional recruits, not only to the Royal Air Force but to the other two Services as well. When the school leaving age is raised to 16, there will be many boys who do not wish to do the additional year at school. Some of the more mature will want to go out into the world, and, if they stay on at school, they will be bored and they will interrupt the learning of the other pupils. I suggest, therefore, that we should allow boys to volunteer for the Royal Air Force, or for the other two Services, at the age of 15. This could be one of the very few ways—perhaps the only way—in which they could leave school before the age of 16.

I emphasise that these boys would he volunteers. They would go into the Service, and in the Service they would continue their education simultaneously with their Service training. If they did not like Service life, they could escape at 18 under the Donaldson scheme which we recently debated. The Service, whichever it was, would have three years to influence them, to put the Service fingerprint on their minds, so to speak. If the Services cannot persuade such young men of the value of Service life in those three years, three impressionable years, I do not believe that they will ever be able to do it.

I put it to the Minister, also, that this idea should be attractive to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It would reduce overcrowding in schools when the leaving age is raised, it would reduce the cost of raising the age, and it would remove the embarrassment of having unwilling pupils in many of our classrooms. So everybody should be happy, and I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this idea.

Now, one other question on recruiting. May we be told how many local authorities refuse to allow careers teams to visit their areas? I find it extraordinary that a large number of local authorities, so I understand, still refuse to allow such visits, and I think that it might be of some value to enumerate them, preferably by publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing which those local authorities are. If they feel as strongly as that about it, presumably they would not object to having their names published in that way.

I was very glad to hear the Minister speak in his peroration about the interest which Service life can provide. There is no doubt about it. For myself, I can only say—not from a single-Service point of view—that if I had 10 sons and they all wanted to go into the Royal Air Force, I should be more than delighted.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Whatever other result it may have, this debate at least ought to unite us all in a renewed belief in the need for a Select Committee on Defence. It may seem curious that a subject of such importance should, apparently, attract so few participants—no Liberals at all, only three on the Opposition benches at the moment, though twice that number on the Government side—but there may well be another and more respectable reason for the thin attendance than the fact that this is the first day back.

By its very nature, this subject requires a kind of treatment different from that which it is possible to give to it in formal exchanges across the Floor in debate. Anyone who starts to prepare a speech for an occasion such as this inevitably confronts the problem that there is far too much to be said, and that speeches, if they are really to cover all the points of interest to those of us who specialise in defence matters, would be intolerably long. Once again, therefore, I renew the plea that the question of a Select Committee on Defence be given serious consideration, particularly as there seems to be no shortage of matters which might otherwise occupy the time of the House on the Floor.

I shall briefly touch on a theme which has emerged from the speeches so far, straying from it no further than my natural digressions lead me. I refer to the role of the Royal Air Force as a customer. It is easy to see this if one reads the Defence White Paper, because one finds there—to use an Irishism—a couple of omissions which in themselves are interesting enough. I have read this White Paper, Cmnd. 4592, from cover to cover and I find nothing in it about the "Pembroke". I do not regret this for a moment. I think that the best thing to do is to say nothing about the "Pembroke". I say that although at this moment there sits on the Opposition Front Bench the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who was responsible for the decision that the "Pembroke" should be resparred and taken back into service, instead of using the "Islander". Rhetorically, I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell me of any decision ever made more foolish than that. I shall not embarrass him by pressing for an answer this afternoon, though I am bound to admit that to say nothing about the "Pembroke" was to carry decency to the extreme.

I believe that the absence of the Islander from the Royal Air Force equipment pack is absolutely inexplicable and inexcusable, and a major barrier to sales prospects to military forces overseas. If reticence about the Pembroke can be maintained in future years, I hope, on the other hand, that we shall find something about the Islander in next year's White Paper.

The other omission is the Chinook, the American helicopter which was ordered and then cancelled—and which may, I suppose, have to be un-cancelled, though whether we can get the cancellation payments back I do not quite know. I mention this because there is nothing in the White Paper on the whole question of tactical support for the Harrier. I shall return to this later, but what I want to show in pinpointing both these cases is that it might be very much to our benefit if we were to consider the R.A.F. as a customer rather more consistently and in greater depth than hitherto.

The American Starfighters are a classic case in point when we talk about complexity as a barrier to sales. Although large numbers were sold it was the complex one which the Germans thought they could maintain and found they could not which has had all the tragedies associated with it. The other Starfighters, which are relatively simple beasts, have been very satisfactory equipment to the services which have taken them on.

Rather than dwell as I perhaps would have liked on the invaluable role of the R.A.F. in the past year in relief in Pakistan, Jordan and Nigeria, I want to concentrate on the question of the R.A.F. as a customer. May I say first that I wonder whether official policy is right in so far as it appears to be having the effect of taking work away from civilian industry and concentrating it in Defence Department hands. I should be much obliged if Ministers would look at this matter, because if there is, as I believe there is, a need for work to be provided in a number of cases where it is short now, I think that it is more likely to be outside, in the civilian sector, than inside in the defence sector. The matter is causing concern. There is a fear in industry that work is being put into the defence sector which could be as well done in industry. It may be that the answer is that industry might do it more expensively or more slowly. If that is so, those are valid arguments, but let us at least look at the question.

A major point in our whole economic effort now is the M.R.C.A., the major European collaborative project, bigger even than Concorde. I believe that it is of the greatest importance in the long run, and I think that the right hon. Member for Aberavon was right in some of his comments about it. I believe that the House would welcome more information as soon as this can be made available. I understand that there are certain checks which are to be made in the spring and summer, and that until they have been successfully passed it is difficult to be very informative about the aircraft. But as soon as it is possible for something definite to be said I hope that the House can be informed, because there is concern about the project on a number of scores. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) will probably speak about this a little later, but I am very worried about the avionics side. I hear it said that British industry is losing out badly, that, for obscure reasons, decisions are being taken in the allocation of work between the firms of the contracting countries, and even within the avionics industry in this country, which may be very damaging in their long-term consequences.

There is also an area of concern centreing around the Rolls-Royce engine, not so much because of the likelihood that the RB 119 will not do what it is supposed to do, as because of the extent to which the design teams of Rolls-Royce are really concentrating on the problems of an engine which is not all that much dissimilar to the RB 211, although it is smaller, and which in the long run possibly has an even greater international sales opportunity than the RB 211 has.

Mr. John Morris

The hon. Gentleman has commented on the concern of British industry about its proper share of the avionics of the M.R.C.A. I recall being questioned about this by, I think, the then hon. Member for Hendon, North, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing. I gave him certain assurances that British industry would have a fair crack of the whip. If there is damage, if there is an unfair share of work, if there is concern, the House would be grateful for particulars from the hon. Gentleman, and would be grateful if, in due course, whenever a statement is made on the M.R.C.A., it would meet such charges.

Mr. Onslow

In so far as it is proper for anyone in my position on the back benches to give such an assurance, I can say that I will never withhold information if it is in my possession and if it is likely to be of use. When decisions are made we should be satisfied that all the anxieties have been looked into and that none of them still arises. There were undoubtedly anxieties when the right hon. Gentleman was in a position of governmental responsibility, and I am not sure whether all of them have yet been allayed.

On the question of the new fighter, the Gnat-Hunter replacement, the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to himself. I think that we know rather more about it than he suggested. I have seen no evidence that there is a likelihood of buying an American aircraft off the peg. That is a very fanciful supposition.

But it is almost the overwhelming requirement of this project that it should be saleable around the world. I put the need to satisfy the fine precision of R.A.F. requirements very much second in order of priority, because, in the very terms of the defence White Paper, it is an aircraft which has to be a replacement for the Gnat and Hunter. The characteristic of the Hunter was that if it were still being made it would be selling like a bomb. I understand that there have been moments when Hawkers have seriously thought of restarting the Hunter production line, and there have been moments when I have been tempted to think that we would be better advised to get them to do that than to proceed with the development, in competition and at cost between British manufacturers, of a totally new project.

We must learn to live with the technology we can afford, and what we should be seeking is an aircraft that will sell like the Gnat, Hunter and Lightning, and to the same people who are using those aircraft today, new or refurbished, and who will undoubtedly, if we have nothing more to offer, turn to someone else and be lost to us as customers for ever. I am sorry if this view gives offence, but I believe that that need is higher than any R.A.F. requirement for exactly the sort of trainer aircraft it would prefer in an ideal world.

I return again to the question of back-up for the Harrier. In effect this means "Whatever happened to the HS681?" Again, it is a rhetorical question. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon by asking for a reply. What happened to the HS681 at a time when all of a sudden all sorts of people in the civilian context are beginning to understand that the next generation of aircraft which will be of most use is likely to be composed of aircraft with reduced takeoff and lift capability? Whereas we have in the Harrier the only aircraft in the world with short and vertical take-off and lift capability, because we did not go through the consistent plan which was originally formulated around this concept we have no transport aircraft with the characteristics required for forward supply, battlefield support, for the Harrier in its dispersal points—and which would also have an enormous application in the civilian field. This is a tragedy, the order of which can be seen by looking at the work going on in the United States, where N.A.S.A. is commissioning a study around a specially modified Buffalo to see what can be done in the RTOL and STOL context. We should have been five or six years ahead, and able to claim pioneering status, had we gone through with the original concept in 1965 onwards.

Another application which stems straight from the military uses and application of V/STOL is the need for indirect approach. Few things are more absurd than the fact that to land at Heathrow a modern transport aircraft must start in a straight line over our heads here and motor gently downwards for about six miles. It is idiotic that this should be so. It may be inevitable at present, in view of what is so far known about the noise characteristics of aircraft and the need for an approach under conditions of the greatest possible safety. But no one should suppose that there are not other ways of doing it, and that there may not be other ways of bringing an aircraft into land at a steeper angle and in an indirect approach. And these matters are of enormous relevance when we think of the problems associated with building airports in the 1980s and 1990s.

I believe that military work in this problem is going on—I hope that it is—and that it has enormous application on the civil side. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make inquiries to ensure that there is the maximum co-operation between the civil and the military sides, and if anyone on the military side in Whitehall happens to be working on devices to make aircraft quieter, I hope that he will not forget to mention it to those of us primarily concerned with civil aviation.

I am conscious that the next thing I am to say may be regarded as being as fanciful in its tenor as some of the things which I have recalled as having been said by the right hon. Member for Aberavon. I believe that when we come to consider a replacement for the R.A.F.'s transport aircraft, particularly those which are to operate over relatively long ranges with passengers rather than freight, the R.A.F., which is operating both Comets and Britannias, should give serious consideration to the possibility that the Concorde might have an application to its work.

I hope that we can be assured, if it needs reiteration, that there is no question of the R.A.F. buying the C5A, which is the sort of aircraft no one needs and which is many times less necessary to us than the Belfast, whose unhappy history is only too familiar. If we are to think in terms of moving troops about the world, we should remember that flexibility involves the ability to match any enemy in speed of response. It seems possible at least that there is a case for the R.A.F., towards the end of this decade, if not sooner, to have a small flight of Concordes. These aircraft could be used for very quick response in moving battalion units—the men, although certainly not the equipment—swiftly to various places in the world. I see my hon. Friend looking sceptical, as I expected he would, but surely the productivity of Concorde is much greater because of its speed than that of any other aircraft which the R.A.F. is likely to have. If we are to be ready to put out fires in various parts of the world Concorde would provide unmatched speed to get the men out to the scene.

I have tried to give a number of instances where it is obvious, and possibly not so obvious, that the R.A.F. has a considerable rôle to play as a user of equipment to be built in this country, and one which may become more effectively realised in Whitehall because of the reorganisation which has recently taken place. Many people in industry now hope that the R.A.F. will not be quite so carefree in placing its requirements around the world, that it will have greater consciousness of what British industry can do and of the need to support British projects rather than buy from abroad—rather, even, than launch into European co-operative ventures. I do not think that it is any derogation of the importance of the R.A.F. or its contribution to our defence if occasionally and perhaps slightly unexpectedly we remind ourselves that it has a part to play in British industry. If it plays that rôle successfully, we shall be all the more grateful to it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walthamstow, East)

I find so much to agree with in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that my own may be but a pale echo of his. I agree with his view of the need for some sort of transport aircraft to support the Harrier. Without such an aircraft, I believe that the Harrier is not able to be as credible or as flexible as it should be. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saved himself at the eleventh hour because, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has said rightly, a medium-lift helicopter is not referred to in the White Paper, he at least referred to it in his opening speech.

I understand that the R.A.F. is likely to make its choice of a medium-lift helicopter by the end of this month and that that choice is likely to fall either on the most recent version of the Chinook or on the Sikorsky CH53. As we have been reminded, the last Government in 1967 intended to order 15 Chinook helicopters but eight months later cancelled the order because of financial stringency. That cost the country a great deal of money, as any cancelled order always does. The idea then was to use the Chinooks in such places as Borneo and Malaysia, essentially in the anti-guerrilla type of operation. Now, the aircraft is being looked at with Western Europe also in mind. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the need for such a support aircraft has clearly been there since the Harrier first went into service.

The Harrier operates from very forward bases. It is dispersed. It is considered very difficult to spot from the air. When such an aircraft is supplied by means of "bowsers" driving along roads and across fields, it quickly becomes spottable to any sort of reconnaissance, so that the Harrier in such circumstances has lost its ability to hide. Clearly, a medium-lift helicopter which can take loads of 10 tons of fuel or more, flying into the same sort of air strip as the Harrier, will restore to the Harrier its secrecy, its ability to operate from dispersed air strips and its ability not to be spotted easily from the air.

I am glad that the R.A.F. is to be allowed to order one of these helicopters and that the order is likely to be announced before the end of this month. I have one reservation, however. The aircraft is to be ordered directly from the American makers rather than from one of the European licensees. Yet both the Chinook and the Sikorsky are being built under licence in Europe, one by the Germans and the other by the Italians. At a time when European collaboration seems to stand so high in our thinking, it seems slightly strange to order directly from America rather than from one of the European manufacturers. It is strange for the further reason that had we gone to one of the European manufacturers, particularly the Germans—who are building the Sikorsky—probably the rotors and gear boxes would have been built by Westlands. I understand that the order in the first instance is to be for 15 aircraft but may well go up to 40 or even 60 at a total cost of £75 million. One must hope that the order will carry with it a measure of reciprocation from the Americans, so that they buy some of our equipment in return.

I believe that this aircraft will have a profound effect on the credibility and flexibility of the Harrier. It has an additional advantage, which has clearly been shown in Vietnam, where the Americans have been flying the Chinook for many years, that, as Flight has stated, a damaged helicopter can be airlifted off its air strip and taken back to repair shops behind the battle zone. In Vietnam the Chinook has rescued nearly 10,000 shot-down helicopters, and there would be nothing to prevent it picking-up a Harrier. Therefore, clearly, this aircraft will be useful in many ways. It also has the ability to carry troops and weapons, and, therefore, quite apart from the European theatre, it will be useful wherever there is a British commitment.

But it has one disadvantage, and this allows me to make another comment on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. It has the disadvantage of almost all helicopters; that is, that it is slow and fairly vulnerable. Indeed, the helicopter losses in Vietnam, particularly in recent months, have been very high, indeed. Clearly, once they come up against a sophisticated defence, helicopters find themselves in a very weak position.

It is for this reason that the Americans are themselves now considering what they call a light intra-theatre transport, and we in this country should be turning our thoughts in that direction. The time is due for resurrecting something like the 681. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking rightly said, clearly we missed a great opportunity when we cancelled that aircraft, because so many lessons that we shall now have to learn, in rather less time than we could have had, are there to be learned, and we are no further ahead in the state of the art than anybody else.

But I still think that we can catch up and catch up quickly if we see these medium-lift helicopters as stop-gap aircraft, for we must realise that in the Harrier we have a unique weapon system and that we have not in any way realised its potential as a weapons system, that we have not exploited its many uses, that we have done very little to encourage its sales to friendly countries and that for back-up facilities, a slow helicopter is not in the end the answer.

At this moment, there are three vertical take-off and/or short take-off projects under consideration by the Ministry of Aviation Supply. One is for a tilt-wing aircraft, a project put forward by Westlands. This is very similar to the project which the Americans are now considering for their light intra-threatre transport. I do not say that it is necessarily the right aircraft. I do say that it will be much quicker than existing helicopters and could easily have a top speed of 400 m.p.h. as against the 170 m.p.h. of aircraft like the Chinook. It may not be that the Westland aircraft is the one that we should be considering and perhaps we should be selecting the B.A.C. submission or the Hawker submission; but what is clear is that there is a need for this aircraft and without it our Support Command will not be properly equipped and nor will Harrier be able to be as successful as it should be.

I suggest that there is a further spinoff that could come from ordering such an aircraft for the R.A.F. It would be doing what the Americans have been so successful in doing—spreading the development costs of an aircraft over the armed forces and seeing a civilian version go to the airlines. We have never done that in this country. It is usually the other way round. It now seems that we have an opportunity which we should explore as hard as we can.

While on the subject of helicopters, I should like to turn to the subject of R.A.F. air-sea rescue. I understand that the air-sea rescue branch of the R.A.F. no longer feels that the Whirlwind helicopter is adequate to look after the problems of long distance air-sea rescue and that it is anxious to buy the Sea King helicopter made by Westlands, the makers of the Whirlwind. It is particularly anxious to have this aircraft as it has proved itself to the extent that it has been ordered by Germany and Norway although up against stiff opposition from America, France and Japan. I understand that the Sea King is very highly equipped with British avionics. It is able to operate in all weathers, by day or night, and it would make our air-sea rescue ability very much more effective and very much more efficient.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will carefully consider ordering some of these aircraft for the R.A.F., for I am sure that he will agree that our air-sea rescue should be as good as that in any part of the world. It is certainly true that if the British Government buy an aircraft of that kind, overseas sales are given an enormous fillip, and Sea King is an aircraft which should be bought by many more countries which at this moment may be diffident about buying because they ask themselves, "If it is so good, why doesn't the R.A.F. order it?"

Clearly, I could not speak in this debate without mentioning the multi-rôle combat aircraft. Everyone in the House must hope that this aircraft will be a great success. After all, it is to be the front-line aircraft for Western Europe for many years to come. It is to be the first major European combat aircraft—and I stress "European". Therefore, when one hears so many rumours and so many doubts being expressed about it from so many quarters, one feels that there comes a time when questions must be asked and answered. I propose this afternoon to air some of these rumours and doubts in the hope that my hon. Friend will be able to refute them totally so that we may all go away happier than I for one am about this project at this moment.

The first of the doubts relates to the ability of the German aircraft industry to manage a project as complex as M.R.C.A., or to control its costs within limits. It is a very complicated aeroplane, and, therefore, it could be very expensive. Yet it seems so strange that the managers of this project, the West Germans, who have not built a single strike aircraft of their own design since the war, should be entrusted with seeing this project through to production.

It seems particularly strange because the British partner in Panavia, the makers of M.R.C.A., is the British Aircraft Corporation, a company which has proved itself over and over again, a company which can lay claim to the brilliant successes of the Canberra and the Lightning, an aircraft company which has managed a major complex project and successfully brought it to fruition. Yet B.A.C. is more or less the junior partner in the M.R.C.A. project with the West Germans who have not built a combat aircraft for the past 26 years.

One must wonder why the last Government ever allowed themselves to sign a contract placing the British aircraft industry in this secondary rôle to the West Germans. One is forced to the conclusion that there were probably two reasons. One was the endless attempt by the last Government to prove their Europeanism by entering into this sort of project, as they did with the A.F.V.G. Secondly, and perhaps more understandably, is the fact that the West Germans said that they wanted 600 aircraft whereas the R.A.F. wanted only 400. Clearly, if the Germans wanted more than anyone else they should have a greater say in how the project was conducted.

Mr. Onslow

In fairness to the German partners in M.R.C.A., I think my hon. Friend would agree that Herr Madelung and Herr Forster-Steinberg, who are the overseeing brains on the German side, have considerable, continuous and widespread experience in the aviation industry, not confined to Germany, but I believe in both cases deriving from long periods of work in America.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

I entirely accept that. However, it does not invalidate my point, which is that the West German aircraft industry has not since the war had the control of a project as complicated as this one. It seems that the M.R.C.A. agreement was signed on the footing that the West Germans wanted 600 aircraft and the R.A.F. 400. The Italians were to take some, and possibly the Dutch, but in essence it was the West Germans and the British. Recently, in conversation with some of those controlling the destinies of Panavia, I have been informed that West Germany would certainly want 250 of these aircraft. If this is true, if it is now only 250 and the R.A.F. still want 400, then it seems that this contract is a bit lopsided. Why should it be that the headquarters of Panavia is in Munich rather than in Filton, Weybridge, Warton or wherever B.A.C. chooses?

Then there is the question of the shareholding in Panavia. This is equally split between the West Germans and ourselves to the tune of 42½ per cent, with the Italians holding 15 per cent. I am told—and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend can tell me that I am talking nonsense—that the West Germans are providing 4 per cent. of the money which the Italians are purporting to put up. In effect, this means that the West Germans have the majority of the project under their influence and, therefore, can no doubt call the tune. This is particularly significant for our avionics industry, which is far ahead of any other in Western Europe in terms of this type of aircraft. By the way the contract is drawn we can only have 42½ per cent. of whatever avionics are ordered. Presumably, with the West Germans and Italians calling the tune, we shall have those avoinics they decide we should have.

The sadness of all this is that not only may we miss out on some of the avionics which we are uniquely equipped to supply, and which Western Europe will not be able to supply, but that Western Europe will have to turn to America to supply those avionics. Yet we are talking about a European aircraft.

These are the sort of disquieting rumours I have heard about this aeroplane which is to be the front-line combat aircraft for the R.A.F. and is, therefore, crucially important to this country and to our aerospace and avionics industry. If there is some imbalance in this contract, if the Germans really want only 250 when they said they wanted 600, then we should know. However, nothing would give me greater pleasure than for my hon. Friend to get up and refute each one of the statements I have made.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

It is good to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench. On the last two occasions that I have seen him there he has been able to give me crumbs of comfort, good morsels of excellent news. The first time was in the Consolidated Fund debate, when he gave me good news about naval reserves, and the second time has been today, when he has made a most interesting statement about the future of the Royal Air Force reserves and in particular about a commitment to expand the ground element of those reserves. That is a major step forward which all hon. Members will welcome.

We have had a wide-ranging debate, including a speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), of the "Blue Water school", who spoke in no uncertain terms about the indivisibility of air power, for which I am heartily thankful. It is something that this House and those interested in defence should never forget.

We have had interesting and valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who talked about Royal Air Force procurement programmes and particularly the need for air supply for Harriers deployed forward, and the future of the M.R.C.A. programme. We had a contribution from the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in which he accused me of being over-influenced by the Spitfire era. He referred to something I had published on Royal Air Force reserves, as did the Minister when he spoke of the Battle of Britain in this context.

I do not think that any serious student of strategy or military affairs would take it amiss if he was accused of taking too much note of the lessons of the past. The most notable thing to be learned from military affairs is how the lessons of the past are all too easily forgotten rather than readily heeded. If anyone accuses me of harking back to the Battle of Britain I am not in any way ashamed.

If anyone just before the last war had accused those who spoke up for the territorial force of harking back to the Cardwell reforms or to the Haldane reforms that would have been a totally inappropriate criticism because that territorial force later justified itself in the second world war. In similar manner today if anyone accused me of being a "Trenchardist" in the sense of believing in a highly-trained, small, professional, elite force with a capacity for expansion then I would not be at all ashamed because it is the most cost-effective way of disposing of our air power. It has relevance for the future, as the Americans have found in Vietnam and as other powers have found in trying to create new air forces around the globe. The Trenchard model is always the model chosen for new air forces.

I want to deal with a few basic themes, such as the front line, training, reserves and maintenance, and one or two obiter dicta such as naval air power and procurement. First, on the front line point, this Government are to be congratulated for their determination, maintained steadfastly, to ensure the maximum strength of the front line of the R.A.F. It is a deterrent posture, and it is on this front line that the credibility of our deterrent will be judged. The decision to augment N.A.T.O. in Europe by four extra squadrons of Jaguars has much to recommend it. But the Jaguar is in its infancy; it is at the beginning of its development potential. There has been much talk today about sales potential. What the Jaguar needs is an uprating which will enable it to defend itself even more effectively in the battle area, and we need the possibility of a simplified version, along the lines of the French trainer version perhaps, for sale to overseas air forces.

The Harrier has been mentioned most eulogistically by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East. It is a radical breakthrough in aviation technology. It is sad to see our prophetic designers not being allowed to follow up in production their full vision of aircraft developments. Nevertheless, the Harrier is flying in squadron service, but it needs a substantial uprating of its power plant if it is to achieve the full payload and range which its design should enable it to possess. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to say something about this matter if he has time, together with the question of the possible uprating of the Jaguar.

Air defence, which was mentioned in the White Paper, has not been discussed today, apart from rhetoric, and the odd slogan from the right hon. Member for Aberavon in terms of vigilance—in the best Fighter Command tradition. The air defence of this country is still the prime rôle of the Royal Air Force. The Phantom is to replace the Lightning in the air defence squadrons of Strike Command towards the end of this decade. In view of the longevity of the Lightning and the tremendous sophistication of its design, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it will be possible to extend the interceptor rôle of the Lightning, particularly the Mark VI's, and to have more Phantoms in a strike and close air support rôle. They have an essential function in strike duties, particularly as M.R.C.A. could conceivably be late in coming into service. I will not hypothesise, but other aircraft have been late. In that event, it might be worth while to extend the life of the Lightning in the intercept rôle.

M.R.C.A. is absolutely crucial to the fighting strength of the Air Force. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester emphasised how important it was that we should, where possible, build our own weapon systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East rightly put the matter in its European context. This is the touchstone in military terms of our determination technologically to play our part in the defence of Europe. We should therefore with all determination pursue the development of this product which is so vital to our industrial and military future.

The variable geometry principle has many applications for the future. One can envisage without too much effort a whole generation of aircraft to succeed the M.R.C.A. in the close air support or training rôle capable of operating from short strips and dispersed fields or even from carriers. I think the American Navy is interested in the M.R.C.A. in this regard. More is the pity that the Royal Navy is not.

I turn to the question of training. It was my mentor Trenchard who said that it was on the training of the Royal Air Force that all else depended. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has elaborated at great length on the training schemes of the Royal Air Force. However, he made no mention of two important facets of training—primary training and the university air squadrons.

It is important that a new trainer be procured to succeed the Chipmunk. If there is no such aircraft it is hard to foresee what the future of the university air squadrons and of the air experience flights will be. As aircraft become more sophisticated, the logical thing to do is to move the whole spectrum of flying training to the right, in the terms of the right hon. Member for Aberavon. In other words, we should be aiming at a trainer of the performance of the Siai Marchetti S260 for the primary/basic rôle, which would be a logical lead-in to the intermediate trainer, the new jet trainer, be it the HS 1182, the P 59 or—and I hate to use the term—the Alpha jet. We need a new primary trainer. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to let us know the Government's plans in this regard.

The decisions about the new jet trainer must be made purely on performance criteria and marketability. I presume that the aircraft will have a strike capability. It must do so if it is to have the sales potential to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred. If it does not have a weapons capability, it will not sell to the under-developed countries which need such an aircraft.

From flying training I turn logically to the question of reserves, about which I have been taken to task and on which we have had interesting and fruitful discussions over a long period. I was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said about the new concept which he seems to be toying with of recognising that there is a rôle for what I call a second line intermediate performance type aircraft in a number of battlefield situations. As Charles Douglas-Home rightly argued, we must not always be seduced by the notion that we must have the best at all times because in defence procurement the best can easily become the enemy of the good in an ever-escalating procurement cost environment. If we accept that premise—and my hon. Friend does so—then we accept that there is a rôle for intermediate performance aircraft.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rightly said that modern front-line high performance equipment is far too sophisticated and, above all, costly for reservists. I assure him that we do not seek to equip reserve squadrons with such equipment but we believe that there is a need for a pool of partially trained manpower because, as in the Battle of Britain, pilots are harder to replace than aircraft. It takes much longer to train a modern operational pilot than to build the most sophisticated aeroplane. We should seek to build a new comprehensive air reserve structure rather like the Royal Naval Reserve and the Army's Territorial force.

I would welcome in the review which is going on an examination of the idea of creating a single reserve from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. I do not believe that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, for all the fine work it performs in the No. 18 (Maritime) Group of Strike Command and the maritime control units and all the good work done by its officers and men, should continue as it is at present. It would be better if it were combined with the Volunteer Reserve and we created a new Royal Air Force reserve.

I saw an admirable advertisement in a flying magazine for such an organisation which exists in the United States. It said: Land yourself a great job at weekends. Remember back when the first love of your life was flying or perhaps secretly still is. It pointed out that there is a requirement for ex-military personnel who had had short service commissions to give of their experience and provide an expansion capability for the United States Air Force, which the Royal Air Force needs just as much. Looking to the future, with fixed targets of defence spending and with the graph of manpower costs ever rising, we must adopt new policies to whittle down our manpower costs and enable us to buy the sophisticated equipment we need. If we make that sort of study we must come to the conclusion that more can be done by reservists, and that thereby we shall not be forced to spend more on defence, something which is politically difficult at this time.

I must try to allay the notion that it is high performance aircraft I want. It is nothing of the sort. I envisage something like the Strikemaster. Perhaps obsolescent or redundant Jet Provosts could be used in the interim, but ultimately we must harmonise our equipment for the Reserve and for Training Command so that the New Jet Trainer becomes equipment for the reserve and the Siai Marchetti S260 becomes the equipment for the basic flying schools, the university air squadrons and the basic flights of the Reserve. That would be cost-effective and exceedingly rational.

I must emphasise that the Government realise the importance of extending the Services' influence within the community. In the chapter on Reserve Forces in the Statement on the Defence Estimates we read in the very first paragraph: The significance of the Reserve Forces extends far beyond their essential military rôle. They, and the Cadet Forces, are among the most important of the links between the Services and the civil community. From the Services' point of view this brings advantages in terms of recruiting. But that is only part of the benefit: anything that helps to root the Armed Forces more firmly in the wider community, which they exist to serve, is of mutual value. My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the work being done by the professional staffs of the Royal Air Force recruiting services, and he gave as examples their bases in the North-East and in the North-West. My comment is how very much better it would be to have, let us say, a Northumbrian squadron and a Lancastrian squadron in the Royal Air Force Reserve training a few people ab initio, and giving some of the people in those areas of relatively high unemployment something useful to do and providing a chance of community service by the youth there. It would be a unit rather like the local Territorial unit, in which all could take pride.

I attended one of the exhibitions at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in August of last year mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I wrote to tell him how excellent it was. A better demonstration of the Royal Air Force's capability and of the worthwhileness of the Service as a career for any young man one could not wish to see, but it would be even better if people were given an opportunity for part-time service in their locality. It is quite wrong that the Royal Air Force, alone of the three Services, should suffer from that lack.

We have had a most interesting debate, but I regret the passing of the old debates on the individual Defence Estimates. I also regret the fact that we do not have a single Service breakdown of defence expenditure, because that is needed if these debates are to be made meaningful. But I welcome the fact that on our Front Bench we have our very own Minister for the Royal Air Force. It is most admirable that each Service should have its own political head to whom it can turn. That is good and right for morale.

I take issue directly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), with whose article on this subject in The Times I wholeheartedly disagree. I am glad that we have my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, particularly as such a reorganisation has been good not only for morale but also for reducing expenditure in the central administration of defence to the tune of no less than £23,000.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I am a little baffled by the enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) for having his very own Minister for the Royal Air Force because it seems to me that the logic of the White Paper that has just been produced by his Government leads one to think that the days of individual Service Ministers have gone, as they did under my right hon. Friends, and that the set-up in the White Paper lends itself to a Defence Ministry as such rather than to individual Ministers. On the issue of reserves, the hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, thinks that a return to the Trenchardian system of a large number of short-service officers and a small elite holding permanent commissions would benefit both the regular R.A.F. and the Reserves. He told us that the lessons of the past are too easily forgotten. But I ask: which lessons? The scheme we have heard about may at first sight look attractive—indeed, it was doubtless the optimum system until some years ago, and certainly in Lord Trenchard's time and long after—but can it be said that it at all holds water now?

It cannot apply today for reasons given by the Minister in his distinction between the need for pilots and the need for ground staff. The cost of pilot training is such that for reasons of economy full-time R.A.F. regular pilots already receive less training than one would wish to see, and the Minister himself states that it costs nearly as much to get a reservist pilot trained as it does a man in regular service. For all the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) and by the Minister himself, I should have thought that this idea was not valid. Nor am I impressed by what the hon. Member for Bradford, West had to say about the Israelis and the rôle of their Israeli reserve, because their reserves are regularly in action. The Swiss Air Force is based on a conscription system and to that extent is totally different from our own.

Perhaps in winding up the debate one should turn first to the subject of recruiting. It would be churlish of us on this side not to welcome the good figures, but equally, if we are being generous, could not a little more generosity have been displayed from the other side about the introduction by my right hon. Friends of the military salary? Would one be wrong in believing that the principle of the miltary salary had something to do with the good recruiting figures?

The sombre fact is, as Members from Wales and Scotland know very well, that as soon as unemployment reaches a certain critical level it leads to more recruits. They may often be high calibre recruits, they may be young men who, above all, do not want to be idle, but the truth is that once unemployment reaches a certain level recruiting becomes better, as does the quality of recruit. That ought to be said when we are dwelling on the better recruitment figures.

Preventing unnecessary wastage is at least as important as creating conditions for satisfactory recruitment. There is the very real human problem, as the Royal Air Force knows, of legitimate career expectations. There is a career pyramid, and my forecast is that during the 70s the base of the career pyramid is likely to be narrower rather than broader. Understandably, the feeling may develop that a man should get out of the R.A.F. while there is still time to retrain and someone is likely to want him in civilian life. I have no magic panacea for this problem, but it is worth making a number of reflections.

There could be a far closer understanding between the R.A.F. and the civil airlines. This is not to imply that B.E.A., B.O.A.C. or, for that matter, private operators do not take on some R.A.F. personnel and display due sympathy and consideration when approached. Of course they do. But the nub is whether a man who has served in the R.A.F. can enter employment with the civil airlines at the level of seniority commensurate with his service. My information is that this simply does not happen. The contention is that if some feed-in to the civil airlines at a suitable level could be established, R.A.F. personnel in their thirties would become less edgy about their careers and stay in the Service for as long as they were wanted in the knowledge that they could make the transfer to civil work without loss of earnings or status.

This assumes particular importance in view of what the Minister said about a possible shortage of pilots in the late 1970s. Such a meaningful link between the R.A.F. and the civil airlines makes additional good sense when each is faced with training costs rising at an exponential rate. An R.A.F. jet pilot may require training to the value of about £250,000, and it really does not make much sense to ask him to become a salesman or a market gardener in his thirties.

I specifically ask the Government whether they are happy about the civil airline licensing arrangements for ex-R.A.F. pilots. My information is that a Royal Air Force pilot, even though he may be flying Britannias or VC10s, has to go through expensive and archaic licensing arrangements. There have been concessions—let us give credit where credit is due—on the ground examinations for Air Support Command pilots. This is a step in the right direction, but what is required is a formula whereby Service flying experience is related to civil flying hours, so that a Service pilot does not necessarily have to start at the bottom of the seniority ladder. Such a coherent programme would require the co-operation of the airline pilots' unions, and I ask the Government what plans they have, if any, to talk to B.A.L.P.A. and the other unions involved.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am glad to see him on the Front Bench. Is he aware that it is the State corporations which make it most difficult for an ex-Service pilot to have the sort of responsibilities which are commensurate with his past experience as a military pilot? It takes about nine years for a pilot to get a captaincy in B.O.A.C. whereas in an independent airline it takes about two years to get a captaincy of a BAC111. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman is arguing for just such a reserve system as I am advocating. With short service commissions there would be no reluctance to go into civil flying, and it would be possible to train reserve civilian pilots cheaply as well as military pilots.

Mr. Dalyell

The truth is that there has been perhaps a lack of initiative by most, if not all, parties involved. There is a new problem here. I am not particularly interested in past fault but in the future, and I am saying to the Govenment that now that this situation has arisen—particularly the shortage of pilots in the late 1970s to which the Minister referred—this is the time to get on a firm basis. We could get into a long argument about the responsibilities of State airlines versus private operators. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the conditions under which some private operators work make it easier for them to take on people at short notice if only because their career structure is younger.

It is not only the civil airlines which should have the responsibility of helping the legitimate career expectations of Servicemen. Government Departments and private industry should become more used to taking on Servicemen at all levels. Some of us on this side are convinced that far more could be done in the public service, in spite of the long and detailed letters we have received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to integrate a Service career with that of some sectors of the Inland Revenue.

With the raising of the school-leaving age, more could be done to attract ex-Servicemen to teaching, not least for what they could contribute to schools—and I am not referring to barrack-room discipline. The schools can well do with a leavening of teachers whose career pattern has not been that of school, college, back to school—from one side of the teachers' desk to the other. The Serviceman with a varied experience has something to offer.

What has become of the Inter-departmental Committee between Defence and Education? I am not suggesting that it has become moribund, but under my right hon. Friends it was an active committee, and we have not heard much about it recently.

I listened with interest to what the Minister said about implementing the ideas of the last Government about creating a mid-career point at 38. We fully endorse this and the findings of Sir Derek Hodgkison and his Committee. It is right to delay selection for a full career until late in the 30s, and it is particularly satisfactory that this should do away with the two grades of officers.

I should like to refer to another scheme introduced by my right hon. Friends, and that is the starred mechanic scheme. It is particularly relevant because the Minister said his chief worry about manpower in the R.A.F. was in the engineering branch. The starred mechanic scheme offers young mechanics a guarantee of fitter training within the first two years of entry into the R.A.F. Not only does this increase the number of available fitters, but I have talked to young men who have a high opinion of the training they receive. I can claim some knowledge of these matters. As one goes round industry in these circles there is a wide view that the standard of technical training achieved in the Services is not paralleled, and is certainly not bettered, in any sector of private or public industry. I should like to put on record the high regard many of us have for the level of training, particularly in the Royal Air Force, that is given to young mechanics.

Of no less importance than the training of entrants are the opportunities for existing personnel. It is encouraging to hear of the success with the upgrading of manpower from lower to very highly skilled trades. I ask the Government for a progress report on the Mechanic Apprentice Scheme initiated by my right hon. Friends in October, 1969.

Incidentally, on the repercussions of raising the school-leaving age, I agree that there are problems for the Forces. I do not know whether I can speak on behalf of the official Opposition on this, but my party, or most of it, totally rejects the proposition that 16-year-olds should be allowed, when the school-leaving age is raised, to leave early—that is, at 15—for work in the Services. This is not the view of most of my hon. Friends, I suspect, and the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is unacceptable to us. The Government might wish to comment on whether they would entertain this suggestion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

It was not just a question of work. It involved work and education in parallel within the Service.

Mr. Dalyell

I would certainly give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the benefit of any doubt, but the principle of allowing people away from school at under 16 years of age is totally unacceptable to us.

I have heard a great deal about resettlement courses and the imaginative and sensible way in which they are run. It is true that the interviews by resettlement officers two years before a man leaves the Services are valuable when they happen, but the fact is that for one reason or another they do not universally happen. Some of us feel that a resettlement course of four weeks is inadequate. If a man has served his country in the Royal Air Force for a number of years, surely he has a minimum entitlement to a proper resettlement course? This may be a minimum of six months. It must be recognised that a long-term Serviceman is owed an opportunity to be retrained for a civilian career.

Equally, on the matter of pensions, the sort of intelligent young man whom one wishes to see in the Royal Air Force will be long-sighted enough to want to know that his pension will be parallel to that of his contemporary in college. Therefore, apart from the justice of the matter, the aim should be that pensions and gratuities should be brought more into line in the Services with the civilian equivalent.

On the matter of welfare, a number of hon. Members have experience that when a man leaves the Services he faces a housing problem. There has been correspondence between various hon. Members and the Department on this matter, and I should like to put on record the fact that it is difficult for a number of local authorities with long housing lists of their own to give priority to Service applicants. We ask only for parity. However, at the same time there is a vast difference between the way in which some local authorities treat Service applications and the way they are treated by others. I hope that perhaps the time has come for a repeat of the circular which was sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1965 to local authorities on the subject of Service housing. Perhaps now, in 1971, there could be another circular.

Mr. Onslow

I was responsible for stimulating the then Government to re-circulate that circular in 1965 since it was a circular which had been issued a number of years earlier. I suggest that it might be more helpful if there were to be a review of the work which has taken place since then, which is considerable in those areas where there are large Service establishments, stressing the rôle played by voluntary bodies in helping to overcome these difficult problems.

Mr. Dalyell

Perhaps Ministers would reflect on what both parties have done in this respect. It may well be the subject of parliamentary questions.

I welcome the fact that the payment of separation allowances is to be liberalised. On the provision of quarters the Minister almost apologised to the House as if he were raising a trivial matter, but it is a matter of some importance. I recently visited the Royal Air Force establishment at Lossiemouth. Anybody who has recently visited that camp knows the need for 90 officers quarters and 600 other-ranks quarters. I welcomed what the Minister had to say on this topic. I hope that he will be able to impose on the Department his ideas about better quarters, the modernisation of barrack blocks, with built-in furniture and all the rest. These may sound somewhat trivial matters but those of us who have paid visits to the forces know that they are far from trivial.

Had the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) been present, I had intended to raise the subject of the repair and maintenance of aircraft on board carriers as between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. Since the hon. Gentleman is not here I will not comment on that matter other than to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester accused his own Front Bench of giving evasive answers. Some of us are curious to know what the Government will say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this rather important question.

I should like to raise the question of language training in the forces, which has assumed an importance in the mind of a number of senior Royal Air Force officers. It is an important factor in any effort to increase contact with the forces of our European allies that we should have personnel who possess adequate fluency in an appropriate language. There are two basic requirements. The first is to have a large number of people with a basic knowledge sufficient for the individual to converse readily on everyday affairs so that he may be adequately understood in any area in which there are few English speakers—in other words, individuals who possess a colloquial knowledge of a language. The second is to have a moderate number of officers with real fluency, so enabling the individual concerned to discuss the specialised topics to the full range of his military and technical knowledge.

Since English and French are the official N.A.T.O. languages, it could be argued that improvement in ability within a Service to speak French is all that is required. This would be a foolish attitude since it ignores the importance in the alliance of Germany and Italy. It would be sensible to concentrate on French and German, and perhaps later Italian, but in the short-term might we not provide greater incentives to those with the opportunity and inclination for language study in the way of improved training facilities, financial help at public expense if a Serviceman wishes to learn a specific language and improved financial reward for those who possess language skills?

Another possibility might be to offer some financial inducement to a Service undergraduate to spend his long vacation studying a N.A.T.O. language. Long-term leisure might include more language study at officer cadet colleges, though it would have to be tied in with other curricula requirements, including the need to keep the course at reasonable length. For potential liaison officers and serious linguists post-college courses may be necessary.

The demands of existing professional training in all three Services bear heavily upon the individual's ability for productive employment and often upon his leisure. The extra personal effort required to obtain and keep up a language qualification must be clearly justified in terms of both requirement and reward. If this seems esoteric, in reality the question of language capability is an important practical problem if we are to have meaningful European defence co-operation and greater ease of working with European allies in operational and staff environments. Perhaps a system of rewards for language achievement would also help to show our allies that we are taking practical steps in support of Britain's expressed objective of furthering European defence co-operation.

The whole issue of equipment is better left to the Government White Paper and to the debate on the Transfer of Functions Order. However, certain points have been raised in this debate on this matter. The Minister mentioned the ques- tion of flying simulators, and, granted the expense of training, we would like to hear more about it.

The Minister talked about the increase in efficiency of the Phantom in its conventional rôle. Those of us who have followed these matters closely know the vast expense of installing a British engine in the Phantom, which is basically an American aircraft. If greater efficiency has been achieved we welcome it but this seems to be a throwaway of some significance.

I also welcome what was said about the Puma, the Anglo-French helicopter. It contrasts with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester about international collaboration. I should have thought that both the Puma and the decision which one hopes will be taken soon on the medium-lift helicopter will counteract what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

The speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), whatever else one may think about it, must be taken notice of. The hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, must realise that the rumours he mentioned are potentially very damaging. This debate may not have attracted many hon. Members but it will be read in Europe and by industry, and if hon. Members say about the M.R.C.A. the kind of things that were said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East, they should realise that they have a certain responsibility in raising the subject.

Now that this has gone into print, I say to the Government that either they have to scotch as being false what was said by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East or they must make a fairly full statement, and, in particular, we must have some kind of answer to the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Germans were ordering only 250 M.R.C.A.s instead of the intended 600. This all adds up to the need for more progress reports on the M.R.C.A. and endorses what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, that nothing has been said to Parliament about this aircraft since July of last year, and that because of its importance it is about time that we had some kind of regular progress report.

I have one more question to ask on equipment. There is in the White Paper a full statement which I think many hon. Members will welcome, about procurement, and controllers but I am bothered about this, and so are some members of the Royal Air Force and those in the Scientific Civil Service. If there is to be a career in procurement, to what extent will it be open to R.A.F. officers? Are the controllers as members of the Army, Navy and R.A.F. Board to be members of the Service? If they are to be, what about morale in that it will affect plum jobs of the Scientific Civil Service? These questions are of some concern to people affected outside, and the earlier a statement is made on this the better.

It has been said that no debate on this subject would be complete without a brief reference to the Meteorological Office. Perhaps some mention should be made of the progress in the installation of the I.B.M. 360, the 195 model, which I think resulted from the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, and which comes into service later this year.

In talking about the Meteorological Office, I think that some mention should be made of its climatological service to help contractors in the joint Anglo-French Upper Air Station in the New Hebrides, and plans for a world-wide network of ocean observing stations. We welcome the work which is being entered into with U.N.E.S.C.O. and W.M.O.

Another relatively minor but important point is R.A.F. OPMACC. The Minister talked about service participation in public life and OPMACC is part of it. One thinks of the work done by the Royal Air Force in studying the changing patterns of vegetation, the control of pests, the development of engineering projects, and the surveys of damage done by natural disasters. I shall not claim any party advantage, but this was all started under the imaginative schemes launched by my right hon. Friend, and we would like some kind of progress report. No Scottish or Welsh Member of Parliament can be unaware of the excellent work done by the Royal Air Force in mountain rescue work and, indeed, in rescues at sea. Perhaps this all increases the number of interesting jobs done by the Service.

I now propose to mention one other smallish point. There was a letter to The Times by Sir Dermot Boyle about the Royal Air Force Museum and the Handley Page models, plans and designs. As one who had some interest in the Handley Page firm, I can say that many hon. Members value this kind of collection and feel that it should be kept in its entirety. Perhaps the Government might help a private purchaser to put it in the Royal Air Force Museum that is being built up. I am in favour of this kind of thing, in the same way that I signed a Motion hoping to preserve the cruiser "Belfast". Whether we like it or not, this is all a unique part of our history, and it should be preserved, in the same way that stately homes or ancient castles are preserved. This is part of our history, and I hope that this collection will not be broken up.

I now come to an important part of the Minister's speech and to the theme of part of what my right hon. Friend said. It is the whole argument of quality versus quantity. In the coming year, before the next Royal Air Force debate, we must look hard at the whole philosophy of quality versus quantity. The idea that only the best is good enough for our boys may sound very fine as a slogan, as a cliché, but it means that often we find ourselves with a relatively small number of highly sophisticated, rather vulnerable, very expensive aircraft, when the job could be better done by a larger number of less sophisticated aircraft. This is really a question whether the best can well be the enemy of the good, and in terms both of finance and of strategy it is important that this issue should be examined. The question arises where to draw the line between sophostication and simplicity to achieve maximum cost effectiveness, and I hope that in the coming debates on the White Paper, and elsewhere, attention will be paid by the Government and those responsible for strategy and finance to this extremely vexed problem.

I think that it is traditional for a speaker from this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the work done by those in the R.A.F. who serve this country in many capacities. Whatever my views on strategy have been from time to time, I have been second to none in being concerned about the welfare of those who are in the Service. I welcomed the introduction of the military salary, and from visiting the Service one can see the good fortune that this country has in being served by a great number of high quality people.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Lambton

With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the debate.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has made an interesting speech. Today's debate has been marked by no great animosity of any kind, but rather a desire by hon. Members on both sides of the House to improve the lot, the equipment and, generally speaking, the life, of those in the Royal Air Force.

The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that I had, as it were, damned the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) with faint praise. I certainly did not mean to do that, and I thought that in the way I referred to certain of the schemes introduced by the right hon. Member having come to fruition I was showing an appreciation of the work that he had done.

This debate, like most debates in the House, has been noteworthy for the fact that not one Member of the Liberal Party has attended the whole of it, and regrettably we have not had one speech from the back benches opposite. That is rather a pity, but we on this side have made up for it with four speeches of high quality.

The debate has been marked by something which I have always noticed happens when there is a small attendance. There has been an absolute spate of questions. Whenever there are only a few Members present, all those who are here seem to pluck up courage to ask every question they have in mind. I am therefore faced with a number of questions, and if I were to answer them all I should keep the House here all night.

I should like to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I was asked about the Inter-departmental Committee on Education and Defence—I have forgotten its exact name—which is still in existence and meets quarterly.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that recruiting was good. I think that recruiting bore out the prophecy which the right hon. Member for Aberavon made last year. I hope that it continues to be maintained.

The hon. Member for West Lothian also mentioned housing and the local authorities circular and whether we considered re-issuing the circular. We shall be prepared to reconsider this matter. The hon. Gentleman mentioned languages in the R.A.F. This matter is under consideration and progress rather on the lines on which he spoke is going ahead.

The hon. Gentleman asked for more detailed information about simulators. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very complicated subject. More simulators are coming into service in the R.A.F. If he would like the precise numbers and dates I will inform him at a later time. This is a method by which it may be possible to economise to a certain degree on air training in future. The R.A.F. is aware of it and is determined to press on with as much simulator training as possible, taking into consideration at the same time the necessity for actual flying practice. One has to match these two factors together.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the starred mechanics system. This scheme continues to work well. As the hon. Gentleman said, its value lies in its raising of the mechanic skill to the higher grade of fitter. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman at a later date giving him up-to-date figures.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned what he called the balance between quantity and quality. I can only repeat what I said earlier. We have to try to get the right balance. I believe that there are two schools of thought: one which suggests that we should have numbers without sophistication and the other that we should have sophistication without numbers. Obviously both schools are wrong. We need to find a precise balance. I repeat that, with rising costs, there could come a danger period in future if we considered that every plane had to be technically perfectly up to date, as it were. I believe that we must find the right balance.

The right hon. Member for Aberavon also asked a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer as I go along. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up every point which he raised.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our Air Force contribution to the Five Power defence arrangements in South East Asia. In the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy we announced that this will consist of a continuous detachment of Nimrod long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and a small number of Whirlwind helicopters. The right hon. Gentleman particularly wanted to know when these planes would go into service. They are planned to go into service either later this year or early next year. As the House has since been told, the Nimrods, together with their air crews, will serve on rotation from this country. The arrangement is flexible and the number of aircraft in the theatre will vary up to four. The number of Whirlwinds to be stationed in the theatre has not finally been settled, but it will be about half a dozen.

Their purpose will be to complement the contribution being made by the other four Powers. The Nimrod will provide a highly advanced capability for maritime reconnaissance which we are better placed to provide than the other four Powers. The Whirlwinds will supply air support for ground forces in the theatre.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed concerned that the Nimrod contribution would be at the expense of our European capability. He must not forget that this is a flexible arrangement which I have described. Taking account of the high mobility of the R.A.F., we should be able to return the aircraft to N.A.T.O. very quickly should the need arise.

The right hon. Gentleman asked when it was hoped that the Jaguars would go into service. All aircraft have certain technological upsets in production. The Jaguar has been no exception. However, its development has not been too unusually disturbed for an aircraft of such complexity. I am hopeful that such difficulties as remain will be sorted out in the not too distant future.

Mr. Onslow

Those who recall the difficulties which the Jaguar experienced at Farnborough last year in making a satisfactory lighting of its after burner will be reassured to know that this problem is expected to be overcome.

Mr. Lambton

In this House one never goes into what specific problems are under way, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are hopeful that the problems which have faced the Jaguar are being overcome.

There have been comments in the Press about escalating costs, but these have not been altogether accurate. We hope that the Jaguars will come into service in about two years from now.

The right hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned the new jet trainer. This trainer is still being considered. Both B.A.C. and H.S.A. have submitted proposals for meeting our requirements. There is also the Franco-German Alpha Jet plane. These are being carefully evaluated to make sure that we make the best choice. There will not be any avoidable delay.

Another matter which has been raised concerns sales of this trainer. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking particularly concentrated on this point. This i3 a relevant factor when considering a new trainer. One of the advantages of getting a good number of sales for an aircraft is that one gets it cheaper oneself.

I agree that the Hunter is a good example of this. This aeroplane sold extremely well throughout the world and the result was a highly economic aircraft for us. In other words, because it was popular abroad, we were able to get it at a reasonable price. This shows the importance of the new jet trainer being of a type which is easily convertible for use by other countries, and I assure the House that this point is very much in mind.

A number of hon. Members spoke about the M.R.C.A. and asked for a definite statement to be made. I suggest that this is not really the time for such a statement to be made, though I am prepared to amplify on this. The last thing we want to convey in the House, bearing in mind the progress review which with the other countries we will be making later in the summer, is the belief that we may be reconsidering the adoption of this aircraft.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the great importance of this aircraft to the R.A.F., as did the right hon. Member for Aberavon. They said that we want to see the power of the M.R.C.A. as a sort of constituent of any future R.A.F. It would be wrong, therefore, for someone suddenly and unexpectedly to produce a statement which might convey the feeling that we were reconsidering our decision to go ahead with the M.R.C.A. I assure the House that there has been no such reconsideration on our part and that we have every intention of going ahead with the programme as planned.

Mr. John Morris

Could the hon. Gentleman indicate when a full statement will be made?

Mr. Lambton

I should say the best time for such a statement would be about July, after the progress review by the countries engaged in building the M.R.C.A.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) spoke of some rumours, which might be said to have had a certain sinister ring about them, concerning the M.R.C.A. I assure him that I know nothing of such rumours. The German authorities announced in their Defence White Paper last year that they did not expect to require more than about 420 and that they would be considering the purchase of other aircraft which would be needed to replace part of their F104 force well before the M.R.C.A. went into service. I do not believe that they have changed their position since then.

There is no question, however, of ordering aircraft at this stage. We are still in the M.R.C.A. development at the initial development stage and production commitments will not arise for some time. All that the partners have done is to give an estimate of their expected requirements. Any question of a change in those estimates is purely hypothetical at this stage. As for the Germans being concerned about the cost of the M.R.C.A., every country is concerned about costs. This aspect will be reviewed later in the summer.

My only comment about Rolls-Royce at this stage is that the RB 199 shows great promise and I am sure that the recent problems of Rolls-Royce will not interfere with its successful development.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

Is my hon. Friend saying that there will be a measure of flexibility in how the final contract may be drawn, so that we might get a larger share of the avionic work?

Mr. Lambton

The detail has not been finally settled. There must, of course, always be give and take when one gets down to the small percentages.

The question of Rolls-Royce is, basically, not really one for my Department, though there is no use pretending that all aero engines in use by the Service are not of Rolls-Royce origin. Thus, we are dependent on Rolls-Royce for the supply of spares and for the overhaul and repair of aero engines. The collapse of the company has not had an adverse effect on the capability of the R.A.F. The nationally-owned company, Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., was registered on 23rd February, is now operating satisfactorily and is meeting R.A.F. requirements. As I say, this is a matter for Departments other than mine.

I agree that sales are of utmost importance. I was asked about helicopters other than the Pumas, with which I dealt in my opening speech. The R.A.F. requirement for the Lynx and Gazelle is much smaller than that of the other Services. However, the development of both machines continues and the R.A.F. expects the Gazelle to be introduced into service in 1972. The Lynx has recently flown and it is hoped to introduce it into service in 1973. As for the introduction of the Rapier, this year's Defence Estimates and Statement made it clear that it would be introduced into Army service for training in the coming year; and its introduction into the R.A.F. will follow in due course.

I have already answered some of the questions posed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). He asked me to compare the pay of a pilot flying a VC10 for B.O.A.C. between Singapore and London with the pay of a R.A.F. pilot making the same journey. The B.O.A.C. pilot is paid a great deal more, and if my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to find out the precise figure I will be able to do so only by asking B.O.A.C. for the details and comparing the two.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Can my hon. Friend say how many R.A.F. pilots join B.O.A.C. after having been trained by, and doing service with, the R.A.F.?

Mr. Lambton

Not without notice.

Mr. Lewis

It is quite a number.

Mr. Lambton

We acknowledge that quite a number have left the R.A.F. for the more advantageous pay offered by B.O.A.C. This is one of the problems facing the R.A.F.

I was then asked how many local education authorities refuse to allow recruiting officers into their schools. My noble Friend has recently answered a Question on this subject. I understand that about 12 schools operate some kind of restriction on R.A.F. recruiters but that there is an outright ban in only two or three schools.

Another question which my hon. and gallant Friend raised was one which he might more appropriately have raised next week in the naval debate. This is the question of the sea routes between here and the Far East. It is not possible to answer this question until many things have been considered. The whole question of Harriers for maritime operation has not been brought to a conclusion. One factor in the studies is the series of sea trials. The forthcoming trials from the "Ark Royal" will investigate the implications of deploying such aircraft in operational environment. Not until the proper answer to these questions are received will it be possible to give a full and detailed reply to my hon. and gallant Friend. My hon. and gallant Friend may be content to leave the matter until the trials are completed so that more effective data are available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West wanted to extend the rôle of the Lightnings. I doubt if that would be a cost-effective manoeuvre. The Lightning is an old plane. It is no secret that Lightings have from time to time caused a considerable amount of trouble. The suggestion that the rôle of the Lightnings in Defence Command should be extended would not endear itself to the R.A.F. or to any economist who made a study of the problem.

My hon. Friend also asked why reserves are possible in certain countries, but not in Britain. The countries my hon. Friend mentioned as having satisfactory flying reserves were the U.S.A., Israel and Switzerland, all of whose reserves were maintained at a professional standard. My hon. Friend must have worked hard to have found it possible to quote such countries. Each of those countries—certainly Switzerland and Israel—has a very different system from that of our voluntary recruiting system. Switzerland has a system of conscription utterly unlike the system we operate. The reserves of other countries cannot be compared with our reserves.

Mr. Wilkinson

I also mentioned the South Africans and the Canadians. The Canadians are of particular interest, because they are an all-professional force, like our own. They have a large number of reserve squadrons with intermediate type equipment. They have Otters.

Mr. Lambton

I can only repeat the argument which has been adduced from both Front Benches that it is not worth spending nearly £¼ million to make a reserve pilot fully operational and then not be able to give him a plane to fly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised the question of repairs being handed out to industry. Although this is a wider question than I would wish to deal with tonight, I stress that the question must sometimes be considered, not so much from the industrial point of view as from the Service point of view. In the past it has been disheartening for the Services to see small repair and replacement jobs which they could have done effectively in their own workshops handed out to industry. A balance must be maintained and both sides of the case should always be considered.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

My hon. Friend has answered most of my questions, but not the most important one, namely, the question of Admiral O'Brien.

Mr. Lambton

This is a question which I was waiting for my hon. and gallant Friend to ask. The story which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph and which was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend was untrue. Admiral O'Brien is retiring later this year in the normal way and has voiced no disagreement with the Government's policy. He himself is very upset at the story and did his best to stop its being published. The paper withdrew the story from later editions, and it is a pity that my hon. and gallant Friend did not see the later editions.

I have covered as many questions as I could. It has been rather like reading out a catalogue, but so much of the debate was not a question of speech making but a question of answering one question after another.

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.