HC Deb 23 July 1974 vol 877 cc1519-30

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)

Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of Coastguard search and rescue services in Thanet and East Kent.

Specifically, I wish to ask the Government whether they will reconsider their decision to disband a civilian Coastguard helicopter search and rescue unit which has been operating both successfully and economically in East Kent and Essex for the last five years and to replace it from September with a considerably more expensive Royal Air Force unit of helicopters which will be doing the same search and rescue services from the same airfield.

I believe that this decision is mad. It is significant and is worthy of the attention of the House because it not only raises points of considerable local concern but it highlights two nationally important issues—namely, an extraordinary new development in Britain's defence strategy and a serious waste of the taxpayers' money.

May I put this whole matter in perspective by giving some brief explanatory background? My constituency contains an RAF base—RAF Manston—which is largely used as an emergency diversionary airfield. Up to 1969 Manston was also used as a base for an RAF helicopter unit which carried out search and rescue duties in the East Kent area. In 1969, however, the then Government decided that there was no military need for RAF helicopters to be used at Manston, and they were withdrawn.

That withdrawal left a dangerous vacuum. A whole area of the Kent coast was without a rescue service. However, the vacuum was admirably filled by the Coastguard service working in conjunction with Bristow Helicopters Limited a private company under contract to the Department of Trade.

In passing I should like to say that no words of praise can be too high for the service that has been provided by Bristow since 1969. It is agreed on all sides that the company has done an excellent job in its rescue operations. It has consistently achieved a first-class response time, it has been winner of the Coastguard Shield and it has been admired for its dedication to duty throughout the area.

It is also worth mentioning that Bristow has achieved not only excellence but economy. Its unit consists of only 12 men, most of them ex-RAF personnel, using Whirlwind helicopters on a contract which cost the taxpayer £180,000 in the current year—

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

£184,000

Mr. Aitken

Even with the extra £4,000, that is very good value for money.

In view of the excellent and economic service provided, it is no surprise that East Kent today should be up in arms at the shabby treatment that has been meted out to Bristow by the Department of Trade in deciding to terminate its contract. Since the expulsion of Bristow was announced, there has been a wave of protest throughout the region from bodies as diverse as the Ramsgate Trades Union Council, the Sandwich Yacht Club and the Margate Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Several thousand cars are now bearing the window-sticker with the slogan "Rescue the Rescuers" and a petition has been organised in the neighbourhood which has attracted over 20,000 signatures in less than three weeks.

The decision that has triggered off all this strong local feeling, which cuts across all political lines, has arisen because the Ministry of Defence has suddenly decided that RAF helicopters are needed in East Kent. This is a most significant development, if only because it is the only recorded example of the present Government actually increasing defence spending anywhere at any time, but it is most regrettable that this munificence should, as I shall show, be such a profligate waste of the taxpayers' money.

The basic reason why the economical Bristow civilian Coastguard helicopter service is being kicked out and expensive RAF helicopters are being brought in is an alleged "military need". It must be stressed that this so-called military need is the brainchild of the present Government. As recently as 18th May last year, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), saying that there was no direct Service requirement to locate an RAF helicopter unit at Manston". However, we are now told that since Labour came to power there is suddenly a Service requirement and a military need for RAF helicopters at Manston. Naturally, some of us have been sceptical enough to press for details of this new military need. After some requests I eventually received an amazing definition of the military need from the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force.

This Minister wrote to me a letter dated 11th June saying that there were "good military reasons" for bringing RAF helicopters to Manston. The Minister's letter went on to say: The present strategy of flexible response places increased emphasis upon the flow of reinforcements to Europe in times of tension and much of this movement would take place across the Channel. It is because of this that the Air Force Board has taken the view that we need a military SAR unit in the area". This letter was indeed a startling revelation. We new that the Foreign Secretary had trodden on a few European toes in the Common Market, but we had no idea that this diplomatic activity was causing his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make plans for the invasion of France.

This military fantasy of moving invasion troop reinforcements across the Channel is made even more ridiculous by the idea that two RAF Wessex helicopters will somehow play a significant part in the invasion. The whole concept is an imaginative and creative scenario more suitable for the pop songs of Mr. Elton John or the paintings of Mr. Augustus John than the ministerial pronouncements of Mr. Brynmor John. Sensible people will have great difficulty in taking the hon. Gentleman seriously on this aspect of his policy when he defines the military need for these helicopters.

Moreover, there is a Catch-22 situation here. Ministers have attempted to reassure me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), whom I am glad to see here, that the RAF helicopters will be no less efficient in their civilian rescue operations than the present service from Bristow undoubtedly has been. However, if the military need is as menacing as the Minister would have us believe, the RAF helicopters will surely be on occasion too busy to make civilian rescues. This would be a matter of great concern if the military need genuinely existed. I suspect, however, that the only true military need is to find a home for the RAF helicopters which we now know are being pulled out of Singapore. We have all heard of jobs for the boys; now it is a case of jobs for the helicopters.

I said earlier that if and when the RAF Wessex helicopters begin operating at Manston there will be a profligate waste of taxpayers money. This allegation has been denied by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force who said in answer to a Parliamentary Question from me that the RAF service would cost a mere £28,000 more than the existing Bristow contract.

However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman's mathematics on this matter are so inaccurate as to be seriously misleading when one considers the following factors. Bristow employs 12 men on their unit whereas the RAF will be employing 31 men; the per hour operating costs of the RAF Wessex helicopters are more than twice as expensive as the Whirlwind helicopters as present operated by Bristow; and the depreciation costs of Wessex helicopters at present operated by Bristow are two and a half times more expensive than the depreciation of Whirlwind helicopters.

In short, there is no way in which the taxpayer will not be paying at least twice as much money for the RAF service for the same job that is now being done at maximum efficiency by Bristow for £180,000. Indeed, taking all the relevant factors into account I calculate that the bill for the RAF service will be not far short of £500,000 a year whereas Bristow cost the nation only £180,000 a year. I simply cannot see that there is any justification for this vast and unnecessary extra expenditure.

I should like to make it clear that what I have said in this debate is in no way a criticism of the RAF pilots or their flying standards. If the RAF helicopters come to Manston I am sure they will do an excellent job, although it will be virtually impossible for them to better the fine record of Bristow. However, I urge the Minister not to station these expensive heavy-lift Wessex helicopters of the RAF in the one spot in the United Kingdom that least requires them. Wessex helicopters are needed at bases like Lossimouth where there are long ranges to cover. They are unnecessary in the Channel area which has the shortest distances to cover.

Finally, there is above all the fear that these RAF helicopters will again be withdrawn for political or strategic reasons as they were in 1969. If there were to be another sudden RAF withdrawal it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another civilian helicopter service prepared to come in and do the job that Bristow has done, because no civilian unit will want to be vulnerable again to sudden cancellation of contracts, on the principle of "Once bitten, twice shy".

Therefore, in the interests of all the yachtsmen, swimmers, and shipping traffic of the Channel I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision and to leave the excellent helicopter service in the situation where it now is.

2.33 a.m.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Has the hon. and learned Member reached an agreement with the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and with the Minister?

Mr. Peter Rees

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Rees.

Mr. Peter Rees

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on choosing this subject for debate, and may I express my gratitude for the opportunity to take part?

My hon. Friend may appear to have raised a small matter, but it is of intense concern not only to his constituents but to mine and to all who make use of the Channel, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who would, if time had permitted have taken part in the debate.

As my hon. Friend has said, the present helicopter rescue service is good, cheap and based by contract on free enterprise. During the years 1970 to 1973 502 sorties have been flown by the present helicopters, 159 people have been rescued and, on a sadder note, 16 bodies have been recovered.

In that situation, one asks why there should be a change. Does the Minister suppose that the new arrangements would be cheaper or more effective? Nothing I want to say and nothing my hon. Friend has said is intended as in any way a reflection on the efficiency of the RAF, and one recognises that the Wessex has a wider range than the present Whirlwinds, but there must be reservations in the minds of anyone who applies himself to this.

The service to be provided by the RAF must be subject to overriding defence requirements. There will be a lack of continuity of personnel involved since, being Service personnel, they will be there only for the normal defence tour of duty of about two to two and a half years, and, additionally, there will be the greater cost of the proposed scheme. Even without depreciation and maintenance and perhaps running costs, the overall cost is likely to be in excess of £200,000 compared with the present contract figure of £184,000. In that situation I do not believe that what the Minister proposes is a good bargain for the people of the east coast of Kent. I have no doubt that the question has been closely argued between the various Departments. I suspect, however that the Coastguard Service, for the views of which I have a great respect, has been overborne in this case by the Ministry of Defence.

I hope, therefore that the Minister has preserved an open mind and will respond to the anxieties of my constituents and to the points which I and my hon. Friend have made in the debate.

2.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

I am glad that this subject has been raised, albeit at this late hour, and I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), which were somewhat more temperate than those of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). I am wholly aware of the public concern in their constituencies about this situation. The debate gives me the opportunity to try to allay that concern and to refute some of the allegations and misconceptions which have been bruited about concerning the replacement of Bristow by the Royal Air Force detachment.

It has been suggested that Bristow has suffered from shabby treatment. I shall deal with that suggestion shortly. I want to remind the House and the constituents of the hon. Member for Thanet, East that this matter has been the subject of profound consideration not only by the present Government but by the previous Government. I have little reason to doubt that if a Conservative Government were in office at present the Bristow contract would not have been renewed.

However, before coming to that matter, it is appropriate for me to pay tribute to the work which has been done by Bristow, which was recognised by the well-merited award of the Coastguard Rescue Shield in 1972. Certainly I would not for a moment wish to detract from the value of that service over the period in which Bristow has pursued the work under its contractual obligations. But, equally, it would be an injustice if the House were to be left in any doubt about the excellent service given over many years by the search and rescue detachments of the Royal Air Force. Although established primarily in support of "military requirements"—a phrase which apparently the hon. Gentleman saw fit to deride—they have provided over many years, as indeed they still do, a service of almost incalcuable benefit in the saving of civilian life.

In the past 18 months alone, Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters from bases in the United Kingdom have attended a total of 643 incidents involving civilians, in the course of which no fewer than 440 individuals have been assisted. Inshore support has been provided where appropriate by RAF marine craft units, while long-range Nimrod aircraft have carried out a considerable number of search missions in support of ships and aircraft further from our coasts. I am happy, therefore, to pay my tribute to the high standards of skill and devotion with which these tasks are invariably carried out. I am confident that the detachment soon to be re-established at Manston will measure up to these same high standards.

It is well to remember that it is only at Manston and Aberdeen that search and rescue services by helicopter are provided by organisations other than the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. This year the Bristow contract expired and the Department would have been obliged to go out to tender in order to continue a civil search and rescue helicopter service from Manston. There is no certainty—although I am bound to admit that there is a likelihood—that Bristow would have got that contract. I do not know what price Bristow would have tendered—save that I assume that it would have been in excess of £184,000, which was the sum paid for the last full year, 1973. We are not talking about the current year.

We learned of the Ministry of Defence considerations to re-establish a detachment at Manston. As I have stated, the previous Government, too, had joined in consultations about the future cover at Manston. We asked for and were given certain assurances by the Ministry of Defence, and it is right that I should refer to those assurances.

First, the RAF helicopters would be available for civilian search and rescue incidents as are other military search and rescue helicopters stationed around our coasts. Secondly, if there were a clash of incidents, as could happen even with a civilian service, the RAF was better equipped to deal with the situation because it had two helicopters immediately available rather than the ones as at present. Thirdly, the close liason with the Coastguard would be maintained by the RAF detachment. Fourthly, the Wessex helicopters of the RAF would be fitted with communications equipment providing the same links with the Coastguard and the other rescue organisations as the present civilian unit.

The Minister of Defence has given these assurances, but there were a number of additional and, I believe, apparent reasons for preferring the RAF service.

First, the Wessex helicopters are bigger and better than the Whirlwind. They can travel faster to the search area and stay there longer. They have two engines rather than one. They have a much better lifting capacity. This is not a theoretical consideration. It is based on the experience of the RAF, which operates both Wessex and Whirlwind helicopters. But most persuasive of all, as I have indicated, is that we were to be provided with two helicopters positioned at Manston whereas there is now only one with a back-up service at Redhill. I can claim, therefore, that the service to be provided by the RAF will be superior to the service presently provided.

I come now to one other matter before I deal with the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Member against the new concept. I resent the insinuation which he made time and time again, and which seems to have been part of a publicity campaign, that the motives of the Department of Trade, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, are fit to be impugned on this subject. I think that those remarks were ill-judged, but perhaps they were not the conception of the hon. Member Mr. Bristow, who is perhaps behind these insinuations, asked—

Mr. Aitken

In all fairness to Mr. Bristow, I must explain that I have had no communication with him throughout this entire matter, and the only people who have intervened with me are the pilots who are my constituents.

Mr. Davis

Mr. Bristow demanded to see me without the presence of my civil servants. It was not a request I was prepared to agree. I told him that I was prepared to see him on the normal, courteous, civilised terms on which I would meet anybody who wanted to see me, and I think that any Minister would take the same view. Mr. Bristow chose not to accept the invitation. I hope that I have not done the hon. Member an injustice. I thought that I had qualified my remarks, but I cannot believe that Mr. Bristow played no part in the campaign now going on.

The hon. Member says that the RAF service will cost twice as much. How he comes to that view I do not begin to understand.

Mr. Aitken

Two helicopters.

Mr. Davis

But the Bristow service is supposed to provide two helicopters, one with a back-up service at Redhill. Surely the hon. Member in seeking to obtain a better and more effective search and rescue service would prefer to have two helicopters operating rather than one. I do not believe that the RAF service will be more expensive for the taxpayer. In 1973 Bristow cost £184,000. The RAF detachment's costs, of course, will fall to be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not believe that it is possible to make a direct comparison of cost between the RAF and Bristow. The calculations are quite different. The Defence Department's estimated cost is £202,000 in a full year. That is based on the full pay and allowances for the 31 men at Manston and Odiham—the support base—together with the running costs, including fuel and lubricants and all spares, of the two Wessex helicopters and the supporting Land Rover vehicle. No costs are included for training or for non-effective benefits such as pensions. No allowance is made for depreciation. The aircraft concerned, as is standard RAF practice, are maintained for as long as they are in use at a 100 per cent. level of efficiency, virtually equivalent to new. That is the normal RAF method of calculating direct costs.

It is important to stress that the Defence Department's decision to incur this cost, despite the proposed defence cuts, is an indication of the importance it attaches to the unit for defence purposes. The military requirement has already been described to the hon. Gentleman in the House and in correspondence. It is a little presumptuous of the hon. Gentleman to believe that he knows all the answers to defence matters in this field. The Defence Department considers that there is a need which stems from the amount and nature of the military flying expected to take place in the future in peace time in the southern part of the North Sea and English Channel and the pattern of military aircraft movement across the North Sea and Channel in times of tension. This is not a novel conception; the previous Government were also aware of it. I can see no justification in those circumstances for operating a parallel civilian service alongside the RAF.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible withdrawal of the RAF. I cannot give a categorical assurance that the RAF will never leave Manston again, as in the situation that arose in 1969. It was not a question of saying then that there was no need for a helicopter service at Manston. It was a matter of priorities. The Defence Department has now said that the unit is to be regarded as a high priority unit, and that it will remain within those terms at Manston. One cannot give a cast-iron guarantee, but can private enterprise always assure that there will be a presence? There have been one or two examples recently where private enterprise has not been able to fulfil that sort of rôle in other fields.

I believe that the assurance we have been given—that if, in the unlikely event of an emergency arising, the RAF were bound to withdraw, it would provide us with sufficient notice to enable a satisfactory alternative service to be put into operation—is made in good faith and is reasonably acceptable.

For the reasons I have adduced, I believe that this decision is justified beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not believe that it is right to suggest that the RAF will provide a poorer service. Indeed, for the reasons I have already explained—having two aircraft available, having better aircraft available—I believe that the service will be superior.

It is suggested that perhaps the RAF does not at present have the same relationship with the Coastguard and does not have the same knowledge of this part of the coast. I assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that already the training of the new crew is in hand. It is the determination of the RAF detachment to maintain the strongest possible relationship with the Coastguard, and I have no reason to believe that this will not be accomplished, with the wealth of experience that the RAF has at its command throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

Therefore, I believe that there are compelling reasons for this new service to operate. I have heard nothing in the debate which would lead me to reconsider the decision that has been made after the most clear and profound determination by the two Departments involved and by the Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Three o'clock a.m.