§ 14. Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what interest has been shown by what other countries in the advanced Harrier; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is produced in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. JohnThe United States have shown particular interest in the advanced Harrier and we are engaged with them in joint feasibility studies. No firm decision on the development and production of the aircraft has yet been taken by either Government.
§ Mr. MillerWill the hon. Gentleman seek to ensure that when the decision is taken a reasonable proportion of the production will take place in this country, thus ensuring, particularly for firms in my constituency, the retention of skilled design teams which have been so painstakingly built up?
§ Mr. JohnThe retention of work will depend on the decisions that are finally taken. I know that Hawker Siddeley and Rolls-Royce have played full parts in the joint studies and that they have full commercial agreements with their American counterparts, which should ensure what the hon. Gentleman wants.
§ Mr. DalyellCan my hon. Friend comment on the report by Air Commodore Donaldson that Harriers will be based on oil rigs?
§ Mr. JohnI have difficulty in speculating on the truth of Air Commodore Donaldson's reports. This is an entirely different Question from the one dealing with the advanced Harrier, which is in an entirely different time scale.
§ 19. Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the introduction of the naval Harrier and the export orders that such a decision would produce.
§ Mr. JuddI have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 21st May 467 —[Vol. 874, col. 160]. We remain determined to take a decision as soon as possible within the context of the Defence Review.
§ Mr. WallIs the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a grave danger that this country will lose the advantage it gained through producing the most technically-advanced aircraft in the world unless we order it for the Royal Navy very quickly? Has he estimated the total gain accruing to this country in export orders for this aircraft if we produce it for our Navy?
§ Mr. JuddWe recognise the value of the maritime V/STOL aircraft. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current review. Naturally the Navy is keen to have the maritime Harrier and this professional view will be taken fully into account in the context of the wider considerations which must form part of the Defence Review. In the context of that review, sales prospects will also receive attention.
§ Mr. EmeryWill the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House and to the workers at Hawker Siddeley that before the Defence Review reaches fruition there will be no laying off of men employed on Harrier production because the firm is short of contracts?
§ Mr. JuddIn assessing the effect on Hawker Siddeley I should like to emphasise that the design team is being kept together and that design work is at present continuing.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order I would much prefer that he raises it at the end of Question Time.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsThis concerns the Questions we have just dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I know that Prime Minister's Questions are important. Nevertheless, we have got through only about 19 of the Questions on the Order Paper tabled for the Secretary of State for Defence. Is this not an absolutely incredible performance? Can you not protect the rights of back benchers so that we can go a little faster?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman rose many times to try to ask supplementary questions.