Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft

HC Deb 26 November 1974 vol 882 cc220-3

6. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest development cost of the MRCA; and if he will make a statement.

11. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce an estimate of the total cost for Great Britain of the multi-rôle combat aircraft project and the cost per aircraft; and whether, in the light of the announcement that the second phase of development is to take place, a final decision has been taken to proceed to construct 385 aircraft for his Department.

Mr. William Rodgers

I would refer my hon. Friends to the information on costs and numbers which I gave in my answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) on 22nd November.—[Vol. 881, c. 529–30.] Two prototype aircraft are now flying and the second stage of development which we entered on 1st October is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Whitehead

Is my hon. Friend aware that his hon. Friends on this side are usually divided into three categories concerning the MRCA—those who wish to see it built whatever the cost, those who do not wish to see it built whatever the cost, and those who wish to see it built if it can be economically justified— and that I fall into the last category? Will my hon. Friend, as a contribution to the debate that we shall be having on the project on 3rd December and subsequently, also publish as well as that Written Answer the estimates that have been given to the appropriate committee of the Bundestag and the North Atlantic Assembly?

Mr. Rodgers

I always appreciate the wit and wisdom of my hon. Friend, and I will go as far as I can to help him. I have been looking for several months to get precise indications of this information which is supposed to have been given to other bodies, but so far I have found no hard information available other than that which we published in September and which I repeated in an answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen last week.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison

Some of us have been to Germany and seen this prototype and the excellent work on the start of rationalisation between the three countries. The RAF is extremely keen and anxious to have it in flight in this country. Whatever way the cost is put in this question, may I ask the Minister not to overlook the prime need of the RAF?

Mr. Rodgers

Of course we shall not overlook the needs of the RAF. We must, however, bear in mind the cost, and this is always in our minds. But we should remember that there are facts and there is speculation, and there has been a great deal more speculation about this aircraft than there have been facts.

Mr. Allaun

If the second stage of the Channel Tunnel is to proceed without any commitment to build it, can we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that there will be similarly no commitment to a final go-ahead with the MRCA, which would cost far more than the Channel Tunnel? Secondly, will not this colossal expenditure interfere with the defence review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since it would pre-empt so much of the expenditure?

Mr. Rodgers

With regard to my hon. Friend's last question, we must wait and see. What priority should be accorded to the MRCA in the light of other economies which we are making in the defence review will certainly be a proper subject for debate in the House. But I do not think that comparison with the Channel Tunnel would be legitimate, even if it were proper for me to comment on it. The important thing is to consider the rôle of this aircraft, the need for it and the cost, and on that basis we shall decide in what circumstances and to what extent we shall go ahead.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the shortage of facts and the excess of speculation. Remembering his preference for open government in these matters, which he has always expressed, can he help the House by publishing as quickly as possible even more of the estimates of the cost of the project?

Mr. Rodgers

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the facts have been published here and that the speculation is elsewhere. It would be wrong for any Government at any time to try to answer speculation, whatever it is and wherever it is, and to take the pace which someone else has set. The Government have already undertaken to publish more information if we can do so.

Mr. Robin F. Cook

May I remind my hon. Friend that the report of the Expenditure Committee in February urged him to evaluate the use of unmanned missiles as an alternative to the air defence rôle of the MRCA? In his observations on that report he promised to do so as part of the defence review. Now that he has given the go-ahead for the next phase of the MRCA before the defence review is completed, can we have an assurance that this evaluation was carried out, particularly in view of the successful use of missiles in the last Middle East war?

Mr. Rodgers

I appreciate the very shrewd and relevant point that my hon. Friend makes. He may take it for granted that we are always evaluating manned aircraft against the alternatives.

Mr. Younger

Will not the hon. Gentleman come clean about the facts of this aircraft? Does he agree that all the facts that we have suggest that this aircraft is outstandingly good value for money and considerably cheaper than any of its possible rivals?

Mr. Rodgers

I can go further and say that it reflects great credit on the designers, craftsmen and all the workers in this country who are involved on a very important project indeed.