THE QUEEN'S FLIGHT

HC Deb 18 February 1980 vol 979 cc200-12

Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

11.46 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to ask the Government what plans they have for re-equipping the Queen's Flight, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force for being present to reply.

There have been two debates on the subject in the other place—in 1976 and 1978—and a number of questions have been asked in this House over the years, most recently on 12 February. There has also been interest in the press.

This Flight is the most prestigious in the world. It is a rare honour for a pilot or engineer to be selected to serve in it and over the years it has been commanded by highly distinguished officers. It has given value for money. It has set the highest standards. The problem is not how to get men to work hard but how to make them stop work and go home. According to an excellent article in Flight International on 30 September 1978: The floor of the maintenance hangar at RAF Benson gleams like a ballroom. The Andovers and Wessex that stand upon it are washed daily, polished weekly and repainted every three years. The historical association of the Queen's Flight with the Royal Family is one of 30 years' continuous service, and it has brought favourable world-wide publicity to the Royal Air Force as a whole. The Queen is a prolific user of aeroplanes, and both her consort and heir are experienced jet and helicopter pilots. For example, in 1977 there were 37 Royal VIP flights and tours abroad, involving visits to 22 countries. From 1973 to 1978 a total of 60 different nations were visited. The three Andovers and two Wessex helicopters undertake about 700 tasks a year.

Although, of course, the Flight is mainly for the use of our Head of State and immediate family, as the Minister reminded the House on 12 February, 35 per cent. of all flights…are for the purpose of transporting non-Royal persons, such as Service chiefs and Government Ministers—no matter which Government are in power."—[Official Report, 12 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 1251.] The Flight is of great help in carrying out the Government's business, and direct rule in Northern Ireland has added to its work load. It has carried visiting Heads of State, including Chancellor Schmidt, President Giscard d'Estaing and King Hussein.

Experience has shown that VIP flying poses its own special problems of aircraft safety, administrative efficiency and physical security, and that they are best handled by experienced staff. If we did not have a Queen's Flight we would have to invent one. It is the most cost-effective way of providing a service de- signed to meet a large number of public engagements with tight schedules. Governments of both political parties agree to that.

A case could be made for changing the name of the Flight, so that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) would not be given any excuses for his flights of fantasy and the public would be made more aware of the facts.

The main reason for this debate is that the three Andovers used by the Flight are now 16 years old. Many people find that difficult to believe. As Flight International said in 1978: Fitness for a Queen does not have to be fitness for the RAF Museum. The Queen's Flight wants and should have jets; it should have had jets long ago; and Her Majesty's loyal subjects will agitate every year until it gets jets. The Queen is flying in slower, older aircraft than any other Head of State in the Western and probably the eastern world. The Head of the State which invented the jet is without one. I take it as axiomatic that the Flight should be brought up to date and given modern British jet aircraft. It is absurd that the world's No. 1 flight should have to display, at home and abroad, 16-yearold aircraft. One of its roles should be to show potential foreign buyers the latest and best that British aviation has to offer.

On 20 March last year I tabled a parliamentary question on the Flight. I was supported at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell), who asked: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when these aircraft arrive overseas they are universally regarded with affectionate amusement and that they do grave damage to the reputation of British technology?"—[Official Report, 20 March 1979; Vol. 964, col. 1297.] The Andover in which the Queen flies to Germany is the aircraft that she used to fly there in 1965.

What did the princes in the Persian Gulf make of this antique aircraft during the Queen's recent visit? The Arab world is an important market for British executive jets.

Of course, those who campaign for modernisation accept that these turboprops are safe and will remain safe for a year or two. We accept that for long-range flights Concorde may be used and that VC10s are made available, but both arguments miss my main point.

According to Lord Kimberley, who made a splendid speech in the other place two years ago, the Heads of State and Governments of 55 countries alphabetically from Algeria to Zaire have a total of 139 jet aircraft between them. We are missing the chance of giving the British aerospace industry—a vital one for jobs in this country, as my hon. Friend well knows—a sales promotion platform.

I understand that the Air Force Board approved an order for two 111s in 1972 but that this was turned down. Again, in 1977—when, of course, the Andovers were five years older—re-equipment was examined but rejected.

My hon. Friend disappointed the House last week, when I asked him if any decision had been taken, for the Government have had nine months to bring forth. He said that the Government would consider whether new equipment was needed. He knows the answer to that as well as I do, for he has been studying the matter at least since July 1979, according to a parliamentary answer.

The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) told me last year that to the best of his knowledge the Royal Family were satisfied with the present arrangements. To the best of my knowledge they are not, although they would be the last people to give public complaint. As Lord Kimberley said in another place: the jet operating technique of quick rates of ascent and descent with the ability to cruise above the weather avoids prolonged flight in turbulence. Let us not forget that the Andover takes something like 30 minutes to reach its cruise height of 15,000 ft. Today, in the jet age, there is really no excuse for giving the Royal Family or VIPs a rough ride at turboprop cruising altitude. I believe it is known that whenever possible, Ministers—and I do not blame them—try to catch a 125 if they can, so as to avoid turbulence."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 1978; Vol. 396, cc 685–6.] The jet operational requirement calls for short field and short sector performance, together with a long-range potential for overseas tours. The range requirement is to save money in the chartering of commercial aircraft. Greater speed and range mean greater security—highly important in this age of international terrorism. Greater speed also means less blocking of congested air space and thus less inconvenience to other users. More sectors flown in a day mean fewer overnight stops, with their extra cost and diplomatic inconvenience, and less vulnerability to hoaxers.

As mentioned, an alternative to civil chartering is the hiring of a VC10. Again, according to Flight International: This means taking an aircraft out of RAF service, special fitting out, and invariably seems to involve taking two aircraft out of operation. The man-hours involved in the special preparation of both the primary and the back-up aircraft are prodigious". The Government's traditional case is that the Andovers will have to be replaced in due course, but, due to the need for restraining public expenditure and bearing in mind that the cost of the Queen's Flight falls upon the Defence Vote, no money can be found at the present time. No doubt we shall shortly hear another form of those words.

On examination, that case is totally unconvincing. In a few years, when the Andovers are no longer safe, new planes will have to be purchased. With inflation running at nearly 20 per cent. a year, the longer the delay the greater the costs. Against the purchase price of new aircraft would be offset the second-hand value of the present aircraft—perhaps £1 million each on the American market.

There would be savings resulting from less chartering, fewer stops, fewer flying hours.

I, for one, am by no means convinced that the RAF should be expected to continue to bear the full cost, and I invite my hon. Friend to comment on that observation.

Why should not the Departments of Industry, Trade and Northern Ireland, for example, make their contributions as they receive direct benefits? Do they at present pay for the cost of each trip their Ministers make in an aircraft of the Queen's Flight?

It also crosses my mind that greater use should be made by other Departments of the Queen's Flight. Is it still true that the Department of Trade and the Civil Aviation Authority have their own HS125s? What thought have the Government given to rationalisation in this area? Would there not be savings by way of less chartering and fewer first-class air fares?

It is inappropriate for Back Benchers to tell Ministers with what modern jet aircraft the Flight should be re-equipped. The Ministers have the up-to-date expert advice that we lack. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph of 8 January: The type the Government is favourably considering is the BAC 1–11 series 475, with extra underfloor tanks to give a maximum range of about 3,000 miles. What is of great concern to me is that the Government may be letting go the last opportunity we shall ever have of giving this Flight wholly British-built jet aircraft. If they cannot be British, they should be European rather than American.

I believe that I have made my case and do not need to weary the House by going into more technical details—details that have been admirably brought to the fore elsewhere. The House would prefer to hear the Minister's replies to three direct and basic questions.

First, does the Minister accept in principle that the Queen's Flight must be given modern jet aircraft? Secondly, if so, what financial provisions have been or will be made? Thirdly, what type of plane has he in mind?

The present position all too clearly is indefensible. The House and the country look to the Government to put this matter right without further delay. If we are to have a Queen's Flight—and I believe unhesitatingly that we should—there is a clear obligation on the Government, especially a Services-conscious Tory Government, to make sure that it is properly equipped.

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

I should first like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for raising this subject and for giving me the chance to explain the current position on the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight. As my hon. Friend is aware, I am studying the question of new aircraft, but before I discuss the background to that issue it might be helpful to the House if I give a little more general information about the Queen's Flight.

At present the Flight operates three Andovers, which it has had since 1964, and two Wessex helicopters, which it has had since 1969. The House will appreciate that the primary factor that must be taken into account when considering aircraft to be employed in the Queen's Flight is safety. On this count the Andovers and Wessex have extremely impressive records, which result from a combination of the very highest standards of maintenance and airmanship achieved by the members of the Queen's Flight and the excellence of the aircraft themselves. We are grateful for the complimentary remarks made by my hon. Friend about the performance of and standards in the Queen's Flight.

The Queen's Flight is a dedicated and self-contained unit that is used for journeys by Her Majesty the Queen and by other members of the Royal Family. For some years, with Her Majesty's approval, the use of the Queen's Flight has been extended to certain senior Government Ministers, senior defence staff and important foreign visitors.

The existence of the Flight derives from the need to provide a service that is geared to meet a heavy round of official engagements with very tight schedules. This demands very high standards of flying, aircraft safety, administrative efficiency and physical security before VIP travel itself poses its own particular problems, and experience has shown that these are best handled by experienced staff.

The Flight is composed of volunteer personnel who are trained, equipped and organised to maintain the special engineering and supply standards for aircraft maintenance and component inspections that are required. The historical association of the Queen's Flight with the Royal Family is one of over 30 years' continuous service and one of which the Royal Air Force is very proud. The establishment and retention of the special unit has brought prestige and favourable world-wide publicity to the Royal Air Force as a whole.

On command and control, the command of the Queen's Flight is vested in the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command and is delegated by him to the Air Officer Commanding 38 Group, who exercises operational and disciplinary control through the Captain of the Queen's Flight. The latter is a retired air commodore and a civilian member of the Queen's Household, but he is also responsible, through the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command, to the Ministry of Defence for maintaining the operational, administrative and engineering efficiency of the unit and for its Service and civilian performance.

The present establishment of the unit is some 20 officers, 156 other ranks and three civilians. All of these are highly qualified and specially selected volunteers, and although the Flight is part of the Royal Air Force it is a separate and self-contained unit. Many of the ground crew remain with the Flight for several years, despite the pressure of the long hours, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the exacting standards needed to maintain the highest technical expertise and to provide aircraft, often at very short notice. For the aircrew, longer tours than normal elsewhere in the Royal Air Force are particularly valuable in providing the long and thorough apprenticeship needed to build up the required efficiency and familiarity with all the aspects of Royal and VIP air travel.

The unit, which is sited at RAF Benson, in Oxfordshire, is completely self-contained, with its own offices, hangars, workshops and stores. It has the facilities and expertise to carry out not only first-line and second-line servicing but also third-line major overhauls. Because of the great utilisation of aircraft, the maintenance standards are extremely high. The aircraft must be 100 per cent. serviceable before each flight and on their return they are immediately prepared for further use, regardless of the time of day.

Those components which have particular safety or functional importance are changed when only half the life predicted by the manufacturer has expired, so that they are always well within the bounds of safety. This practice was introduced many years ago to guarantee a very high standard of safety, but it has been found that the increased cost for the small number of aircraft involved is more than offset by the improved aircraft availability and the 100 per cent. reliability that has resulted. Indeed, this policy has allowed the Queen's Flight to operate its aircraft world-wide without the need to provide a reserve aircraft, thus greatly increasing the efficiency of the unit.

The essential justification for the Flight is that it is the most cost-effective way of providing the special facilities and personnel that are required. The latest available annual running cost of the Flight is £2.4 million, and in 1979 the Andovers flew 1,581 hours, of which 1,033 were for training, route proving or positioning. Of the others, 433 hours involved the carriage of members of the Royal Family and 115 involved Ministers and other VIPs. As a general rule, the Andovers are employed for the longer journeys, up to 800 miles, and the Wessex for the short journeys, up to 200 miles.

The Andover is still an excellent aircraft for the job, and bearing in mind the meticulous standards applied, it could remain safely in service for some time yet. One of the most important capabilities that the Andover offers is the ability to operate from the smaller airfields, and the value of this was demonstrated during Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Africa last year. However, the House will appreciate that there are occasions when the Queen will need to fly over longer distances than is possible in the Andover. On these occasions, arrangements have been made to use either an RAF VC10 or an aircraft provided by British Airways or other civil airlines.

I now turn to the specific question that my hon. Friend raised, of the replacement of the Andovers by new aircraft. As I have mentioned, the Andover has many excellent qualities and is well able to continue the sterling service it has given to the Queen's Flight. However, the Government are well aware of the arguments in favour of replacing it, and I would be the first to agree that it is getting on in years and that by modern standards its performance is, in some respects, less than ideal, both as regards its operating height and its cruising speed, which makes for longer journey times—a matter that I might say is of equal concern to busy Ministers who have to use it as well as members of the Royal Family. My hon. Friend is on a perfectly fair point. He reminded the House of the point made by Lord Kimberley, on the question of the time taken by the aircraft to achieve its cruising height and, therefore, the time often spent in turbulence.

In considering what aircraft might be suitable to replace the Andovers, there is another matter that we should consider. The only aircraft that the RAF has available for long-distance VIP passenger flight beyond the range of the Andover is the VC10. While this offers excellent range, speed and comfort, it is quite a large and, hence, costly aircraft to use to transport small groups—Ministers as well as Royalty—and tying up one, or perhaps even two, of these aircraft for two weeks or so on such tasks reduces the number available for military use. It is desirable, therefore, that any replacement for the Queen's Flight Andovers should have greater range so that it can be used for journeys further afield than Western Europe.

My bon. Friend will appreciate that this rules out the HS125 and the Jet-stream. Both, of course, are already in RAF service and the HS125 has been used on occasion by some members of the Royal Family. But neither type has the range, payload or short field performance for which we are looking. Nor, I regret, has the BAe146, but even if a longer-range version were one day to be built, we could not consider it for the Queen's Flight until its safety and reliability had been proven over several years of passenger service.

Since I am sure that we would all wish any new aircraft to be a British design, this brings me to the BAe111. I should like first of all to emphasise that the suggestions that have appeared in certain newspapers that two such aircraft have been secretly earmarked for the Queen's Flight have no justification whatsoever as far as I am concerned. In connection with the examination that I am carrying out into the Queen's Flight, informal discussions have taken place with British Aerospace on the cost and availability of 111 aircraft, but I can assure the House that no decision has yet been taken, nor has any order been placed. My hon. Friend will be aware that such decision would be announced to the House first.

Having said that, it is obvious that the BAe111 475 series would be a strong candidate. It is a good aeroplane and in many respects, including range and payload, it would be superior to the Andover. It could carry out the majority of the long-range tasks that the Andover is unable to undertake and it has good short airfield performance. The procurement of such an aircraft for the Queen's Flight would also, of course, be an excellent advertisement for a British product. However, it would undoubtedly be costly to purchase and would also be more costly to run than the Andover, although it would admittedly be more economical than the VC10.

As the House will be aware, the cost of the Queen's Flight is borne on the Defence Vote, although charges are made for journeys made by Ministers of other Departments. My hon. Friend's suggestions about the way in which other Departments might contribute to capital cost will be duly noted and borne in mind by my Ministry and other Ministries.

Any proposal to re-equip the Queen's Flight must, therefore, be considered alongside other demands on the defence budget until new budgeting arrangements are devised. As the House is aware, these are many, since we have to make up for the failure of our predecessors to provide the forces needed for our defences. Not all of the many and pressing claims on the defence budget can be accommodated immediately. We are equally committed to restraining public expenditure, and no proposal, however well justified, can be allowed to pass without the most rigorous scrutiny. It is in the light of these considerations that the merits of replacing the Andovers must be examined.

There is also one other complication. If we were to decide—and again we have not done so—that the replacement of the Andovers must wait a year or so until other urgent defence needs were met and more money was available for projects of this type, we might find that we were too late to purchase the BAC111, since the production line in this country will not continue much longer though assembly of the aircraft will be continuing in Romania. It may, therefore, be a case of now or never for this particular option. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the succinct way in which he put this point.

It is these and related matters that form part of the study to which I referred earlier. This study has not yet reached the stage when I can make a statement, nor can I anticipate its outcome. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being progressed with considerable urgency

It is important that the Andover should be replaced. My hon. Friend expressed the need in terms of a modern jet, and I agree. He asked what financial provision is being made. The present provision is still as described to him earlier, namely, that the cost would fall directly on the defence budget, although it is a little early to say whether any change is envisaged. Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked what type of aircraft would be envisaged. I have already told him that there would be only one contender.

I have no doubt that whatever the outcome of the study the Queen's Flight will continue to provide the excellent service that it has done to date and will be proud to do so. It deserves the praise of us all. Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.