§ Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of carriers in the Fleet.
§ Mr. NottThe primary wartime role of our carriers would be to conduct anti-submarine operations in the eastern Atlantic. In the next few years we intend to make particular use of our carriers in deployment outside the NATO area.
§ Mr. BrothertonGiven that reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that the commissioning of HMS "Illustrious" and HMS "Ark Royal" will make a significant contribution to the Fleet? More importantly, in view of the role played by HMS "Invincible" in NATO's autumnal exercises, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an act of folly, detrimental to the national interest, to dispose of HMS "Invincible" now?
§ Mr. NottTo bring my hon. Friend up to date, our discussions with the Australians have envisaged a 736 handover of "Invincible" towards the end of 1983, when "Illustrious" will be operational. We also intend to run on "Hermes" until "Ark Royal" joins the Fleet in 1985. We expect a decision from the Australians by the end of the month. If they prefer the later date of 1985, when "Ark Royal" is in service, we shall consider the matter. I would wish to debate with my hon. Friend the role of the carrier, but it would be more than you would allow, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question.
§ Mr. DuffyGiven SACLANT's critical shortage of carriers and the interdependence of anti-submarine warfare operations, on the surface as well as below with hunter-killer submarines, and in the air with maritime patrol aircraft, is the Secretary of State confident that, with the present complement of carriers—which he did not specify, but which cannot be more than three and perhaps is only two—Britain can discharge its NATO maritime obligations in the east Atlantic, or is this yet another price that Britain is paying for Trident?
§ Mr. NottWe made it clear in the White Paper in June that we envisaged two carriers being in service. If we had retained a third carrier, she would have gone into reserve. It is better to try to obtain £175 million, which is the sum that will go into the naval programme if we sell "Invincible" to the Australians, than to have a carrier in reserve. Carriers make heavy demands on supporting antisubmarine and air defence escorts. We wish to cover as wide an area as possible in the east Atlantic with frigates with embarked organic air that can carry Stingray.
§ Mr. ChurchillWill my right hon. Friend confirm that the original concept of the Invincible class anti-submarine warfare carriers was that there would be three—
§ Mr. Churchill—and that two of those would be on station at any given time, with one in the dockyard? Will he further confirm that, if he goes ahead with the proposed sale of "Invincible" to the Royal Australian Navy, that will effectively halve the number of those valuable antisubmarine warfare vessels on station at any given time? Is he aware that many hon. Members are strongly opposed to his proposed action?
§ Mr. NottNo, I cannot confirm that I envisaged three carriers being in service. It was clearly stated in the White Paper that two carriers would be in service. It is a question of how best we can dispose of our naval resources in the east Atlantic. The Royal Navy will be the third most powerful in the world after the two great Powers. We cannot afford to deploy the air defence and anti-submarine escorts that would be necessary to protect the carriers. Therefore, it is better to keep two in service rather than three and to spend the rest of the money on the frigate force.
§ Mr. John SilkinWill the Secretary of State come clean? Is it not the fact, and was it not the point of his saying that he would wish to debate the matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), that he no longer has any confidence in an ASW carrier role in the east Atlantic? That is the only way in which his policy now makes sense.
§ Mr. NottOpinions differ on this matter, but I have made it clear that I do not believe that any Government of either party would order ASW carriers today.
§ Mr. Hal MillerIn view of the widespread concern about how Britain is to sustain its NATO role in antisubmarine operations in the east Atlantic, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity, outside the House if necessary, to explain his concept of anti-submarine warfare and how we are to meet our responsibilities in the light of the planned disposal of "Invincible" and the reduction in the frigate fleet and the hunter-killer submarine fleet?
§ Mr. NottMy hon. Friend and many Opposition Members will be interested to know that today I am placing an order with Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. for the eighth Broadsword class frigate at a total estimated cost of about £120 million. That will enable us to take advantage of a reduced price offer expiring at the end of this month—
§ Mr. FoulkesSale of the century.
§ Mr. Nott—which will secure a saving, both for the seventh frigate that we ordered the other day and this one today, of about £6 million.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who often makes comments on this matter, that, if we include this order, I shall have placed orders for warships with British Shipbuilders in the current financial year to a total value, including weapons, of £450 million? Perhaps we could hear a little less from some of my hon. Friends about the shortage of warship building orders.
§ Mr. Robert C. BrownDoes the Secretary of State accept that the pursuance of the Trident programme must mean a sacrifice of the surface fleet, which in the end will mean the sacrifice or the ultimate closure of yards such as Swan Hunter on Tyneside?
§ Mr. NottThe Trident programme has cost us hardly anything up to now. The big expenditure on Trident, if we decide to go for Trident D5, will be in the late 1980s, when the Tornado programme is run down. The Tornado programme is costing £11.25 billion, which is far more than Trident will ever cost. Trident will cost us less in capital terms than any other major defence capability and far less in running terms. We shall spend £2 billion on torpedoes in the next two years. The hon. Gentleman has the relative scale and cost of Trident entirely out of gear.