Aerospace

HC Deb 24 February 1983 vol 37 cc1120-40

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

7.53 pm

Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

The Government have rightly emphasised in recent years the importance of high technology industries as the way ahead for this country. It has been argued time and again that unless we move up market and compete at the highest ranges of technology there is no future for us as an industrial country. That is why I make no apology for bringing before the House the question of the British aerospace industry. I adopt a certain regional slant in what I argue because it would be impossible, within the terms of an Adjournment debate, to cover all aspects of British aerospace. If those connected with a particular company or a particular section of the industry feel, on reading this debate, that they have been neglected, it is not neglect on my part but necessity in terms of the time available to me.

It is important to say that we expect all Government Departments dealing with the British aerospace industry, and especially the Department of Industry as the main sponsoring Department, to give some idea of where it wants the industry to go and how the Government can best help it in that direction. The successful aerospace industries of the world have had a good and healthy working relationship with their Governments.

The reason for the regional bias in my speech is that the north-west has a concentration of aerospace industries—British Aerospace itself at Woodford and Chadderton, near my constituency, at Chorley and at Preston. Although I may concentrate on their problems, I hope that the Minister accepts that I am talking from a regional background but with a suspicion that some of the problems I raise may not be untypical in other parts of British Aerospace. I shall obviously concentrate on the British Aerospace company, although, if the Minister wishes to comment on a favourite hobby horse of mine, the relationships between British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, or on Rolls-Royce policies in terms of international co-operation and development, the House would, I am sure, be interested.

I am always left with the suspicion that if the Japanese had two companies of such international repute as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, they would row in the same direction with a greater vigour than sometimes seems to be the case in respect of those two companies.

One factor that British Aerospace does not have to search for is international confidence. Whatever we may debate in the House about the merits and demerits of the Falklands conflict, there is no doubt that British Aerospace products and British Aerospace workers performed magnificently during that crisis. British Aerospace factories provided a round-the-clock modification and support service for aircraft and defence systems engaged in the south Atlantic. I take particular pride in the work done at British Aerospace, Woodford. A local paper rightly called those involved the unsung heroes of the Falklands crisis. The Harrier proved itself a superb and versatile aircraft in hostile conditions, as did the Rapier, Sea Wolf, Sea Dart and other missiles, as well as the Nimrod, Vulcan and Victor aircraft. We were only in that position because Governments of both parties had had the wisdom and foresight to back earlier developments by British Aerospace. It is important that, in the midst of a world recession, the Government should keep their nerve in respect of an industry that cannot operate year to year and that has to have the time span and the perspective of five to 10 years' planning ahead.

Aerospace is an industry that is extremely vulnerable to the loss of skill and design capability. Short-term decisions which might appeal to the Treasury on grounds of financial expediency could put in danger our prospects of being able to maintain our world standing in both military and civil aircraft. That market is enormous.

On the civil side, market analysis up to the year 2000 identifies about 2,300 aircraft in the 150-seater airbus category, about 1,600 in the BAe 146 type feedliner, and between 4,500 and 5,000 in the commuter jet and turboprop market, such as the HS748, the HS125 and the Jetstream. British Aerospace is to be congratulated on ensuring that it has the product range in all these markets throughout the period.

I want to mention, in particular, the success of the airbus. Too often talk of international co-operation remains just that—politicians' rhetoric. Airbus has turned rhetoric into reality. It was not long ago that the pundits were predicting that the United States would have a total monopoly of the world wide-body market, yet today, even in recession, Airbus Industrie has kept its grip on about 50 per cent. of the market, supplying no fewer than 43 airlines. That success affects not only British Aerospace itself, but a multitude of suppliers, who benefit from the new machine tools being installed and the new equipment being commissioned.

It is therefore necessary to express concern about the Government's intentions on the A320. I know that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked a question a couple of weeks ago about this matter. This is just one of a number of projects that I shall list this evening which the Government have somewhere in the machine, but at the end of which are British Aerospace workers and a design team who want a clear idea where they are going.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) may wish to intervene on the subject of the BAC146. There is an early-day motion about the Far East tour that was recently undertaken by the 146. The tour covered 58,000 miles, and some 20 countries. I understand that the visit involved 98 demonstration flights and contact with 31 airlines. In my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, I have often heard criticism of the sales effort of British industry abroad. That criticism cannot be levelled at British Aerospace in trying to get the message over about the 146. I would draw the attention of any airlines considering buying it to what the chairman of Dan Air said: Dan Air has chosen the BAC146 because of its unrivalled economy, efficiency and quietness. I was pleased to see in the Financial Times that Dan Air has today announced the first two scheduled routes on which it will operate the BAC146.

I shall say a brief word about military development. Again, we see the paradox that, although the industry believes that it behaved marvellously and performed excellently in the Falklands, within the industry there is the need to see a clear way ahead. It is what the Society of British Aerospace Companies has called a release from the annual saga of cash limits associated with the defence budget". I realise that some of these questions about the defence budget and the military aide do not come specifically within the Minister's terms of reference, but I come back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. It is no use the Ministry of Defence having one view, the Department of Agriculture having another view, and the Department of Industry having a third view. I hope that, as a representative of the lead Department, the Minister will bang heads together in Whitehall to ensure that such an important industry is not left in the air about important decisions.

The Minister will know that our rivals are using defence procurement, in particular, to underpin high technology industry. I have referred to the Society of British Aerospace Companies, and it may seem strange coming from that source, but in its 1981–82 annual report it drew attention to the French Government's eighth national plan and the importance that that plan attached to research and technological development. The report says: The publication of such a plan … gives added weight to the Society's submission to the Prime Minister that a similar plan should be evolved for the British Aerospace industry. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, and give his Department's general approach to research and development.

I hope that the Minister will give the Government's attitude to the development of two projects on the military side: the agile combat aircraft and the air-launched anti-radar missile—ALARM. Many people at home and abroad are looking at the Government's attitude to those projects as an acid test of their commitment to support aerospace as the cost-effective spearhead of advanced technology. A positive decision on the ACA would have an immediate effect on the employment opportunities and prospects in the aerospace industries. As many as 40,000 jobs have been mentioned, right through to the early 1990s. Being at the forefront of high technology, this scheme involves employing over 6,000 graduates and training nearly 2,500 apprentices.

A failure to proceed with the ALARM project would, I am told, put in danger at least 800 jobs immediately at Lostock near Chorley, but, more important, a failure to proceed with a system that has already demonstrated considerable advantages over its American rival would cut off the British industry from participation in a market which will provide substantial employment over a 20-year span. From the point of view of the opportunities offered by investment and the needs of the industry, we are talking of spans of five, 10 and 20 years.

Without being too ideological on the matter, aerospace is an industry that needs a political consensus in this House, and least needs to be turned into a political football. It needs across-the-floor agreement on its future. It is encouraging that that has happened over the past few weeks in the lobbying of Ministers. There have been all-party motions, and delegations, although often separated into party groups, have been singing the same song in unison to Ministers. Whatever the next few months may bring politically, I hope the aerospace industry will feel that we are trying to develop in this House a consensus that will give the industry five, 10 and 15 years in which to plan. Early decisions and a commitment by the Government are necessary.

I emphasise again that I do not plead simply on behalf of one big manufacturer. I know from my own constituency of Stockport that if British Aerospace is doing well, it is feeding many smaller companies and industries. A recent report in the Financial Times suggested that if the ALARM project went ahead, no fewer than 500 British companies, many of them in the highest level of high technology, would be involved in the project. Failure to proceed with ALARM and ACA would leave the field open to our prime competitors. In such circum-stances, the industry would rapidly and irrevocably be reduced to the status of subcontractors.

I argue, both on the civil and military sides, that in the 1990s we shall have to purchase a whole range of replacement aircraft and weapons systems. The question before the Government and the country at the moment is whether in the 1990s, as is the case today, British Aerospace will have the product range to enable the Government of the day to buy British, or whether, because of tardiness, miscalculation or over-caution now, we shall have to buy American or Franco-German in the 1990s.

I understand that, under the rules of the House, I could speak for another two hours, but that is a temptation that I shall resist. However, before I sit down I should like to narrow my remarks to some points that affect my constituency where the same arguments pertain. There are decisions which only the Government can take but where the delay is putting uncertainty into the factories and could ultimately cause redundancies and the break-up of teams of skilled workers. The first is the decision that is being awaited from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Coastguarder. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been to British Aerospace, Woodford, but it is well worth a visit if only to see the 748 line.

Without a doubt that has been the most versatile and dependable aircraft produced. The old Dakota is the nearest to it in aeroplane history. It is a war horse that has performed dependably all over the world and it is amazing that, because of the skill and ingenuity of the workforce at Woodford, it has not become a museum piece but has found new roles as technologies improve and as what can be tacked inside an aircraft has grown smaller. With the introduction of new technologies it has been found to be the ideal maritime reconnaissance plane for medium and small maritime powers.

At the moment Britain uses the Nimrod. Frankly, that is a little like hiring a Rolls-Royce for panda car duties. The Nimrod is an excellent aircraft and I can understand that the Ministry of Defence rather likes the £9 million that it takes out of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budget for that reconnaissance work and I can also understand that there is some training element in such work, but, as the present flurry with Denmark over fishing demonstrated, our fishery protection service needs its own air surveillance capability, which can be provided by the Coastguarder.

It is well known that the sales effort of British Aerospace is partly restricted by the fact that when it demonstrates the aircraft abroad the first question it is asked is whether Britain, as a maritime power, operates the Coastguarder. It weakens the sales drive to say that the Government have been considering the matter since 1981.

I understand that British Aerospace is trying to sell the 748 to Egyptair with the possibility of follow-up sales of the Coastguarder to the Egyptian air force—a classic package which has been stalled because the Overseas Development Administration is unsure about aid and trade provisions and because the Export Credits Guarantee Department is being over-cautious about insurance cover. I hope that if this matter has not been cleared up already it will be soon. At the same time, apparently, Fokker and the Dutch have come forward with a generous aid and insurance package. It is the old problem—do we play cricket and let others play karate? There is the market and the opportunity but we have an over-cautious approach to making a sale. Will the Minister consider whether other Departments have the drive and purpose that his has for giving our high technology industries a fair chance?

Another area in which we need real drive from other Departments to give British Aerospace's initiative a helping hand is the imaginative development of the 748—the advanced turboprop. The fuel price escalation has made the advanced turboprop, as against the medium size jet, a possible market winner. As hon. Members will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade reported to the House last Monday that discussions with our European partners to obtain the liberalisation of European regional routes had again failed. Being the doughty fighter that he is, the Under-Secretary promised that he would go back into battle, albeit next June. If he were to succeed and we were to achieve a relaxation of European air routes and stop the over-concentration on capital-to-capital flights, it would not only be to the advantage of regional airports such as Manchester international; it would also mean that the European market would require 60 to 70-seater passenger aircraft. I congratulate British Aerospace on its initiative, because if that market became available the ATP would certainly be the right aircraft to exploit it.

Finally, I ask the Minister about the future of the Nimrod programme, which I know that his colleagues are pondering. Again, we need an early decision. It is a two-stage decision. First, Woodford could well use the maintenance and refurbishment work which is at present being carried out—not altogether effectively because Woodford's help is occasionally needed—by the Royal Air Force. Would it not be better to have a return-to-works programme for the Nimrod which is at present in service in the RAF? I know that Ministers are considering that, because the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) led a delegation to the Minister of State on 2 February. However, we have nearly reached the end of February and the workers of Woodford would like to know what sense of urgency there is in the review that was promised to the right hon. Member for Openshaw and, most importantly, when they can expect a decision.

How far have discussions gone on the reopening of the Nimrod line? I do not think there is any doubt that, in both its maritime and its early warning role, the Nimrod was a great success. I understand that within the RAF, after the experience in the Falklands and elsewhere, there is a strong pressure for more Nimrods to be ordered. In addition, there are signs that there are Governments in the world who, if the Nimrod line were again working, would consider purchasing them. That is a worthwhile project and the amount of investment that it would need compared with some earlier projects is relatively small. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to put their thinking caps on. There should be an early decision on the return-to-works programme and a hard look at whether there is more life in the Nimrod programme.

I realise that I have covered a number of Departments for which the Minister has no direct responsibility, but I remind him that he is a Minister in the Department of Industry and that it is his responsibility to maintain an effective British aerospace industry. Our rivals, competitors and collaborators have shown that the key to success is a close working relationship between the industry and the Government. An alarmingly large number of decisions about the British aircraft industry are sitting in the pending trays of various Ministers. With regard to the future of the aerospace industry in the north-west, we need to know about the agile combat aircraft, the ALARM system, airbus, Nimrod and the Coastguarder. That is quite a shopping list, but it shows how much is caught up in the Whitehall machine. The logjams need releasing so that aerospace can start to plan ahead. Prevarication will not help us survive in a high technology world. Literally thousands of jobs are at stake. The spin-off into supply industries is enormous.

The question is not whether the Government will need those aircraft and systems—they will need them—but whether the aerospace industry will be in a shape to compete for the orders in the 1990s and beyond. It is that commitment, not just in words but in deeds and announcements, to the high technology industries of tomorrow that I seek from the Minister. Decisions now could avoid a crisis in the aerospace industry. Delay will make it inevitable. For the north-west in particular delay would perhaps be a mortal blow to our hopes of industrial recovery led by the high technology industries.

I realise that the Minister will not be able to give me firm replies on all the points that I have raised, but I emphasise that he and his Department must accept the responsibility to knock heads together in Whitehall and to get over the message to the Treasury and other Departments that aerospace needs a long-term perspective and a close working relationship with the Government, and needs to know where it is going and how far it has the support of the Government and the House in an endeavour that is crucial to this country's economic and industrial survival.

8.22 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) on having the good fortune to be able to press the Minister on the subject of the aerospace industry and to raise in particular the problems that affect Greater Manchester. I, too, should like to take this opportunity to press the Government to take a series of decisions that are vital to British Aerospace, to the whole of the greater Manchester area and to our constituencies.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the British Aerospace division in Manchester is divided between two sites—Chadderton to the north-east of Manchester and Woodford in the south-east. They are a substantial distance apart. One area is given over to machining and small fabrication, and the other to final fabrication and a great deal of design work. In some ways it is sad that the two factories are so far apart, because it means that one has to look at them as two separate units when considering their overheads. However, although they are two separate units in terms of overheads, they are interdependent in terms of machinery, equipment, the runway and other facilities.

Unfortunately, over the years the viability of Woodford has gradually been reduced. It has continually slimmed down the number of people working there. The overheads in terms of the payroll and administrative costs have reached such a point that, although the work at Woodford has been reduced, its viability is in doubt. There is real concern there and at Chadderton that, unless the right decisions are taken quickly by the Government, the viability of the whole operation in Manchester will be in doubt.

I stress that the operation has a key role to play in terms of the lead that it gives in technology to the whole of the Greater Manchester area. When one goes round other factories in the Greater Manchester area, it is surprising to learn how many people serve their apprenticeships or worked for some years in the aerospace industry at one of those factories. They took their skills with them and gained by them. Many would be only too pleased to have the opportunity to return to the aerospace industry where they could continue to use those skills.

There was a long-standing tradition in the Greater Manchester area that people moved from one firm to another. Unfortunately, because of the recession, most people now do not move from one firm to another, but move out of the industry and out of engineering. The industry has always played a key role in the Greater Manchester area. It is important to the area that it should continue to do so, not just for the jobs, but for the spin-off that it provides to the whole area.

The specific problem at the moment for the people of Woodford is that, whereas 10 months ago they were working frantically on orders for the Falkland Islands campaign, there is now a shortage of work. Work is short on the design side for projects that would go on to the shop floor in 12 months time or further ahead. The people there have lobbied Members of Parliament, and through them Government Departments, extremely effectively. I pay tribute to the way in which Derek Woods, from the management side, and Bob Burns, from the union side, have taken great trouble to ensure that all Members representing the north-west have been well briefed. There have been many deputations to Ministers, all with the united purpose of ensuring that there is continuity of work at Woodford, which ensures the continuity of British Aerospace in the Greater Manchester area.

In some ways the things for which we are asking are fairly small. It is important to put them into the context of the viability of the factory. As the Government demonstrated during the Falklands crisis, that factory is an essential part of the national effort. Unless the relatively small Government decisions are taken quickly, the viability of the factory will be put at stake. There is a danger of redundancies. All the evidence in the Stockport and Greater Manchester area is that when redundancies take place it is extremely difficult to rebuild the skilled, dedicated labour force in the factories.

The length of production of the HS748, the continual updating and modification and the way in which the factory found new alternative uses for it were remarkable. Many countries, including third world countries, would be only too pleased to purchase more of that aircraft, but cannot do so because of the general financial difficulties that have been imposed upon them. There are difficulties in getting credit. Although the future of the aircraft does not stretch into infinity, if general world liquidity were to improve there would be many more orders for the 748. It would be helpful if the Egyptian contract could be secured, because that would ensure that the line continued for a little longer.

The aeroplane has a specialist coastguarder role and other countries have shown a great deal of interest in it. The key question is always the same: if it is such a good plane, why have the British Government not ordered it? An order from the Government would open the door for a stream of orders for the 748 in its coastguarder role.

We have been told for nearly 12 months that the Government have been considering the position. It has been suggested that someone else could purchase or set up a facility, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would then hire. All the possibilities have been considered. The real answer is for the Government to give a clear commitment to buy some of these aircraft. That would ensure good prospects for the 748. Other points to consider include a little more money for the updating, the possibility of a new engine and the design work that would accompany that, which would prove helpful.

The Nimrod has been mentioned, with the possibility that more of the refurbishing and refitting could return to Woodford instead of being carried out by the RAF. That would be helpful. An important question is whether the line could be restarted. An order or orders from the Government could lead to export orders.

A factor that is important for British Aerospace—although it would not directly involve Woodford—is the development of the airbus, particularly the A320, and the desirability of getting design work. As a result of the way in which British Aerospace is able to move work around, some of the design work, either from that project or from one of the others, could come back to Woodford. That would ease the problem of the lack of continuity of design work in that area.

It is unfortunate that the French have sometimes shown a little more enthusiasm and drive than we have. Hon. Members know that in the end the French got more of the work in the package. The British Aerospace industry wants to get more than the wings. If we could have more drive and enthusiasm from the Government for the A320, there would be a good chance of our getting more work than just the wings. That would be extremely helpful in ensuring the security of work at Woodford and Chadderton for the next 10 to 15 years.

I plead with the Government to look at the number of key decisions which it is in their power to make. Satisfactory decisions would make all the difference, and ensure that the factory does not have to talk about redundancies, but can, instead, become enthusiastic about carrying forward new technology and proving that the British Aerospace industry is a world beater.

8.26 pm

Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn and Hatfield)

I contribute to this debate on the future of the British Aerospace industry to draw attention to the importance and dedication of British Aerospace. I also commend the Government for their determination to denationalise the industry, a policy promise that was speedily and highly successfully carried out.

In my constituency both the aircraft and the dynamics groups are represented at Hatfield. In both, the record of management and work force in terms of expertise and skill is a highly enviable one. I will briefly touch on two projects for each of the two divisions.

With regard to aircraft, the 146 is proving to be, as forecast, a superb plane which needs every encouragement in the difficult world economic conditions. The Government's decision to purchase it for the Queen's flight has been warmly welcomed.

In addition the airbus has been highly successfully developed, and the A320 will deserve the support it should receive.

With regard to dynamics, the Sea Eagle is proving to be, also as forecast, a fine missile for the benefit of our nation's defence. The Government's decision to purchase it was correctly applauded. Added to this should be ALARM, which everyone who has had the privilege of being connected with this development firmly believes to be of key future importance to the United Kingdom.

In my constituency workers for British Aerospace are rightly proud of their involvement with the future of the British Aerospace industry. My constituency, which contains part of that industry, is equally proud of its close association with this fine example of British success.

8.34 pm

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

Like other Opposition Members, I welcome this opportunity to question the Minister more closely about British Aerospace. As the Minister knows, my union is the major union in the industry, but I should like to go slightly wider that just aerospace. The Technical Administrative and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers is the largest single union in the aerospace industry, with some 45,000 members in the major companies. In 1981, TASS published a booklet entitled "The Future of British Aerospace", which was followed in February 1982 by a memorandum on why the Government should support the A320 and the RJ500. Since their publication, the industry has been subjected to even more uncertainty. The major companies, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and British Airways have suffered and are still suffering from job reductions. Last Monday, AUEW-TASS called a forum of senior representatives to discuss the effects of the Government's policy towards the industry and the problems that are growing as a result. I should like to point out some of the comments made by the senior representatives. Before the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) leaves the Chamber—

Mr. Murphy

I am not leaving.

Mr. Ross

I am glad, because I should like to refer later to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

TASS called a forum of senior representatives on Monday to discuss the very serious problems facing the industry. At the centre of our argument is the view that, with the present difficulties in the Western world's economies, it would be madness on the part of Government not to support the aerospace industry in Britain by direct involvement. We see that support primarily coming through recognition that the aerospace sector is vital to the British economy and for employment, investment and exports. In addition, it can act as a vehicle for high technology engineering developments.

TASS argues that there should be a national aerospace strategy with co-ordination between aircraft manufacture, engine manufacture and the carriers as one of its main components. These would primarily be British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and British Airways. Co-ordination would ensure that programmes such as the A320 and RJ500 were pursued in a mutually advantageous way so that the finished product would be available to a carrier such as British Airways with some degree of certainty. That is certainly not the case at present. Such actions would ensure that the industry developed positively, and would be able to match international competition, particularly from the United States.

There are key projects, whose importance the Government must recognise. Some do not, at this stage, conform to the flint-like policy of Government that insists on commercial viability, but how can they in the present depressed state of the West's aerospace industry? Having a stake in the future is vital and I am sure that the Minister would agree with that. Failure to act now will without doubt see Britain's independence and major role in the industry become subsumed in that of the United States of America.

TASS would like some comment from the Under-Secretary on some of the following points. On the A320, Britain in true style was sceptical of the chances of success for a European independent consortium to challenge Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas. Arriving in late 1979, we gained a 20 per cent. stake in the two airbuses, the A300 and the A310. That stake confines us in the main to the manufacture of wings. The A320 has been discussed for some time and its launch has been delayed at least two years. It is forecast that there is a market for about 3,500 of this new type of aircraft. Delay after delay has meant that both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing have been able to step in with derivitives of existing aircraft that will be interim measures leading to the development of the new generation 150-seater.

Along with my TASS colleagues, I have taken part in a number of visits to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. We have argued with him about the need for a final decision on the A320 project. We are advised by the Department that the problem lies with British Aerospace. We were told that its plans are not specific and detailed enough. We have met with Sir Austin Pearce, the chairman of British Aerospace, and have suggested to him that he should get his finger out and make it clear to the Department of Industry exactly what he wants by way of design specifications, financial support, and launch support. He has made it clear that the Department of Industry has asked for so many plans and so many specifications, which it has been given almost immediately, that he does not know what the Government intend. The Under-Secretary has a responsibility to say how the Government see their role in the A320 project.

McDonnell Douglas has annnounced the production of a DC-9 Super 83 which will be available in 1985. Boeing will have the 737–300 series available in 1984. British Airways has announced that it may place an order for up to 20 of either aircraft for delivery in 1985–86 to replace the Tridents and the 1–11 jets. A further 10 aircraft may be ordered in the late 1980s. Because of the delay in producing the A320 it will not, according to the deputy chairman of British Airways, be considered initially, but perhaps later. Imagine the concern that must be raised in the minds of the employees who are presently looking forward to the A320 project for job security.

We will continue to argue, as the French have argued, that the A320 should go ahead with Government support. Failure to do so will cause Airbus Industrie to lose its competitive edge over the Americans. The Under-Secretary smiled when I mentioned the French. When it comes to supporting industries, the French have one or two things to show us. Although we are discussing the aerospace industry tonight, the Under-Secretary should remind his colleagues in the Department of Industry of the way the French have outmanoeuvred them with regard to support for the Timex company in France, which is presently threatening 1,900 jobs in my constituency.

The problems to which I have just referred were brought to my attention by the employees at British Aerospace. They are concerned about the Government's failure to back research and development on military aircraft. They said that the A320 development had been stalled due to Rolls-Royce indecision on the development of the RJ500 engine. They also made it clear that they wanted support from the Government for the 30 per cent. demand by British Aerospace to ensure that it is involved in the building of the wing.

The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield mentioned the HS146, which is a very successful aircraft. Unfortunately for those Rolls Royce workers who attended that meeting, both the HS146 and the HS125 have American power units. If there had been more support for British Aerospace, not only would we have built the aeroplane itself but we might have been involved in the engine building. We cannot walk away from that.

The RJ500 engine was developed by a consortium of Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and the Japanese and was intended as a power plant for the A320. Development engines have been produced and have run with few, if any, problems. However, because of the uncertainty in launching A320, little work is now being done on the project. We need more forceful comment from the Department of Industry to make Rolls-Royce take the RJ500 more seriously. If the A320 were to be launched now, it is unlikely that the RJ500 would be available before 1988. Faced with that, Airbus Industrie is considering the General Electric engine CFN56/4. Rolls-Royce does not have engines on any of the airbuses. If the A320 is launched, it will remove any uncertainty and Rolls-Royce can go ahead with the RJ500.

Representatives of Rolls-Royce raised those points when we spoke to them. They made clear their concern that the successful aircraft should not have American power units. They said that Rolls-Royce is becoming an offshire supplier for the American airbus industry. Unless the Government, with their European colleagues, make a concerted effort to create a home or European market, Rolls-Royce will be entirely at the behest of the American market.

The representatives said that there had been heavy redundancies within the company and that, without Government interventions and decisions about the RJ500 and the A320, morale at the company could disappear. They said that Rolls-Royce has the technology but not the cash, while the Americans have the cash, but not the technology.

The GEM engines power the WG30 Westland helicopter and, potentially, the EH101 consortium venture with Agusta of Italy. But problems have developed in the sale of the GEM engine and its operation. Failure by Rolls-Royce or Westland to supply or buy GEM engines will have a major effect on the Leavesden plant of Rolls-Royce. In addition, funds must be made available for Rolls-Royce to continue development of the GEM engine series. The representatives suggested that we must push for development beyond the GEM60 to the GEM70 if the company is to remain competitive.

My colleagues in Ferranti, especially those in Scotland, say that there is little British avionics in the AV8B—the new Harrier project. Yet again, a major project being developed with the skills and expertise of the engineers and work force of British industry is being sold abroad. The avionics package that should have come the way of British industry is not to be. Britain is well placed to provide the latest in avionics development. We must ensure that, wherever possible, British avionics should be standard fitment in British or collaborative developments. Yet our colleagues in the industry make it clear that they do not believe there to be any determination by the Government to ensure that.

My colleagues are worried about the AV8B. It emphasises the folly of handing over British initiatives to foreign manufacturers. There is a danger that AV8Bs supplied to Britain could have American avionics—despite the assurances given when the designs were sold. The same applies to the airbus. The prime reason for arguing for an increased share in airbus manufacture and assembly is that more British equipment would be fitted.

My colleagues also raised the problems involved in the military area. While the Government have agreed to fund the agile combat aircraft as a one-off demonstrator, the future is far from clear. It would help the industry if the Minister tonight explained the Government's commitment to that aircraft. Replacements for the Jaguar will be required, and these should be British made and not bought from America. Pressure on the Government to support the ACA into production is essential to prevent the project being dropped.

British Aerospace Dynamics has a major interest in weapons, as do Lucas Aerospace and Marconi. As the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield said, HARM and ALARM are vital to the industry. Given the requirement for weaponry, decisions by the Government must be taken in the best interests of the industry and those who work in it. We shall continue to lobby the Government to ensure that those systems and companies are supported.

While our colleagues are committed to the present programmes, they are also concerned as engineers and designers to look beyond them to ways of using their skills in other areas when there is no further commitment to the military programme. It should be put on record that, although they are involved with weapons aiming systems, these need not be used only for weapons. The same laser systems could be used to guide blind people. They are also worried because the BAe146 does not have a British Aerospace power unit.

I could refer to many more projects and areas than those that I have mentioned. They all demonstrate that their success or failure is firmly in the hands of the Government. If they chose to, they above anyone else could inject the necessary cash and stimulus to ensure that the industry blossoms and grows. The Government have allowed many other industries to collapse. They must not be allowed to do the same to the aerospace industry. Already the warning signals are there, with programmes of job reductions across the industry. The constant demand for commercial viability is an unreal requirement in the present climate and illustrates the arm's length policy of the Government towards the sector.

The Government should be anxious to secure a long-term defence programme, geared both to military requirements and to the needs of British industry. There must be closer liaison between British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and British Airways, and closer European collaboration on a partnership basis. These points have been made by those who work in the industry and are concerned about its future. They demand that when a Labour Government are returned to power there will be renationalisation so that there will be closer links with a Government who are concerned to ensure the future of the British aerospace industry.

8.53 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) for initiating the debate. The subject is of great importance to British prestige and to the economy, from the point of view not only of the aircraft themselves but of the engines. I have a constituency interest, there being a Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) that the Government should congratulate themselves or that we should congratulate the Government on the denationalisation of the industry. That is no answer to the problems. In fact, the opposite is the case, as I shall show.

In the past, the whole aerospace industry has been a tribute to British industry. From very early on, Britain was in the vanguard in the development of the industry. We have only recently lost that position. There are many examples of aircraft with which Britain led the world—from de Havilland up to the development of the Comet and culminating in Concorde, which I still believe is a wonderful technological achievement.

Nevertheless, we have lost out and in recent years we have had to concentrate on two areas and to some extent to decide whether our future lies in the manufacture of aircraft or engines. In a sense, there is a indivisible bond between the two. Aircraft and engine production must be considered together. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) mentioned Westland helicopters and its partner Agusta of Italy with the EH101 and the Gem engine and referred to the possibility of a new series of engines developing from the GEM60 to the GEM70, and so on.

As a Rolls-Royce devotee, I am sorry to say that that company has not been to the fore in trying to develop a new series of engines for those helicopters. I have seen mock-ups of the EH101 helicopter, which is excellent. It is not, however, the British company or even, surprisingly enough, the British Government who are dragging their feet. It is the Italian Government who have been slow to respond to the demands of Agusta to make good their part of the financial responsibilities involved. Only last week, I spoke to a member of the Italian Parliamant who undertook to convey to the Italian Government the view of Westland Helicopters that the Italian Government should now move in this.

There is no doubt that American aircraft manufacturers have a great advantage over ours. There are advantages of scale in the production not only of aircraft but of engines. Rolls-Royce engines are in the big league of aero-engine manufacturers, competing with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Pratt and Witney and General Electric. I have rather mixed the firms there. Aero engines in America are developed mainly by Pratt and Witney and General Electric. Those companies have the great advantages of being parts of conglomerates so that losses in one sector can be offset against profits in another—an advantage not enjoyed by Rolls-Royce.

Clearly, we in this country should be examining aircraft procurement for both civil and military aircraft and engines on the basis of Government involvement. We cannot be continually put at a disadvantage to the Americans. They are the biggest producers both of aero engines and of aircraft. We cannot continue to be at a disadvantage in those markets because the British Government refuse to involve themselves in aero engine development and aircraft production for what they consider to be sound commercial reasons.

If we are not careful, we shall be relegated not just to the second, but to the third or fourth division of aircraft manufacturers and aero engine developers. That is what will happen if we do not accept the challenge which is evident in America and if we do not become involved as a nation in those two activities. It is getting to a late stage. Those of us who are involved in the discussions with British Aerospace, Westland Helicopters, Rolls-Royce and, to some extent, Sud Aviation in France, must realise that the American share of that market is enormous. While at one time I thought that we had to make a choice between remaining in the forefront of airframe production or aero engine production, I now tend to the view that they are so interwoven that we cannot choose to divorce ourselves from the one and cling to the other.

The Government must make a clear commitment in this regard. They must decide whether the technology that we have developed over a long time is worth investing in for the future. There is much anxiety among British aircraft and aero engine designers that the Government are not serious in their desire for us to continue to be in the major league in those two activities. I am led to believe that a shortage of skilled aeronautical engineers, both for engines and for aircraft, is developing. That does not augur well for our future.

I counsel the Minister to convey to his senior colleagues the great fear of the workers. It is not limited to the workers as it permeates from the shop floor up to the management—not the other way round. These two interchangeable and interwoven industries are essential for the future of Britain as a high technology nation. They will contribute both to the welfare of the many thousands of people who are involved in those industries and to the nation as a whole. When one considers the spin-off that develops from that type of high technology, it is not difficult to imagine the way in which investment in those industries produces substantial dividends both for the future of those industries and for the industries that are related to them. It would be provident for the Minister who is to reply to tell his senior Ministers that there are those of us with constituency interests not just in aerospace, but in the development of aero engines, who consider that continued investment by the Government is one of the best safeguards for the future not just of aeronautical engineering but of all forms of engineering and of continued developments in high technology.

The world is only at the beginning of high technology. There are tremendous developments to take place, and it will be as well that we do not lose our place before we have even begun.

9.6 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher)

When the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) first secured his Adjournment debate he was assuming that that is what he would have, but he has had an omnibus debate.

Dr. M. S. Miller

Ominous.

Mr. Butcher

The debate, as he said, has been all the better for that. I should like to thank the hon. Members for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) as well as the hon. Member for Stockport, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who have all made valuable contributions to policy-making at the Department of Industry. The hon. Member for Stockport, South gave a reasoned and comprehensive study of the British aerospace industry. I use that term generically. He said, quite rightly, that the industry—if I may mix my metaphors—is a locomotive industry. It pulls through all types of technology not specifically confined to designing and flying aircraft. It develops, as a byproduct of its product development, a number of state-of-the-art production techniques, in which the Department of Industry is highly interested and which we try to sponsor actively through robotic programmes, flexible manufac-turing systems and alternative manufacturing techniques.

Before we go on our tour d'horizon of the impact of new technologies, the hon. Member for Stockport, South and other hon. Members will expect me to deal with matters that rightly interest all hon. Members present, such as the future of their constituents and individual projects within the component parts of the British aerospace industry.

Uniquely among the European aerospace industries, the British industry has three distinct and vigorous components: the airframe sector, the aero engine sector and a sector specialising in avionics and equipment. We must also not forget the important contribution which the industry makes to guided weapons and, most recently, satellite technology. While most of those sectors have undoubtedly been adversely affected by the recession, the industry remains resilient and innovative. I shall come later to the point that the hon. Member for Dundee, West made about the TASS documents.

The industry's turnover represents about 2 per cent. of GDP; its employment of 185,000 accounts for over 3 per cent. of manufacturing employment. The industry is strongly export-oriented, tribute to which has been made by many hon. Members this evening. Exports represent approximately 50 per cent. of the industry's output. In size, the British industry vies for second place with France, after the United States of America, and it is significantly bigger than the established German and emerging Japanese industries.

However, I do not wish to belittle the uncertainties that face the aerospace industry and that have been voiced during the past hour. The hon. Member for Stockport, South described the crossroads at which the industry now stands. In a moment I shall explain the role that Government can play in helping the industry to position itself to take advantage of the opportunities beckoning in the last 20 years of the century. The aerospace sector is in many ways a breeding ground for other technologies that will be significant for the entire United Kingdom productive sector. I have in mind the use of advanced production techniques, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the beginning of the debate.

How then do the Government see their role? In the first place, they continue to give substantial support to research and development, and 36 per cent. of the Department of Industry's research budget is allocated to aerospace and space research and development. There is a clear inter-relationship with the substantially greater research and development programme funded by the Ministry of Defence. The objective of research and development must be the maintenance of a technology base that will enable British companies fully to exploit anticipated commercial opportunities. The opinion of the House could coalesce round that thought, and we could have some agreement. In the past, the boffin in the lab has been a little too remote from the salesman.

The second element of Government support for the industry is launch aid. We recognise that development costs for major aerospace projects are now enormous, and that there are problems in aerospace because of the long lead time between expenditure on development and positive cash inflow from the sale of developed aircraft. In those circumstances, and reflecting the fact that other Governments give comparable assistance to their industries, the British Government are in principle ready to give lauch aid to meet part of the development costs of civil projects.

However, such launch aid is not a substitute for normal commercial judgment. The Government are effectively taking an investment in the project, and must therefore be satisfied that it will yield an acceptable real rate of return. This matter has bedevilled the debate on the airbus. There has been much disinformation about the A320, some through inspired guessing and some from those who are perhaps in a fixed position on the matter. If hon. Members examine the guidance for real rates of return for other corporations, they will find that 5 per cent. is postulated. That should be seen as reasonable.

Dr. M. S. Miller

How does the Minister account for the fact that the French—leaving aside the Americans for the moment—have cottoned on to two real winners in the Caravelle and the airbus?

Mr. Butcher

Britain has not been too bad at cottoning on to real winners. Two or three projects mentioned this evening were real winners. We have managed to keep a balance between commercial advantage and public sector procurement, which the French have not done in all cases. The A300 and A320, and the Caravelle, were great successes, but we have matched them historically. The theme of this debate is that we must match it for the rest of this century and beyond.

In some parts of French public sector policy, especially that which forces research and development to pull through demand rather than the other way round, they have come a cropper. There is evidence that in information technology and telematique technology they may already be coming a cropper. Perhaps that is a matter for another debate, but the Department of Industry is most anxious to ensure that we work with the grain of the market and use it to bring through leading edge technology. Occasionally that requires a little cajoling or pushing along.

The Government are not averse to that and we have announced many schemes to do so, but in the aerospace industry we have to walk the tightrope between straight commercial benefits as projected by the companies that wish to apply for launch aid, and the simple granting of public sector support because we have a hunch that it might work. That way lies potential disaster. Launch aid is not a substitute for normal commercial judgment. A company will not generally wish to hazard its shareholders' funds on a project that is likely to prove an uncertain investment. Making civil aircraft is not an aim in itself; it is a commercial activity that needs to be judged against the normal criteria of profitability.

It has been suggested to us that aerospace projects will never satisfy the criteria as I have described them, but this is not the case. The Government were able to announce last year support totalling £41 million towards the Westland W30 helicopter project. We have every reason to believe that this will be a successful investment. I shall return to this point in response to the hon. Member for Stockport, South and to the hon. Member for East Kilbride and to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield.

With regard to international collaboration, another facet of the response to the increasing cost of aerospace projects has been the need for more people to enter into collaborative ventures in civil aircraft. A prime example of this is the Airbus Industrie consortium in which British Aerospace is a full partner, with a 20 per cent. share.

In the aero engine industry, Rolls-Royce and its Japanese partners continue discussions with American counterparts on a new engine development for the proposed 150-seater airliner. In the helicopter industry, the EH 101 development is a unique example of international collaboration between the Governments and industries of the United Kingdom and Italy, although, as we have been reminded tonight, we have to keep a close eye on that.

It is a characteristic of many of these adventures that Governments are brought into the role of underwriting, to a greater or lesser degree, the obligations that participating companies assume towards one another. The British Government accept such a role, which need not involve direct Government financing. We naturally wish to assure ourselves that such international projects are properly structured and commercially viable.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Stockport, South that decisions taken today, including public purchasing decisions, will have effects long into the future. I should like to examine first the civil side of the industry. The short-term outlook for British manufacturers is not encouraging. World air transport is not growing at anything like the rate we saw a few years ago. Financially stretched airlines are becoming more and more reluctant to take on new commitments and the new aircraft market is overshadowed by substantial numbers of available secondhand aircraft.

Regrettably, Governments cannot buy their way out of these problems. Reference has been made to the role of public purchasing in the civil sector. It is easy to say that the British Government should insist that British Airways buys British-built aircraft with Rolls-Royce engines. However, successive Governments followed that policy in the post-war period with the result that our industry concentrated on building aircraft so specifically tailored to British needs that they could not find a wider market. The Viscount and the BAC 111, I would concede, are excellent aircraft and have done very well. The civil side of the British aerospace industry was tempted to concentrate on technical excellence at the expense of the exploitation of commercial opportunities—a point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West when he compared the technological content of British aircraft with some American aircraft. My goodness, do the Americans not occasionally get the business?

I note the concern of hon. Members about recent publicity suggesting that British Airways is looking to American manufacturers for its immediate replacement requirements. I assure the House that no decision has yet been taken. A range of possibilities will be open to British Airways, depending upon the dates at which new aircraft types will be available and the pace at which British Airways will need to phase out elements of its existing fleet.

I return to the controversy of the A320—

Dr. M. S. Miller

The Minister mentioned that the development of the airframe industry depended on commercial projects and that, unless people made profits, a project would not be viable. We have no objections to that. However, the projection of making a profit on a project in the aircraft industry has to be taken over a much longer term. Those who involve themselves financially have to undertake that involvement over a longer period of years than is usually acceptable in the financial world. Should not the Government make that clear to people? Should not the Government take an interest by underwriting it to some extent?

Mr. Butcher

The hon. Gentleman has given the House a truism. It is, of course, a long-term effort that may require long-term financing. We are particularly mindful, in looking at launch aid decisions, that we must see a return on capital. If we do not, we do a disservice to the applicants for launch aid. The mistake in the past has been to take largesse but then to become divorced a little, but by a crucial amount, from market projections. We wish to see the British aerospace industry not merely surviving but thriving.

I should like to establish my own credentials by pointing out that my constituency recently lost 1,000 workers at British Aerospace, Bitteswell. That was not a happy experience. I did not enjoy facing those men after they had lost their jobs. Some of them are now getting together to try to remedy the situation through a cooperative development.

I have also in my constituency a Rolls-Royce factory which I visited last Friday. There is no doubt that Rolls-Royce is an excellent company with leading edge technology that has to consider carefully its plans for the future. Rolls-Royce will survive. It will be agreed that the company must thrive because it has excellent products. It is a question of getting the market for those products by one means or another.

If the hon. Member for East Kilbride will allow me, I should like now to dive back into the A320 controversy. At this time of night, when some of us have already missed two trains, that is perhaps a dangerous endeavour. I should place it on record that British Aerospace has applied for launch aid but that the evaluation of the project has been delayed by the absence of a suitable engine. We feel that the commercial viability of the A320 may depend on the ultimate availability of a new technology engine. However, at the end of last year, General Electric and SNECMA put forward proposals for a derivative engine which might, in their view, be suitable to launch the A320. The airbus partners are now considering whether to seek the reaction of airlines to this proposal. The airlines' response would be an important factor in the decisions taken by the three Governments involved. At this stage, I cannot say when it will be possible for the British Government to take its decision on launch aid.

The Government have not refused, as recently suggested in correspondence in the press from a gentleman not unconnected with the hon. Member for Dundee, West, to back the A320 project. Until the market potential for the aircraft, initially powered by a derivative engine, has been properly explored, it will not be possible to complete the assessment of the projects prospects of commercial viability, which all three airbus partner Governments 'wish to consider before committing themselves to the programme.

Mr. Ernie Ross

Does the Under-Secretary of State not take on board the fact that we do not wish to be merely involved in the consortium to build the airbus A320? We want Rolls-Royce to be involved in a consortium to supply the engine. It is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to say that the Government are standing back waiting for the consortium concerned to consider what the new American engine might be. We want the RJ500 on the A320. That is where the Government have a role to play, not only in the aircraft but also in the engine.

Mr. Butcher

I am sure that all hon. Members would be delighted if we could "write in" the RJ500 as a specified power source for the A320. Our difficulty in this House is that we do not manage the company. The company must get its collaborative act together. Then it has to get its application for launch aid appropriately packaged. We are not unsympathetic to either of those two ventures. There are signs that the RJ500, developed with vigour and imagination, is an excellent engine. It appears to have a market of huge proportions. Naturally, we hope that this engine will have the impact that a number of its illustrious predecessors manufactured by Rolls-Royce had in the past.

In answer to specific questions about the HS748 and the agile combat aircraft, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow me to progress a little, and not allow this debate to generate into an ad hoc Question Time. It is already a somewhat strange Adjournment debate.

I come back to the impact of Government decisions and the interrelationship between Government Departments. The maritime derivative of the successful 748 aircraft is manufactured at Manchester. I add my congratulations to the Manchester plant, in that 350 have been sold in a 20-year period. However, the Coastguarder has yet to break into the market, and I know that the fisheries departments, as part of a continuing review of the cost and operational effectiveness of the fisheries protection service, have been looking at the feasibility of employing a smaller aircraft for its offshore protection work. This task, ironically, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is currently performed by RAF Nimrods.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained in reply to a recent question asked by the hon. Member for Stockport, South, the Coastguarder is among the aircraft that are being evaluated by the fisheries departments and has a number of features that make it attractive for this type of requirement, including an excellent field of view, a spacious fuselage to accommodate, for example, additional tactical avionics, and a low-wing configuration, making the aircraft particularly stable and manoeuvrable at low speeds and altitudes.

No decision on the fisheries departments' requirement has been reached. However, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, have a large number of factors to weigh in reaching his decision, and I know that the industrial importance of a first sale for the Coastguarder will feature in his assessment, bearing in mind the value of such a reference order for the export prospects of the aircraft. Nevertheless, British Aerospace will be well aware of the need for the Coastguarder to be competitive in price and operational terms in relation to the other aircraft under consideration.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Those are the arguments that we have heard from Government Departments for the past nine months. They tell us that the matter is under consideration, and that it is a very good aircraft. We want to know when the decision will be made. Can the Minister give us a time scale? Will it be one month, two months, or is it something on which we shall never get an answer, no matter how hard we push?

Mr. Butcher

As a result of this debate, I dare say that various Ministers will be clamouring for copies of Hansard for their late night reading. I can give an undertaking that my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Agriculture, among other Ministers, will have certain passages in this debate drawn to their attention. Unfortunately, I do not have the cheque book that the hon. Gentleman demands. The taxpayers have the cheque book, and their representatives in Government will be responsible for the timing of the orders. I, like the hon. Gentleman, would be impressed if decisions were taken quickly on some of these matters, and I am sure that he would not expect me to hazard a decision tonight that is rightfully theirs. May I go on? [An HON. MEMBER: "You are doing well".] If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I am doing well, I suspect that I shall be in trouble tomorrow morning.

In view of the constantly escalating costs of military hardware, we must take steps to reduce costs. That argues for more collaborative projects of the Tornado type and I commend the initiative of British Aerospace in exploring the scope for an advance combat aircraft using the basis of a Tornado partnership. I do not expect my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to be in a position to take early decisions on the agile combat aircraft. The Government will first need to see the results of the experimental aircraft programme which will lead to greater confidence in future decisions and, by reducing risks, will smooth and accelerate progress in later development programmes. Those who saw the agile combat aircraft at Farnborough will have been impressed by it. The company has taken the initiative and it appears to be a most attractive aircraft. We hope that it is up to specification and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence will keep a close eye on it.

A detailed evaluation of the options for meeting the Royal Air Force's requirements for a defence suppression weapon, including the HARM and ALARM solutions, is in progress and is proceeding to schedule. It is likely to be a few more weeks before it will be possible to express a view on the ultimate selection. Here again, however, the industrial implications of the decision, including the national interest and the technologies involved, will be taken fully into account. That has been a constant theme of hon. Members' remarks this evening.

I have taken note of the comments of hon. Members on Nimrod. This is complex. The RAF must decide the balance of what is to be done in-house and what is to be sourced outside by way of refurbishment work, and the prospect of opening up production lines will depend on what orders can be attracted, particularly for the enhanced version.

My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield has, as before, vigorously placed his case before us on Sea Eagle, ALARM and the 146. I commend him for his pugnacious defence of his constituents' interest. The hon. Member for Stockport, South has drawn the attention of the House to his concern for those who live not just in his constituency but in Greater Manchester as well and the impact of what we hope will continue to be a thriving aerospace industry on the infrastructure of Greater Manchester and, thereby, on the social structure and the well-being of the local communities.

British Aerospace, Woodford, has been rightly commended. It has been the unsung hero, but tonight it has become the sung hero, of the south Atlantic. I listened carefully to what was said about the HS748 and Egyptair and I shall pass these points on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. It is important that we do as much as we can, by public or private means, to ease logjams—another theme of the hon. Member for Stockport, South.

With that over-lengthy response, I commend the obversations that have been made by hon. Members tonight for the reading of other hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o' clock.