HC Deb 12 December 1986 vol 107 cc680-98 9.35 am
Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood)

I beg to move

That this House notes the importance for jobs and exports of the British defence industry; and welcomes the Government's continuing support for the industry in its drive for a greater share of the defence export market and the industrial technologies appropriate to the 1990s. I intend to cover some general matters and some specific projects that relate to the British defence industry, especially those that affect Filton, within Bristol. Before doing so, I make the observation that in ordinary circumstances our debates on Fridays possibly see the House at its best. That is not the position in terms of attendance, but they give us the opportunity to cover a range of topics in a more considered manner than may generally be the position Monday to Thursday. In the light of the statements made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in Bristol yesterday, in which he attempted to produce a scare story about the long-term future of the European fighter aircraft and the job implications for many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the area, I shall in a later part of my speech deal with somewhat more contentious issues than those that I anticipated raising. The terms of the motion were framed specifically to enable the House to move away from the more emotive issues of unilateral and multilateral defence and to consider instead some of the great benefits to the nation's economy that many of the major companies within the defence industry provide for the United Kingdom.

I think that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) will confirm that previous debates on aerospace have been considerably all-party in character. I recall a motion that I moved three years ago—it was the first motion that I had the pleasure of moving in the House—concerning the A320. It was notable for every Back Bencher from both sides of the House speaking with a common line of thought. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), whom I am pleased to see in his place, took part in that debate.

The defence industry employs about 200,000 in the United Kingdom directly and there are many others who benefit indirectly through sub-contracting and off-shoot employment. The annual turnover of the industry has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1983 it was about £5.75 billion. In 1986 it increased to £6.6 billion, and the projection for 1987 is about £7 billion.

In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) a few days ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State stressed that exports of British defence equipment have risen strongly in recent years at a rate of about 12 per cent. per annum in real terms. That is a substantial achievement. Export orders reached £2.9 billion in 1985 and represented over 5 per cent. of British manufactured exports, accounting for about 120,000 jobs. A large proportion of the defence industry contributes to exports. The prospects are extremely good for the long term for both employment in this country and exports.

We should ask ourselves why the prospects are so good and how they can be maintained. They can be maintained primarily by the joint operation of a strong industry and active support from the Government, in their ordering policy in the United Kingdom and in assistance for exports overseas. The strength of the industry starts with the big high-profile companies such as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, and moves down to many small companies through companies such as Ferranti, GEC, Plessey, Racal and Lucas Industries.

We tend to presume that British Aerospace is a long-established company with great strength. It is worth remembering that it came into existence only nine years ago as a result of legislation passed by the Labour Government, who rightly brought together the airframe manufacturing industries. Over the past few years British Aerospace has rationalised its bases and products and is now beginning to show its strength. It is important to remember that for most companies in the industry—British Aerospace is no exception; indeed, it is probably the prime example—collaboration is an absolutely crucial factor. It is not just collaboration in the United Kingdom but collaboration in Europe as well as with the United States and other countries.

Without the strength of that collaboration, the British industry would be absolutely nothing. As a country, we cannot afford to produce major defence projects and expect them to succeed on our own. The cost of producing them is excessive. The length of the orders available is minimal. Therefore, we have to look for international collaboration outside our shores to achieve the maximum benefit. The routes that we are following in several projects show that. This must be recognised by anyone who is involved in the industry.

With regard to progress in selling abroad, there also has to be a direct inter-relationship between the Government and the industry. There is no point in any of the defence companies going abroad trying to sell projects when they have not received orders or substantial support from their home base. We must also ensure that they receive active support from British Government representatives in the countries involved.

I am pleased to say that, in general, the support that apparently is given to all industries—not just defence—has improved around the world from our embassies and trade missions. However, we have not as yet reached the level of support given so visibly by the French and Americans, for example, to their industries in other parts of the world. There has been an improvement, but we must not sit back and say, "We have made the changes. That is enough." It is not.

We are now receiving support from the Government and leading personalities. The royal family has been seen to give support on several occasions when dealing with other royal families who are in charge of major deals. That is to our long-term benefit, and it is the way that we have to go if we are to compete with those countries.

One of the major projects that is currently under consideration by the Ministry of Defence is Nimrod. I do not want to deal with it at great length; I know that a decision is close. I am also aware that one or two hon. Members wish to refer it. However, I should like to make two observations. First, I am concerned that there is a supposition that if the order does not go to GEC it will be a mortal blow to British technology as a whole. That is not so. There will be an impact on GEC and other defence technologies, but in recent years, for example, the United States has had failures with defence projects, such as the T46, the failure of some satellites that have had to be brought back from outer space, and the Divads project Sergeant York. All those failures have resulted in expensive cancellations. There will be implications; I do not deny that. However, I hope that they will not be overstated too dramatically:

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

The difference between ourselves and the Americans is that the Americans say that they do not give official support, which we know they do. In some of the projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred the loss was borne by the Government of the United States, not by the companies concerned.

Mr. Hayward

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has substantial experience in defence matters. There is no doubt that the American Government give immense support to some of the companies, visibly and invisibly. They are supposed to be free-standing defence contractors, yet when one looks at the way in which projects have developed one sees that several major companies are asked to produce alternatives, and they are funded by the Department of Defence. Probably the best example is the benefit that went to Boeing as a result of the 747, which was a failure for the contract for which it was orginally designed, but the Department of Defence had funded the pre-production models of the 747, which ultimately has turned out to be a great benefit not only to the company but to world aerospace. One cannot but recognise the assistance that has been given indirectly through such systems of funding.

My second observation about Nimrod is that, since the original commitment was made in 1977, there have been nine years of delay. We are told that there has been substantial improvement in the technological capacity of Nimrod. It is not for me as a politician to judge whether the options are now comparable. I say to the Minister and the Ministry of Defence that if the projects are technologically close we would all wish the order to go through GEC and British Aerospace. However, if the technical assessment is that there is a massive difference, I am afraid that, on balance, we would have to consider the Boeing option to be preferable. I am concerned about the technical gap. If the two are on a par, there is no problem, but defence technology is moving so rapidly that in two or three years time the requirements imposed on all defence capacity will be far greater than today. There are developing expertises in silencing equipment, new paints and new defence systems, all of which make it necessary to keep up with the advance of technology as much as possible, because other nations are changing extremely rapidly.

The other defence project that has caused problems within and without the Chamber over the past few months is helicopters. Earlier in the year there was a substantial argument about Westland and where its long-term industrial commitment should go. There is also, however, the problem of orders at the moment. I am not convinced that as a country we have identified the role of helicopters in the defence and civil fields. Until we address ourselves to that problem, it will be difficult for a Government or a civil company to decide what orders are to be placed and where. There is no doubt that there is a substantial gap in orders in the factory at Yeovil at the back end of next year, 1988 into 1989. I believe that that is causing considerable concern at Yeovil and in the aerospace industry as a whole. I know that efforts are being made by the company with the support of the Government to find orders around the world for aircraft currently being constructed at Yeovil, and to find work in association with the consortium which includes Sikorsky and to determine the other options available. It is important for us to retain helicopter technology because there are substantial prospects beyond 1989. The EH101 has been discussed on many occasions and work on the A129 and on Black Hawk may provide employment.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

The hon. Gentleman's comments about Westland are entirely accurate and I agree with them. It is not just this Government who have failed to produce a helicopter policy; successive Governments over 17 years have failed to do so. The gap is not just at Westland, because the British Army on the central front is regarded as flying the oldest helicopter fleet in the world and, according to an American study, it is 100 aircraft short of its need to fulfil the NATO task.

Mr. Hayward

The point made by the hon. Gentleman relates to the problem that I spoke about at the start of my speech. We are not sure where we are going in terms of the use of helicopters, not only for defence but in general. The problem identified by the hon. Gentleman is to some extent a reflection of the overall problem. The development of the RTM322 is a joint project between Rolls-Royce and Torbo Mecca. The engine has undergone test trials at Filton and has proved a success. I saw the tests when I visited Rolls-Royce at Filton, and everybody was pleased with the performance of that engine. It looks like a serious contender to the T700 for use in the Black Hawk and its variants. It is an example of the way in which Government and the defence industry can work together. In the long term, that engine could substantially benefit the helicopter industry.

We are not proud enough of the Pegasus engine. It is unique and we have been able to sell it to the United States, although we have not been able to sell it to as many other countries as we would like. The development of that engine did not stop once it was installed in the Harrier. It has been uprated and, in answer to a question that I asked in July, I was told that negotiations with the United States were going well. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said: There is a Rolls-Royce initiative to uprate the GR5 Pegasus engine. Although there is a formal requirement for this at the present time, we are attracted by its lower life-cycle costs and better performance. We are looking at it in conjunction with the United States marine corps."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 836.] As far as I am aware, that was the first public declaration that such developments were taking place. I hope that progress has been maintained in negotiations and that before long we shall see a commitment to the L1161 so that British and American forces and other people to whom we may be able to sell the aircraft will benefit from the further improvement in what has been up to now a uniquely British and successful project.

The other major aero engine being developed at Filton is the RB199. It has been in production for some years for use in the Tornado project. Work is being carried out in Germany, Italy and Spain and I hope that the XG40 will be one of the bases for the engines for the European fighter aircraft. A number of new technologies are being developed to improve substantially the performance of the RB199. It is a good engine, but the evidence suggests that the XG40 will be substantially better.

While dealing with those two engines and their development, I should say something about the Tornado and the European fighter aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) is unable to be here this morning, but he, along with members of the aviation Committee and other interested parties, worked hard to encourage the Ministry of Defence to get the four countries together. That was a major achievement and the four countries agreed to develop the European fighter aircraft. We now have a commitment to that aircraft and I hope to see the XG40 development together with developments in the other countries being used in that aircraft.

I understand from information that I received yesterday from a number of people in Bristol that they are worried about comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I understand that he claimed that there was no money in the Ministry of Defence budget for the European fighter aircraft. When challenged that this was merely a scare story, the hon. Gentleman said that it was not, and that there was no money and no prospect for the long-term development of the European fighter aircraft. Quite rightly, that worried many people.

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman could have made such a statement. Some of us have longer memories than he may think and we know that the last fighter aircraft Britain attempted to develop was the TSR2 on which my father had the pleasure of working. That aircraft was scrapped by a Labour Government. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) makes the very point that I was about to discuss. After the scrapping of that aircraft, there was an act of industrial vandalism unparalleled since the war—the instruction to destroy every jig and tool associated with the TSR2. At a stroke, all the associated technology was destroyed.

As far as I can ascertain from research in the Library, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has not asked one question over the last six months about the funding of the European fighter aircraft. The only question about it from the Labour Benches was asked in June by the hon. Member for Eccles. Since then, the only questions about the European fighter aircraft have been from Conservative Members. If one looks at the way funding is provided and commitments are taken about production of all defence projects—with the exception of Trident — one sees that they are not specifically identified until they are due for production.

Funding provided for research and development is clearly shown in column 32, page 17 of the second volume of the Defence Estimates published earlier this year. They do no identify any specific project. It is appalling that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North can go to a major city, Bristol, which depends heavily on defence industries, and raise such a scare story which is so incredibly ill-founded. If the hon. Gentleman has put down questions and has not received answers, I am willing to give way to him so that he can tell us about it. I shall also give way to him if he can identify the funding not only for the XG40 but the L1161, the RTM322 and all the other Army and Navy projects. I note that he sits in his seat in silence. I presume therefore that he concedes that his scare story yesterday in Bristol has no solid foundation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I concede nothing. I will make my own speech in my own time.

Mr. Hayward

I hope that all hon. Members will note that I have provided the opportunity but that the hon. Gentleman will wait and presumably avoid the examples that I have quoted and will not counter my argument and identify his information that the project is under threat.

Apart from the European fighter aircraft, another major long-term technological effort is under way—Hotol. It is primarily for defence but it has substantial implications for civilian use. That project is being developed by a number of companies, including British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. It is at the forefront of technology. We should be extremely proud of it. Recently I visited Japan and was amazed by the interest that the Japanese show in the project. If the Japanese are interested in it, that leads me to believe that the project is a potential world leader for the 1990s and into the next century. It has great potential for the transportation of people; it would also deal with defence threats; it could also launch satellites in a different way from Ariane and from the programmes that are pursued in the United States. After the recent tragic failures in the United States, involving the loss of life, it is important that a more reliable alternative should be found. The fact that the most attractive option is available from United Kingdom industry is a great compliment to us.

As for collaboration on projects, I said earlier that the United States has suffered from certain technological failures. I identified Sergeant York as an example. It provided British Aerospace and the Government with the opportunity to demonstrate to the United States that there is an alternative to track Rapier. The Rapier project has been successful. It has been sold to many countries. However, the long-term evolution of any defence project is important. We cannot regard it as a one-off project and then assume that that is it. Track Rapier is an example of the development of the Rapier project which is well worth identifying and supporting, because the United States Government need a system like that. We have successfully sold a variant of the harrier, the AV8B, to the United States. They are very pleased with it and variants are being developed. The Hawk is another primarily British project which is now being sold to the United States. It has a British airframe and British engines and it shows great potential. However, apart from the United States, other countries could be persuaded to purchase such projects.

On a more tendentious note, there is the strategic defence initiative. Many people are absolutely opposed to it, while others support it. It is important that the British defence industry should be allowed to sit at the table when projects at the forefront of long-term technology are discussed. We cannot sit back and allow other people to participate in a project and say that we shall not try to obtain any orders. It is absolutely crucial that companies and universities should be able to work on state of the art technology. I should welcome the participation of British companies and universities in that project. It would keep us abreast of the United States and also of the Europeans and the Japanese who intend actively to participate in the project.

The Labour party has recently published a consultation document headed "Labour party science and technology policy." It was written by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and published on 19 November 1986. It will have aroused concern in the defence industry. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South calls for a direct swap from defence research and development expenditure to civil research and development expenditure. We need increased research and development in civil engineering and in civil industry in general, but the document does not give credit for the large amount of feedback from defence research and development to civil projects. For example, nobody would identify the V2500 as a civil engine, but much of the research work on that engine was carried out in defence establishments. On page 5 of his consultative document the hon. Gentleman calls for a cut of £100 million in defence research and £1,000 million in defence development. I have looked through the document, but I cannot find the time scale upon which the hon. Gentleman is working. However, I am willing to presume that it would be over the period of one Parliament. If so, that involves a cut, on the basis of last year's expenditure on defence research and development—which I understand to have been £2.1 billion—of £200 million a year in defence research and development. If the Labour party confirms that that is its policy, it is important that it should identify which 10 per cent. of defence research and development is to be removed. Such a cut would affect projects not only in my constituency but in other parts of the country. One of those projects, the XG40, could be the basis of an engine for the European fighter aircraft.

Various countries have declared that they are committed to the European fighter aircraft and that the engine for it should not be the F404. The F404 is already in certain foreign air force aeroplanes. The attraction for foreign air forces is that the F404 could be used as the initial engine for the European fighter aircraft. The logic of that is somewhat dangerous, for there would then be an argument over cost. Because the F404 engine was in place, it would be argued that all associated development should be cancelled.

The Ministry of Defence actively supports a European engine for the European fighter aircraft, and I understand that Germany and Spain are still committed to a European engine for the EFA. I ask the Government to continue to support the commitment to a European engine and, with their European colleagues, to ensure that it is in place in the project from the start. My conversations with Defence Ministers in the last few months lead me to believe that they recognise that the European fighter aircraft is crucial to a number of air forces in Europe for the 1990s.

I have covered fairly broadly a number of specific projects and the general problems that face the British defence industry. With the support of the Government we must develop United Kingdom projects that can then be exported in order to provide a continuing and assured base of British defence manufacture not only for another decade but for many decades to come.

10.8 am

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak so early in the debate. For reasons that I have already explained to you, I shall have to leave the Chamber fairly soon, for which I beg the forgiveness of the House.

The motion is very interesting and I agree with much of it. I have been the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party's aviation group for some time and I have had the pleasure of working closely with the Conservative aviation group. We work harmoniously together, never acrimoniously, and always in the national interest. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is a relatively new boy in this House. However long he may be a Member of Parliament, he will never experience so much co-operation from both sides of the House, particularly from Back Benchers, as he has received over Westland. The Ministry of Defence has behaved badly over helicopters, not the Back Benchers.

I may now be attacked—nicely I hope—because I shall defend Nimrod in the strongest possible terms. My opening remarks are aimed at preventing unemployment and preserving technology but that argument is not meant to disguise the fact that I think highly of Nimrod. Technically, I am the only hon. Member in the Chamber who has flown Nimrod and used the equipment. I used it in a professional capacity. Hon. Members will probably laugh, because the last time I used air interceptor equipment was in 1945—possibly before some hon. Members were born.

At the end of the war we used the British mark 10 air interceptor. It was probably the best in the world and we lost it. That is the point that I wish to make to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). I do not take any comfort from his remarks about preserving technology. If the Nimrod equipment provided by GEC is not utilised, it is, in my book, another act of vandalism. I cannot do much about Nimrod in the sense of operating it, because I am old hat now, but it has been said that Nimrod produced too many returns, that the screens became cluttered, and that one could not pick up individual targets. That was basically the main complaint about Nimrod. I looked for that during the exercise. I must set the scene for this. Hon. Members may say "Ah, well, they have fed you a load of bull." But I am old enough in the tooth to recognise bull when I see it.

I operated the equipment with a squadron leader from the Ministry of Defence. We used the same circuit, so he knew exactly what I was doing and what he was showing me and there was no argument. I say clearly to hon. Members that the major objection to Nimrod was that there was a mass of clutter. That complaint was true, but is now no longer true. That problem has been resolved. In a crowded part of Britain, which shall remain nameless, we identified individual targets. That seemingly is Boeing's strongest argument against Nimrod.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way, and I apologise if I am raising a point which he may be about to come to, but can he be secure in his belief that the clutter has not been cleared up to such an extent that some of the targets that should have been within range are not now shown on the screens?

Mr. Carter-Jones

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but if danger comes at all, it will come from the south, east and north while the clutter occurs in the west. However, the clutter in the west satisfies my requirements.

The Secretary of State for Defence said: They both work. There's no question about that". I did not say that; the Secretary of State did. He went on a different mission in Nimrod. He flew successful interceptions. As a former member of the Royal Air Force, I do not wish to foist upon the RAF any equipment which does not meet its staff requirements. This aircraft does. The only hazard is that the horizon that can be reached is not quite as great on Nimrod as on Boeing, but that difference is not of any great significance.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

The hon. Gentleman has already given way once, and I thank him for doing so again. He knows that we are both joint signatories to the early-day motion which now, with the Labour motion, has more than 100 signatures on behalf of Nimrod.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the detection range for Nimrod is slightly shorter by, say 8 to 10 per cent. because the AWACS system was originally developed on the west coast of the United States for very fast arriving Soviet aircraft coming from the east. The protection configuration for Nimrod is of a different physical requirement for the whole of the greater European theatre, and is therefore perfectly satisfactory.

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the disturbing thing about what the Secretary of State for Defence said about Nimrod working as well as Boeing is that Britain would have no chance of getting such a system adopted by the Pentagon and Department of Defence, because the Americans buy and support 100 per cent. American systems? They have done that overwhelmingly, as history shows. Above all, there is such a major difference in cost that the decision must be made in favour of Nimrod.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on getting his speech in quickly. I do not agree with everthing that he said, but I must confess that he reminds me very much of a wing forward coming round the blind side when I played scrum half. I should have learnt the trick of not giving way. Basically, yes the environments of, say, the North sea and the west coast are different and Nimrod has been built with that in mind.

I shall refer to unemployment later for good reasons, but I do not wish people to think that I am advancing this argument for the sake of saving money for other projects and I do not want to condemn Boeing. In all fairness, I must say that I have quarrelled with Boeing more than most people, basically, as the hon. Member for Kingswood knows, over the airbus industry. I deplore the fact that Boeing tends to say that it is subsidising the airbus industry. It can say that if it wishes, but it should not pretend that it is not very heavily subsidised by the Government. It is Boeing's pretence that annoys me, not its aircraft. AWACS is now rather old hat. It is getting rather long in the tooth. One can modify and upgrade equipment to a certain extent, but there comes a point when one has to start from scratch. The aircraft that I flew in the war were modified. The poor old Mosquito was modified until it was hardly recognisable. One can modify and upgrade too far. The advantage of the GEC system is that it is a new system which possesses tremendous potential for development and improvement. I have a funny feeling that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is about to rise.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

To put matters in perspective, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Nimrod mark III AEW was launched in 1977, a year before the NATO AWACS programme was launched by our European friends in NATO, and yet the NATO AWACS came into service in 1982, which was the year in which the Nimrod mark III should have become operational? That is the difference in what has been achieved.

Mr. Carter-Jones

That is the one point that I will concede to the hon. Gentleman. The time factor has been scandalous. Two groups of people must accept responsibility for that. GEC must accept its part of the responsibility and the Ministry of Defence must also accept responsibility for moving the goal posts. Responsibility is not one-sided. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the delay, but we are talking about the present. The Nimrod aircraft will perform efficiently, will do what is required, and will meet the requirements. I have praised the aircraft and its system. Above all the aircraft has been paid for.

Recently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been belabouring us about the need to support exports. But there is no export potential for us in the Boeing AWACS. We could export our electronic capability for use in American aircraft, and in that respect the export potential is good. For that reason, Nimrod should be supported. However, I would not support an aircraft that did not provide the necessary protection for the boys flying it.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingswood said, I believe that if we do not order Nimrod we shall lose that technology. Moreover, it costs an awful lot of money to keep people unemployed; a substantial amount of public expenditure is involved in it. But if we did not pay unemployment benefit, to those made unemployed they would probably be attracted overseas, and I believe that those skills must be retained in Britain.

Mr. Hayward

Perhaps I can clarify what I meant to say. I did not want to suggest that that specific technology would not be lost. But I believe that some people have exaggerated the situation, saying that if we did not get the order it would be a comment on British defence technology as a whole. I concede that there would be a problem for this specific technology.

Mr. Carter-Jones

That just goes to show what a reasonable bunch of people we are in the all-party aviation group. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

We have some massive gaps in our defences. We may now start arguing about the figure. How much more will the AWACS system cost compared with Nimrod? A reasonable figure would seem to be about £500 million. However, as soon as I say that, someone will probably disagree. No fluttering of light has come into the Minister's eyes, but perhaps we should settle for £450 million.

That amount of money would provide a lot of conventional weaponry in this country, and that is what we desperately need. I do not like the sort of headline that states, "Decision on assault ship awaits a £250,000 report". The Government commission reports when they should be commissioning ships. The problem is that there has been delay after delay, and our shipbuilding industry has suffered. Our ability to land assault ships has been substantially reduced.

Mr. Marlow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carter-Jones

An intervention will take up my time, but I certainly give way.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman will realise, I am sure, that Conservative Members and no doubt the Government as well are deeply committed to the Royal Marines and that particular capacity, but the assault ships that we have at the moment have a life until the mid-1990s. Surely it is far more sensible for the Government to commission a proper report and to come up with the best, most cost-effective, proper and effective solution than for them to go ahead and build ships at this stage, when they are not now wanted.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I suppose it shows that the Ministry of Defence is flexible in that it cancelled those ships at one time, and preserved them just in time for the Falklands war. It had a deathbed conversion. The Navy still needs more ships, but instead it gets feasibility studies. Feasibility studies are all right if time is on one's side. In 1939 or 1940, we had Spitfires, which were first-class aircraft, and Hurricanes. They were not feasibility studies but real aircraft. Our problem was that we did not have enough of them. That is the problem now with our conventional defences. Feasibility studies are still being carried out.

I think that I have made the case for Nimrod, and at least the House knows where I stand on that issue. I am not talking about a mock-up; I actually flew in the aircraft. During both exercises the equipment worked to the air staff, not target, requirement. When we come to air staff targets, we enter a whole new sphere. I was confused, because I thought that Westland made the W30 to meet air staff target 404. Then somebody said that the target was not what was really wanted, and that it was the requirement that was needed.

Let us leave out the political battles. After all, the Conservative aviation group went to see the Minister of State for Defence Procurement about two years ago, just as the Labour party aviation group did. He was warned about what would happen. Suddenly everything happened, and we had one hell of a row about helicopters. However, Back Benchers on both sides of the House had given warnings, so the Ministry could not say that it did not know.

The Ministry then put two problems before the country. First, Westland, a high technology helicopter industry, found itself in difficulty. Secondly, the armed forces were denied the helicopter support that they required. In response to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I should point out that paper helicopters do not defend people in battle. If troops have to be moved up quickly, a working and up-to-date helicopter is needed, not one that is years out of date.

Westland has recovered quite well, but not thanks to politicians. Our track record on defence is not good, but Westland has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and now deserves support and orders. The hon. Member for Kingswood said that if we ordered in advance we could order helicopters now that would be of great value to the Army, in support, using substantial amounts of Westland technology and the RTM322 engine, which would seem to be a superb winner. Consequently, the Ministry may have an obligation to bring forward some orders for Westland. The company is owed that.

I strongly support what has been said about HOTOL. We have too often taken the lead and produced designs that we have then thrown away. If, at the end of the day, money is required to push the concept ahead faster, it is well worth it. Some of that money could come from the savings that will follow fitting GEC avionics into existing Nimrod aircraft that have already been paid for.

Back Benchers on both sides of the House were right about the new fighter trainer and the Government were wrong. What we said about the PC9 and the delay in the provision of Tucano was absolutely right, and the latest figures prove that. British Aerospace is delivering. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is going there on Monday when the first PC9 will be delivered and the Saudi airforce will get it.

The aircraft that we chose, I think because of a cunning aerial manoeuvre which won the hearts of many people, is a long way behind. The Minister should sometimes listen to his Back Benchers. If Back Benchers on both sides of the House are united, they are probably right and have probably received well informed advice.

The Minister should go for Nimrod. Some of the money that is saved by buying Nimrod should be put into HOTOL. The Government cannot rethink their decision with regard to the fighter trainer, but it was the wrong one. Having helped to cause some of the problems at Westland and as they have now been put right, the Government should ensure Westland's high technology, especially in view of its high technology blade and the possibility of a new Rolls-Royce engine going into the helicopter. If they buy British, the Government will find that the exports flow.

10.31 am
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on introducing this important debate. It is vital that our Armed Forces are supplied with the best and most technologically up-to-date equipment. It is equally important that we have an effective, efficient and successful, especially in terms of exports, defence industry.

Opposition Members might say that it is immoral to export weapons of war. Maybe they say that in their constituencies as well, where we enjoy such a successful defence industry. Sadly, the world is not a safe place and there will be armies and defence forces which require equipment. As long as that is the case, I for one believe that it is more than proper—it is right and beneficial—that they should enjoy the opportunity of buying British equipment, and the better that equipment is, the more satisfactory it will be.

We have addressed the important subject of airborne early warning. I do not know what the solution to the requirement is. I do not know whether it should be AWACS or Nimrod. With respect, I believe that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), despite his great eloquence, does not know what the solution should be either. I also put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) with the greatest respect, because I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, that he and the 100 hon. Members who have signed the various early-day motions, do not and cannot know, either. What I do know is that this is a very important requirement and that it is of the essence that we get it right. Airborne early warning is the system by which we would know whether a surprise attack on the United Kingdom was likely to take place. It is vital that we have in position in the sky a system in which we can have the utmost faith. If we get something which is not the very best—which is adequate—bearing in mind the circumstances in which it could be required, it could be the death of the United Kingdom. It is therefore vital that we get the right solution.

When looking for the right solution, we have to ask of both systems, "Does it work?" I do not know. I do not have the skills, knowledge or ability to assess whether they work. Do they work?

Mr. Dykes

I shall be brief this time. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed on "News at Ten" last Friday that Nimrod works as well. With that confirmation, we know that we are making a rational decision between the expensive AWACS system, which had teething troubles for the first six years, and a much better system which has enormous export potential and is British.

Mr. Marlow

I am sure that, when the decision is made, the effectiveness of Nimrod will be taken into account. I am sure that Nimrod will do an effective job, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have said so. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend agrees that it is of the essence that we have the very best.

As the hon. Member for Eccles said, the Nimrod system used to have a great problem with clutter. One could see targets, and objects that were not targets as well. The hon. Gentleman talked about looking to the east and looking to the west, but if one clears up the screen to the extent to that one clears up the clutter, it is possible that the target, whether coming from the east or the west, will not appear on the screen. I do not know, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he does not know either—perhaps he has some miraculous way of knowing—whether that problem has been solved. If so, perhaps he will tell the House.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I most certainly will. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman must realise is that part of the clutter is caused by slow-moving equipment. If one is trying to intercept a cruise or stealth-type machine, it develops a tail. One looks for something which moves quickly and develops a tail. I am sorry to have to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson, but that is the difference between a fixed and a moving target—a moving target shows a tail and can be clearly identified.

Mr. Marlow

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the lecture. I spent three years at university being taught engineering. I am not saying that I learnt anything, but I was taught. What the hon. Gentleman says is probably correct, but there are other aspects of the technology and of definition. I am not saying that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, but the hon. Gentleman does not know whether it has or has not, either.

The hon. Gentleman said that Nimrod has a lesser horizon than AWACS. There is a difference in the geometry. The radar antenna is central with AWACS and there are antenna at both ends of the aircraft with Nimrod. I do not know, and the hon. Gentleman does not know, whether that difference in geometry has different characteristics with regard to the effectiveness of the two systems, but that factor must be taken into account.

The hon. Member for Eccles said that AWACS is out of date and that it is not the sort of system that can be modernised and brought up to date. Perhaps he is right. Maybe he is wrong. I am quite sure that the Government, the Cabinet and all of the people who are scrutinising these two options will consider that aspect carefully. I am not trying to run Nimrod down. The hon. Gentleman spoke of on the one hand, but we should consider the other. Nimrod is based on the Comet aircraft, which I think was built after I was born, but I was born before the hon. Gentleman was flying an aircraft. It was not that recent.

The hon. Member for Eccles also said, as others would put it, that a lot of money has been spent on Nimrod. If money has been spent, that water has flown under the bridge.

Mr. Carter-Jones

No.

Mr. Marlow

If the hon. Gentleman were in business or commerce and he bought a bit of machinery for his factory last year and it was doing a good job and a new piece of machinery came along with he could finance and afford to employ the labour for and, after employment and interest costs he would still save some money, the best thing that he could do is dispose of the old machine for the most money that he could get for it. The same applies here, if one has spent money that money has gone and it is not retrievable. What one is looking at—

Mr. Carter-Jones

rose—

Mr. Marlow

If I may just finish my point. What one is looking at are the future costs. The future costs, taking into account the disposal costs of what one has got and the disposal potential of what one has got. It is the future costs that one has got to look at.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I must make it very simple for the hon. Gentleman. We have got 11 arcraft that have been paid for. We do not have to write them off, we have got them.

Mr. Marlow

of course the hon. Gentleman is right. If one is looking at building Nimrod from today it will obviously make it less expensive than it would be if we did not have those aeroplanes. The point I am making is that it is the money that one has got to spend from today—to get to the solution—that is the financial cost that one should look at. That money has gone—one cannot retrieve it. It is the on-cost from today—we start from today. I will not make a racialist remark about Irishmen.

We come to the question of the British or United States solution. I think we all know in the House that these multibillion projects are not as simple as that. If we have what is essentially a British solution it also has a large foreign component and if we have what people think to be a United States solution that also would have a massive British content. If one speaks to Racal or Plessey about AWACS they start watering at the mouth. They see a very great opportunity for them to be involved in this project. It is not as simple or as straightforward as that. I think that the hon. Member for Eccles would know that. The hon. Gentleman talked about employment.

Mr. Ashdown

I feel absolutely certain that on the question of offset-arrangements there is a great deal to be gained for British companies out of AWACS. The difference is that if we take AWACS we shall be building technology invented elsewhere but if we take the Nimrod option we shall be using British technology. On the one hand, we would be basically bolters and pinners of other people's technology but on the other hand we would be developing our own. Can the hon. Gentleman not see which is to be preferred between those two options?

Mr. Marlow

I agree with the hon. Gentleman as far as Nimrod is concerned and that part of avionics that is particular to airborne early warning systems. Of course, that is British technology and of course, it is preferable if we can use British technology, particularly if there are great export opportunities. But one cannot yet say that. I am sure, all things being equal—I am sure the Government would believe, all things being equal—that if Nimrod does the job, it is Nimrod that we must have.

Mr. Ashdown

It does the job, the Secretary of State said so.

Mr. Marlow

Well, we will see, we will see. That may be the case and the hon. Gentleman may hope that it is the case, but I start from the simple position that I hope that we get the best possible solution. I would move on from there. For obvious reasons one would hope, possibly, that Nimrod is able to produce the best possible solution. We do not know yet and I put it to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) with great respect, that he does not know either.

In terms of technology, the early warning system is not the only technology on the aircraft. Racal and Plessey, in their own ways, are on the frontiers of technology with regard to other parts of avionics within the system. If the AWACS system were to be developed there would be great opportunities. I am not necessarily talking about the offset employment opportunities but the technological opportunities for British companies, together with Boeing, to develop further along the frontiers of technology and to gain technological expertise and further export markets. That would benefit Britain later on.

Let us consider the offset arrangements. Yes, of course, Boeing has offered very generous offset arrangements but I think that, to a certain extent, one is sceptical about that offer. These offers may be made, but given the position of Congress and given the difficulties of the United States system in putting orders overseas, whatever the company says, can we really be assured that it could deliver what it is promising? Again, this is something I am sure the Government will be scrutinising as effectively as it possibly can.

Right. If both work and if Nimrod is as effective as AWACS—as hopefully it will be, as I said to the hon. Member for Yeovil—and as that is the most British solution and if it is an effective solution, so be it. Hurrah! Let us have Nimrod. But I put it to the House that we do not yet know. A British Secretary of State for Defence would have all the evidence before him and would put that evidence to the Cabinet. It is impossible that he would go for a United States version, or basically the United States version, if he thought that the British version was better and would do the job. That will not happen. If the Government come up with AWACS there must be a very good reason for coming up with AWACS, for to do so will obviously be politically difficult. The Government will only do that if it is the best solution. They will not do it for any other reason.

I would like to address myself briefly to one other point and that concerns the British Army of the Rhine and the equipment for the British Army of the Rhine. This might be music to the ears of the hon. Member for Eccles, I am not sure. I take the view, without a great deal of knowledge, perhaps instinctively, that we have reached the stage—a watershed—as we reached a watershed between the horse and the tank. We reached that watershed rather too late as we had horses for too long. We are now reaching a watershed between the tank and the helicopter.

I have been told by people who I believe are objective and who have the knowledge to put the point, that given modern methods of battlefield surveillance, one would be able to see where all the tanks are from a very long distance. One can get helicopters a long way quickly and concentrate them. Traditionally, the tank, in attack, has been used in a concentrated format, to puncture holes through our defences or the enemy defences. One has got to get the tanks together—concentrate them together, to use them to the most effect. The concentration of tanks, slowly lumbering into position, would be seen "for a long time from a long distance". The build-up would be known in advance.

Helicopters, with a much greater range than the tanks, with highly effective missiles, developing every day, could be in a position well out of range of the tanks. They would be safely—as far as anywhere on the battlefield is safe—and securely over their own troops, ready to take out each and every tank without any intervention from the tanks, though of course there might be other forms of aerial intervention. That technical problem could be dealt with, to a large extent, also by the helicopters through stealth and other means.

We have just bought a regiment of Challenger tanks and I believe that that probably should be the last regiment of tanks that we buy, particularly for an offensive role. I do not say that tanks do not have some defensive role. If we look to the future and the modern cavalry I believe that the modern cavalry will not be based in tanks but in helicopters. After all, a helicopter is much more like a horse than a tank. If one is after a bit of esprit de corps and élan in the cavalry, perhaps the helicopter is more appropriate than tank. Farewell the tank, welcome the helicopter.

Let me make a few comments, which one would expect from the Labour Benches, but may be of more interest coming from this side. I wonder whether we really ought to look at the way we form some of our regiments. There is the idea that some of our cavalry regiments should be outposts for some of the less intelligent sons of families that own large slices of counties and have double-barrelled names. I think that we ought to move on from there and we ought to be more professional in our approach as to how we officer some of those regiments.

I believe that our Army is now a very professional Army and I believe that some of the social aspects that have been carried forward from the past are things that we should, perhaps, look at a little more carefully in the future.

10.49 am
Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I wanted to take part in the debate because I suspected that there would be almost unanimous agreement on the motion and I wanted to put some arguments against it.

Because of what I have to say, I should make it clear that I am not a pacifist. I served for five years in the Royal Navy during the war and I have never looked back on that service with anything but satisfaction. I agree that every country has the right, indeed the duty, to arm and defend itself, but I oppose the expansion of the arms exports trade.

In saying that a country must defend itself, I do not say that it must necessarily use nuclear weapons. There is a glib cliché that nuclear weapons have preserved the peace for 40 years, but I do not believe that that is the case. One can believe that only if one postulates the theory that for the past 40 years the Russians have been poised to walk into this country. I have never had any illusions about the Soviet system of government, but I do not believe that that is true.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that peace has been maintained for 40 years?

Mr. Stewart

There is no argument about that, in the sense that no major war has broken out. However, some people who defend the Common Market argue that it has been responsible for ensuring that there has been no European war. Those who defend the nuclear deterrent make the same claim. I do not look at the Russians through rose-tinted spectacles, but I do not believe that for the past 40 years they have been poised to invade the United Kingdom.

At least Conservatives are frank about wanting to expand arms sales. Unlike the Labour Prime Minister who appointed a Minister for disarmament and within a month appointed a salesman to go round the world flogging arms, the Conservatives are open in their wish to increase arms sales.

I find the mention of developing British technology rather odd because we in Scotland have suffered from what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) says would be the result of ordering the American aircraft. Although Scotland has had many military installations dumped on her soil, with effects on the environment, the economy and our way of life, we have had little share of defence contracts, even those for the defence of the United Kingdom. We do not have the percent.age share that our population would justify.

I do not have the knowledge to make a judgment between the Nimrod and the AWACS, but Boeing says that it will produce far more jobs in Scotland if its aircraft is chosen. If it is a question of jobs, I look for an advantage for Scotland and I will do no public relations work today on behalf of the Nimrod.

The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said that the Government should be commissioning ships and not reports. The Government have shown little concern over the disappearance of the Merchant Navy, but the Royal Navy cannot be maintained without a sufficient merchant fleet. The trade aspect might be disregarded, the employment aspect might be disregarded, but surely this Government, of all Governments, with their dedication to defence—they make a great thing of it and there is substance in their claim—should not be indifferent to the disappearance of the Merchant Navy, because we are still a maritime nation and without a Merchant Navy the Royal Navy will not have the people to man its ships in a war. In the meantime, the maintenance of the Merchant Navy will provide work for our hard-hit shipbuilding industry.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) mentioned the Chinook helicopter. There has been a loss of confidence in that machine following the recent tragic accident in the Orkneys. I have written to the Department of Transport following representations made to me by my constituents who use that service to the oilfields. They say that the helicopter should be phased out and I understand that it is not used for civil purposes in the United States. I hope that the Minister will note their representations.

It is not true to say that arms exports result in more jobs. The opposite is happening. The value of arms exports has risen substantially recently, but the number of jobs has fallen. Britain is the fourth largest exporter of arms after the United States, the USSR and France and it is immoral that some arms are diverted to countries such as Chilek, Iran and Turkey that have appalling records. It is an immoral trade which raises tensions and increases danger. It puts an arms burden on Third world countries with meagre resources. I decline to support a motion which welcomes the Government's continuing support for the industry".

10.55 am
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip, Northwood)

I do not know what it is about this season of the year and its effect on colleagues, but a year ago an outbreak of mass hysteria seemed to affect the collected ranks of hon. Members and, particularly, right hon. Members and this year a similar thing has happened over Nimrod and AWACS.

In both cases, the debates have been characterised by a plethora of hyperbole and wild exaggeration. Arguments in favour of patriotic solutions have been advanced, with few or no technical facts to back them up. Such behaviour does us discredit.

In both cases the relevant experts have clearly come up with appropriate policies and we saw yesterday that the judgment of the board of Westland was vindicated in the return of £26 million profit by Westland plc over the past year. This is hardly surprising in view of the excellent quality of management there and the commitment and dedication of the work force.

We are now considering the future airborne early warning requirement of the Royal Air Force. The defence equipment committee of the Ministry of Defence has had all the facts, there has been an extremely thourough evaluation over the past six months and the technical conclusions are patently clear. Only the Boeing E3A AWACS meets in full the necessarily demanding specifications of the RAF for an airborne early warning system.

Furthermore, Boeing has secured three leading British electronic companies as partners. Plessey, Racal and Ferranti all stand to gain substantially from that arrangement and, according to the offset agreement, the Americans will purchase in the United Kingdom £1.30 of goods and services for every £1 that we spend on procurement of the AWACS in the United States. We shall also be able to share in the future enhancement of the AWACS system over its whole life in service not merely with the RAF, but with other air forces, such as those of the United States, Saudi Arabia and, potentially, France.

The French air force dimension has been gravely overlooked. When Mr. Chirac came to the Assembly of the Western European Union last week I advocated that the French air force and the RAF should jointly buy AWACS. The aeroplane has already been certificated for the Franco-American CFM56 engine and it will be much more economical than the AWACS currently in service in the USAF. The French chief of air staff has come out publicly and strongly in favour of the Boeing solution, saying: The crux of the matter is low and very-low-altitude detection. And at this stage only the E3A Sentry responds to the Armée de 1'Air's operational needs within reasonable delivery dates. The needs of the French air force and those of the Royal Air Force are not so dissimilar as to lead to a different judgment. That is why the Royal Air Force unanimously recommended that Ministers should procure AWACS. If they do not do so, they will be irresponsible. The needs of the country's air defence are absolutely paramount. They will be more crucial if there are INF arms control reductions which, if so, will leave the country just as exposed to manned, penetrating bomber attack. Therefore—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).