§ 2.49 p.m.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether H.M.S. "Eagle" has been retained in a condition nearly approaching the "unmaintained reserve" mentioned by the Secretary of State for Defence in the House of Lords debate on March 9, 1972, and why all equipment is being ripped out and all panelling stripped and burnt.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, the disposal of H.M.S. "Eagle" is proceeding on the lines I outlined to the House on March 9. Stores and equipment are being removed before she is towed to Devonport, where further removal of equipment will take place. However, a decision on when she should be disposed of for scrap will not be taken until later, probably not before the end of 1973.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have received reports that the majority of equipment is being ripped out of this ship, and that that goes far beyond the assurances which 1282 he gave to this House: that only equipment which was needed to keep H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in operational condition would be taken away from H.M.S. "Eagle"? In view of the growing strength of the U.S.S.R. maritime forces, is it not unwise to destroy any naval asset which this country and which NATO have?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, we argued the whole question of the disposal of H.M.S. "Eagle" at great length in March, when we had a separate debate on it. I made out what I considered to be the unanswerable case for the very sad but necessary disposal of H.M.S. "Eagle". With great respect to my noble friend, I do not think that it would be profitable to go into that aspect of it again. I would only remind him that a ship in "unmaintained reserve" takes a very long time to get back into commission. For example, a ship which has been in "unmaintained reserve" from one to 18 months takes anything between 9 to 12 months to be brought back into commission. Therefore the value of such a ship is very limited.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the cost of maintaining the "Eagle" in its present form, a ship that is never likely to be recommissioned?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, we are not maintaining "Eagle". That was the whole point. The point is that she is being de-stored, and some of the equipment which is being removed from H.M.S. "Eagle" is being used and will be used as spares for H.M.S. "Ark Royal".
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, before my noble friend says anything, may I say that it is highly unlikely that H.M.S. "Eagle" will ever be put into commission again. If that is the case, can he tell the House what progress is being made with the replacement vessel, the through-deck cruiser? Because we urgently need something to replace the "Eagle" and we should like to know the foreseeable date.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I must say that I think it is rather unlikely that H.M.S. "Eagle" will ever be commissioned again. The through-deck cruisers are going according to plan, as 1283 was outlined in my Defence White Paper earlier this year.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, will the noble Lord issue a glossary in his next White Paper when he is introducing terms like "de-store", which are unfamiliar to most noble Lords?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am very surprised if the noble Lord does not understand what "de-storing" means.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, it is simply because I do understand but some of my noble friends do not that I am raising the matter.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, it is the object of a Leader of a Party to inform his own side.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, it is the object also for members of the Government Front Bench to speak intelligibly to everybody in your Lordships' House.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, would my noble friend assure the House, its view of what he said, that every possible effort is being made to develop the Harrier for seaborne operations? The through-deck cruiser is important, but surely it is especially important to have the Harrier. Can my noble friend assure us that there has been no delay in order to try to perfect this aircraft?—because perfection is so often the enemy of the excellent.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I quite understand my noble friend's point. I would tell him that we are pressing on as urgently as we can with the studies which are necessary before we decide whether or not the Harrier will be suitable in the maritime role.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, can my noble friend give the House a final assurance that no equipment is going to be removed from H.M.S. "Eagle" which is not required for H.M.S. "Ark Royal"? I understand that the screws are about to be removed, and they are not required immediately for H.M.S. "Ark Royal". If this is going on, and there is wilful destruction of all the panelling in all the wardrooms, how does this line up with his assurance that nothing would be 1284 taken out of H.M.S. "Eagle" which was not required for H.M.S. "Ark Royal"?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not think that I could give my noble friend an assurance that nothing has been removed from H.M.S. "Eagle" that could not be used elsewhere, and I do not think that I ever gave that assurance. I certainly said that most of the equipment which would be removed would be needed for H.M.S. "Ark Royal", but I do not think that I could give him the assurance that nothing else would be used for another purpose. I confess I do not think that the panelling in the wardroom has much relevance as to whether or not H.M.S. "Eagle" will ever be recommissioned again. I am told that the panelling from the Captain's and the Admiral's quarters has been removed to preserve it. I do not know about the panelling in the wardroom.