THE QUEEN'S FLIGHT

HL Deb 05 July 1977 vol 385 cc319-32

10.38 P.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will strengthen and update the Queen's Flight, for instance by acquiring an HS 125 or a BAC 111 aircraft. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising at this nocturnal but happy hour to ask the Question on the Order Paper on the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight, I am conscious that a certain Press comment today may have set the scene for a more informative debate than usual. I am not sure whether I should be thanking the Press or the Government for this, but I naturally hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to confirm whether indeed there was a lively discussion in the Cabinet on this issue and, if so, to indicate the result.

I recognise at once the difficulty and sensitivity of this issue, when considered against our present economic difficulties, the Government's cut-back and the defence budget pruning. But I put down this Question because I genuinely believe that much of the sensitivity is misplaced, that the Queen's Flight does an immense amount of unsung good for the country and that the time has been reached when a decision, in principle, to re-equip over a period of time should not be shelved again, as successive Governments have done in the past, against, I am sure, all the good advice that the Government are receiving from the Chiefs of staff downwards.

As I shall not have an opportunity later, I should like at this stage to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for indicating that he will be taking part and giving us the benefit of his undoubtedly refreshing ideas, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who will no doubt be making some strident comments on the issue. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, because I do not think there is anyone on the Government Front Bench who is better equipped to answer this Question, as he served with distinction as a past Minister for the Royal Air Force in a previous Administration.

The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will readily appreciate and understand the outstanding service rendered by the 170 or so men and women in the Queen's Flight Unit at RAF Benson, and their total dedication and loyalty. It is perhaps interesting to recall, as I am sure the House remembers, that it was in July 1936 that Parliament decided that from that time on the public purse would be responsible for providing an air transport service for all the public duties carried out by the Royal Family.

The Royal Air Force was given the task. I understand that the unit was set up initially at Hendon and then moved after the war to its present base at Benson. Anyone who has visited the unit at Benson, as I had the privilege to do recently, cannot fail to notice immediately both the esprit de corps and the strong motivation of all the personnel at the unit. One can see the spotless hangar, the gleaming aircraft with their distinctive red, white and blue markings and Union Jacks on their tails. However, beside this emotive picture there lies the more dry and highly efficient operational side of the Queen's Flight. For year after year, month after month, weekly and daily the operations are planned covering the world. I understand that sometimes all five of their aircraft are in use at the same time. There is no back-up of reserves. Serviceability of the aircraft is, indeed, their pre-requisite of success. It is this total reliability which I believe has won admiration throughout the world.

I think that it is fair to say that whenever the question of the Queen's Flight is raised, either inside or outside Parliament, the critics seize on the view that the Queen's Flight is merely an exclusive, personal and private flight for the enjoyment of the Royal Family—an expensive Royal perk on the taxpayers. Indeed, if a question of re-equipment is raised one sees the Press article headed: "The Government are to give a personal gift of two jet aircraft to the Queen". Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth or more patently dishonest.

My Lords, the Queen's Flight's brief, as I understand it—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will clarify the situation—involves two fundamental points. The first is to provide an air transport service to the Royal Family in the course of their public duties. The second is to provide an air transport service, when requested, for certain senior Ministers of the Government, for the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and a whole list of others, but not, I am afraid to say, the Leader of this House or the Lord Chancellor. Most important, it provides a service for the visiting dignatories who come to this country. Last week, for instance, the President of France flew in one of the Queen's Flight aircraft.

My Lords, the Queen's Flight is potentially the most prestigious flying unit in this country. It is not unimportant to remember that this country rightly prides itself on its aviation achievements and, indeed, its great aerospace industry. What do the Government, at present, provide for this prestigious unit? They provide, as the House will know, three Andover aircraft which are propeller driven—the first was delivered 14 years ago—and two Wessex helicopters. The Andover has a range of, I think, 1,000 miles, a speed of 180 mph and has proved undoubtedly to he a magnificent and reliable aircraft. One is in no way criticising it as an aircraft. The Andover has served the Queen's Flight magnificently, but it has its limitations which are more acute today than perhaps they were five years ago. I understand that it is short of baggage space, an important requirement in this context. It has a maximum operational altitude of 15,000 feet, which often means that it cannot climb above bumpy weather, and a range of 1,000 miles. This means that it would take six days to fly to Australia, or 2½ days to cross the Atlantic. The obvious question is whether this aircraft is adequate now for the Queen's Flight. In a country filled with aviation achievement, is it a suitable aircraft for our Head of State, for our Prime Minister and senior Ministers and, indeed, for our foreign visitors to fly in?

What do other countries provide for their Heads of State? I have searched high and low but have not found any other Head of State who uses an Andover. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to advise us on this point. Most Heads of State use the BAC 111, the Boeing 727, the Hawker Siddeley 125 or the Gulf Stream. Even the British Steel Corporation use the Hawker Siddeley 125.

The truth about the Queen's Flight today is that only a relatively short distance trip can be offered. In other words, I understand that it can supply from its own resources only two-thirds of what it is called upon to provide. For the medium and long-haul flights it depends upon either the now ageing but magnificent VC 10s of the Royal Air Force, or British Airways, or one of the Commonwealth carriers, depending on the flight. This in itself—one could, of course, quibble about cost—is expensive in terms of both time, planning, maintenance and security as well as the need for a standby aircraft.

How active is the Queen's Flight and could it now justify, as I suggested on the Order Paper, the Hawker Siddeley 125 and perhaps two medium-haul BAC 111s? I believe that over the years the operational use of the Queen's Flight has increased substantially, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to refer to this point when he replies. Equally, I suspect that its use by Ministers entitled to use the Queen's Flight has decreased. Whether this is Government policy, or due to the over-capacity of the Queen's Flight, or because Ministers prefer to fly in more modern aircraft, I do not know; but again I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply on this point, for it would be interesting to know the facts.

As to the specific question of the Hawker Siddeley 125 and the BAC 111, I do not pretend to be able to judge the technical arguments in favour of either of these aircraft for the Queen's Flight. However, speaking as a layman, it seems a little odd that the Chiefs of Staff have a squadron—I think No. 32 Squadron at Northolt—of six Hawker Siddeley 125 aircraft, yet they cannot, apparently, spare one for the Queen's Flight. I do not know the answer, although I am sure there is one.

As for the BAC 111, surely this would be an ideal medium-haul aircraft, suitable for up to 4,000 miles. Already it has proved itself a winner throughout the world; already it is the aircraft used by six Heads of State; already it is with 60 operators throughout the world. It has just reopened its production line for 10 aircraft, and an order now must surely make good industrial sense. Its use could surely be combined with a Royal Air Force transport requirement. What is particularly surprising is that the BAC 111 is not yet in service with the Royal Air Force.

The last point I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in support of the case for updating the Queen's Flight is the simple word "prestige". I do not believe that the noble Lord will disagree that nobody in public life has done more to promote and support British Aviation than members of the Royal Family. It is a source of sadness to many of us, not least to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that the Government have not yet found an opportunity for the Queen to travel in Concorde. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say whether there may be a chance of this by the end of the year. We are immensely lucky in having Prince Philip and Prince Charles as proven aviators, and I understand that Prince Andrew is rapidly becoming a budding aviator as well. I suspect their enthusiasm and success as aviators is not unconnected with the charm and zeal of the present Captain of the Queen's Flight. Prestige has a value in aviation far more than in any other industry I know. The Queen's Flight has that prestige and so has British Aerospace; so I ask the noble Lord, is it not time that the one could help the other?

10.51 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, even at this late hour I am sure that many noble Lords, whether or not they are present in this Chamber, are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this Question tonight. Life is full of coincidences and I feel strongly that it was the noble Earl's Question that precipitated the Press reports this morning. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is going to answer the noble Earl; but however he may answer, I feel sure that in his heart he will be sympathetic, and that is a great start.

Let us look at the situation in a practical way. As the noble Earl said, the Andover is a very fine aircraft; there is no doubt about it and I do not intend to knock it. But the BAC 111 is a much more suitable aircraft, if not in every way, in practically every way. So let us look at the disadvantage: the disadvantage seems to me to be one simple thing, namely the cost, which I understand may come out at £4 million per aircraft. This may well be the reason why certain members of the Cabinet do not feel very keen on the idea of having some new aircraft in the Queen's Flight. Also, it does not take into consideration the Tribune group outside the Cabinet: not only would some of them like to do away with the Queen's Flight, they would like to do away with the Monarchy as well as your Lordships' House! But let us not forget, my Lords, that they are a very small minority. One has only to have seen the behaviour of the mass of the British people and the love they have for their Sovereign, as shown during the Jubilee celebrations, to realise this.

Last year tourism earned for this country £1,628 million and the estimate for tourism this year is £2,100 million, an increase of £600 million entirely due to the Sovereign's Jubilee. In fact, the Press Officer of the British Tourist Authority called the Jubilee the "icing on the cake". I would ask the Royalist knockers to hazard a guess what our tourist income would be without the Monarchy. Surely out of the extra £600 million we could well afford two aircraft worthy of our Sovereign, and for senior Ministers to use when necessary.

I say we should give praise where it is due, whether it is to the Minister of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Defence, for being the instigators of this "gift" to Her Majesty. At any rate it will not cost us much, but the order for two BAC 111 aircraft, will be a not inconsiderable boost to the newly nationalised British Aerospace Industry and simultaneously it must be a great sales point for helping to sell more of these fine aeroplanes to foreign countries. I hate comparisons, but if General Amin can have a £2 million Gulf Stream, surely Her Majesty and senior Government Ministers should have, as the noble Earl said, prestigious aircraft to travel around on their official duties. It is not perhaps without irony that when Her Majesty goes to Sennelager on Thursday she will travel in an RAF VC 10. In the circumstances, this is quite right and proper; but how much better would it be if she were to travel in a BAC 111 in the Royal Livery of the Queen's Flight.

10.55 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, we are, as always, grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising this matter with his usual clarity and force, and we are fortunate to hear his usually helpful and interesting intervention from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I am afraid that I must be a little restrained. First of all, I must join with my noble friend and the noble Earl in expressing my concern at the present arrangements and the present fleet available to the Royal Flight. Certainly the Andovers, although they were splendid aeroplanes when they were bought, and indeed still are, are really no longer worthy of our Sovereign or senior Cabinet Ministers when they travel. The aeroplanes are 15 years or so old; they inevitably have to travel at comparatively low altitudes, which sometimes makes for bumpy flights; they are rather slow, and if Her Majesty or Ministers are travelling to the North of Scotland it takes a long time. These aeroplanes are often used for carrying Ministers to Belfast, Northern Ireland; indeed I am told that several flights a week are operated to Northern Ireland, not all using the Andover but a good many do. Therefore, the time has come for us to consider what can be done.

I am, however, doubtful whether it would be right to invest these very considerable sums in the BAC 111, which has been one of the suggestions. One has to remember that re-equipment on that scale does not end with buying the aeroplanes. You have to buy the spares, and then to train the pilots. The RAF would certainly need a simulator. A simulator costs almost as much as an aeroplane. So although my noble friend and the noble Earl are thinking of expenditure of perhaps £8 million or £9 million for two aeroplanes, it will be much more than that; it will be £15 million at least by the time we have bought the simulator and all the necessary equipment, and trained the pilots. I doubt whether now is the time to impose this additional burden on the existing Defence Estimates.

However, as I have said, something has to be done with the Royal Flight because we really cannot continue with these comparatively tiny aeroplanes—and so few of them—that we have at present. What are the alternatives to the BAC 111, which I agree on the face of it is desirable? The other alternative mentioned in the noble Earl's Question is the HS 125. That, too, is certainly an attractive thought. It is a good deal less expensive to purchase the HS 125, and, above all, the RAF are already operating that type of aeroplane, so there would be no need for massive additional expenditure in terms of spares, supporting equipment, crew training and the like. If it is that the Royal Flight can use the HS 125, then that is most certainly an aeroplane which I would urge the Government to consider. But it is a very tiny aeroplane, much smaller even than the Andover. It will carry only six or eight passengers, and the Royal party, especially with their baggage, is often very much more than that.

So we may have to consider aeroplanes that are already in the RAF inventory. My noble friend has mentioned the VC 10. I believe that Her Majesty is shortly to travel to Germany in one of those. I would have thought that with the phasing out of the VC 10s, which I am told is to happen before too long, it might be possible to retain two or three of these aeroplanes reserved specially for the Royal Flight, and to use them on a much wider basis than is done at present. I agree that the VC 10 is not an ideal aeroplane for the shorter flights that are operated; namely, the ones to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. However, one needs to recall that the VC 10s which were purchased by the Royal Air Force are not identical to those that were purchased by British Airways. They are compara- tively small inside and are fitted with the uprated super VC 10 engines. Therefore, they are capable of operating from some of the shorter runways, which are frequently used on Royal and Ministerial flights.

If for any reason the VC 10s are deemed to be unsuitable, I wonder whether it would be possible to retain one or two of the Comets which the RAF have operated so successfully for so many years. I know from my own experience that the Comet is a very comfortable and reliable aeroplane. Those that were operated by the Royal Air Force were not greatly used, and when it was decided to retire them a year or so ago the ones offered to the civilian market were very fine specimens. If there are any still in the RAF inventory—and I confess that I do not know the answer to that question —I should have thought that they could be equipped as splendid aeroplanes for the Royal Flight and are in many ways suitable for some of the shorter routes that they would have to operate.

Another point which I should like to inquire of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is the question of the charter of civilian aircraft. We know that Ministers often travel in aircraft—in particular HS 125s—operated by the Civil Aviation Authority. We know that the Government pay the Authority for the use of those aeroplanes. I understand that in particular they are used on flights to Brussels and Strasbourg for matters connected with the European Parliament. However, I am told that this is not a very efficient method for the Government to use because, for one reason or another, they have to "pay through the nose", as it was put to me, for the use of those aeroplanes and considerable savings could be effected if the Government were to use aeroplanes belonging to commercial operators, which are apparently available at substantially less cost.

In the past I have put questions to the noble Lord as to the cost of chartering aircraft operated by the Civil Aviation Authority, but, hitherto at least, I have been told that this is a matter of commercial confidence and the information has not been revealed. I fear that I cannot hold out much hope of hearing the figures tonight, but perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider this matter and whether the relationship between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority in this particular area does not bear some re-examination.

My noble friend Lord Kinnoull has explained how the use of Royal aeroplanes has increased on such a scale in recent years. I suspect that the time is now ripe for a very careful examination of the total requirements both of the Royal Family and of Ministers to see which of the aeroplanes that I have suggested—the HS 125, the BAC 111 or some other aeroplane—might be the most appropriate. It has been suggested to me that the Royal Family in particular would be well served if they were to have available to them one or more of the large helicopters recently acquired by the Royal Navy; namely, the Sea Kings. These are much larger than the Wessex helicopters which they operate at present. They are faster and have a much greater range. Above all, of course, like all helicopters they can be used to fly from point to point, and could presumably operate from the grounds of Buckingham Palace to wherever the passengers wish to go. I have spoken long enough, my Lords. As I said to start with, we are, as always, indebted to my noble friend for raising this matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to help us tonight, as he always can.

11.5 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and other noble Lords, about strengthening and updating of the Queen's Flight. May I say also how much I appreciate the noble Earl's reference to myself. Of course, the Queen's Flight always carries a heavy load of commitments in any year, but it has been particularly busy in Jubilee Year, as one would expect. As an example, the arrangements necessary for the tour of Fiji, Tonga, New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia in February and March of this year by Her Majesty and Prince Philip required an exceptional amount of careful planning and forethought to ensure that the Royal party was conveyed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible between their various engagements, while still observing the highest possible standards of safety. Of course, all the arrangements went perfectly, as they have always done. But this is mainly because there is an organisation—the Queen's Flight—which enables this to happen.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the Queen's Flight has always been regarded with great pride by the RAF. It is for this reason that many of the RAF members of the Flight—who are volunteers—remain with it for a number of years, despite having frequently to work very long hours in order to maintain the availability of the aircraft at the very high standards of maintenance that are required. With the special demands of the Royal Flight, it is particularly valuable to have a cadre of long serving personnel thoroughly familiar with the problems likely to be encountered. It is, perhaps, appropriate in Jubilee Year that I should take this opportunity of paying tribute to their services over many years. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken tonight who have also paid their tribute to this distinguished Flight.

Before I deal with the main thrust of the noble Earl's Question, that of strengthening and updating the Queen's Flight, it might be helpful if I were to explain a little of the history and background of the Flight. Noble Lords will forgive me if I have to repeat one or two points made by the noble Earl. It was formed in 1936 by King Edward VIII, was disbanded during the war, and re-formed in 1946, when it was equipped with four Vickers Viking aircraft and established at RAF Benson, where it has remained ever since, and where it is likely to remain. Its present aircraft consist of three Andovers which were delivered in 1964, and two Wessex helicopters which were delivered in 1969. These five aircraft form the Queen's Flight as we now know it.

Essentially, the Andovers are employed for longer journeys and the Wessex for short journeys. The Wessex can carry four passengers over a range of up to 200 nautical miles at approximately 120 knots. The need for a helicopter is fairly obvious, and the Flight's Wessex, which are only eight years old, do a very good job. It is, however, the Andover to which my attention has been drawn, since it is this aircraft that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have replaced by, perhaps, BAC 111s or HS 125s. I say "replaced" because we see no particular need for strengthening the Flight by I increasing its present number of aircraft.

Let me say first of all that the Andover is an excellent aircraft for the purposes of the Flight. A Queen's Flight Andover can carry 12 passengers over a range of up to 800 nautical miles at a speed of 235 knots. It also has a good short-field performance, which is extremely useful, particularly in some parts of the United Kingdom where the airfields are small, or when tours are being made in some areas abroad, where airfield facilities may be rudimentary. I should also like to add that it is extremely pleasant to fly in. I have flown many hours in these machines, and it is, as noble Lords have already recognised, very superior in one respect to the HS 125; it is very roomy indeed.

Noble Lords will of course realise that whenever the Queen needs to fly over long distances she uses a suitably equipped aircraft, either from the Royal Air Force (for instance a VC 10, which has already been mentioned) or one chartered from British Airways or from other civil airlines. There would be no question of her flying to Australia in an Andover. She would have gone in a VC 10, although may I say that certain members entitled to use the Andover have in fact taken such extended flights.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also mentioned the HS 125 as an alternative to the Andover. The HS 125 is already in service with the RAF for Ministerial and other VIP duties. Indeed, members of the Royal Family have used the RAF's HS 125s on a number of occasions. For its specific use it is an extremely good and functional aeroplane. As all noble Lords have said, we shall, however, need to consider sooner or later the question of the replacement of the Andovers.

Why, then, noble Lords may ask, do we not go ahead and order new aircraft now? The House may not be aware that the cost of the Queen's Flight has always been borne on the defence budget. When it is used, as it is on occasions, by visiting Heads of State and British Cabinet Ministers other than Ministers of the Defence Department, a charge is made to reimburse the defence budget; and I presume, despite what noble Lords have said, that this is based on some rational system of casting. But most of the Flight's flying is done on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family; and the costs of this flying fall on to the defence budget. The capital cost of a new BAC 111, for instance, would fall on the defence budget, and, with its higher performance, its running costs would be greater than those of the Andover. I do not need to remind the House of the very severe restrictions on public expenditure generally which the Government are having to exercise at the present time.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the BAC 111 could do a far greater range of flights than the Andover can at the present time? One must therefore weigh up the Queen's Flight having to go out into the market—for example, to hire a jet from British Airways—whereas the BAC 111 would be able to do the job.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I think that would need a very careful analysis of the actual duties at present performed by the Queen's Flight and I could not tonight answer as to the exact costing of it, although in a moment I shall be coming to a point made on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

I was saying that I and my colleagues on this Bench are always reminding the House about restrictions on public expenditure. Nor do I need remind the House of the particular burden of reductions in public expenditure which the defence budget has had to bear at the risk of reducing resources available for important military projects. Noble Lords will therefore understand that the replacement of Andovers in the Queen's Flight by BAC 111s or HS 125s at this time is by no means an easy option for the Government. I think Lord Trefgarne recognised this point. Although he was somewhat pessimistic about the question of simulators and so on, I am certain these could be shared with commercial firms if that were necessary.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether the Government would strengthen and up-date the Queen's Flight. No one would wish to deny the importance of equipping the Queen's Flight with the best available aircraft. That is commonly agreed between us. Ideally this should be an up-to-date product of the British aircraft industry because of the unique opportunity that a Royal visit presents of projecting abroad a good image of British industry. These considerations, and those I mentioned earlier, will need to be carefully weighed by the Government, and I and my colleagues welcome the opportunity of this Unstarred Question to hear the views of Lord Kinnoull and other noble Lords interested in this matter; I will, of course, bring their points of view to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.