§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy 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 what shipborne fixed wing aircraft capability will be available to the Royal Navy between the end of 1978 and the coming into service of the Sea Harrier embarked in HMS "Hermes", forecast for some time in 1980.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, none. But air support for the Fleet will be provided by the Royal Air Force, which will take over the Phantoms and Buccaneers from "Ark Royal" for the purpose. Also, the Fleet deploys its own weapons systems for use against ships, submarines and aircraft.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and, indeed, for his letter—which contained substantially what he has just said—which crossed with my Question in the post. I should like to ask him exactly when in 1980 it is planned that HMS "Hermes" will embark her first squadron of Sea Harriers.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question precisely. It will be during 1980 and I suppose that many factors will determine when the squadron is ready to be operational.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is not shortage of skilled manpower which is leading to the early retirement of HMS "Ark Royal"? If that is not the case, could not her life be extended until the 1980s, and at the same time could not the refit and modification of HMS "Hermes" be speeded up so that no gap is left in the air defence of our shipping lanes and our shipping?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I have no evidence that shortage of manpower is causing this particular gap, which we admit exists. It is considered that to continue to run on "Ark Royal" would not be a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem. As I said earlier, there is no evidence that lack of manpower is causing this gap.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy Lords, is there therefore something which, for some extraordinary reason, prevents the running of "Ark Royal" for an additional 18 months or so?—because it would seem most peculiar. Can the Minister not give us a little more evidence on that point?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, first, I hope that the House will realise that we are talking about shipborne fixed wing aircraft capability. The squadrons coming off "Ark Royal" will be able to continue this rôle from shore bases. However, we are talking about a refit of HMS "Hermes", a modification of the shipborne aircraft that are going over to the Royal Air Force and, of course, the creation of an entirely new squadron to man HMS "Hermes". It is almost impossible, with the problems that one faces in doing something new, to give a precise date for the actual closure of the gap.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that it seems rather pointless to retire "Ark Royal" and wait for a period of up to 18 months before a new ship is ready, during which time no fixed wing aircraft will operate at sea? Why need we bother to operate fixed wing aircraft after the refit of HMS "Hermes", when we shall have continued for 18 months without them?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, do not let us forget that fixed wing aircraft of the Alliance operate at sea. We have no reason to believe that our allies will not support us during this period. However, the fact is that we must have a gap because of modification of aircraft, refits, retraining, and the rest. I do not think that this is a matter of profound concern in view of the number of alternative weapons that the ships themselves carry.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy Lords, when the noble Lord refers to our allies, is that in the same way as, in the defence review, the French were brought in in order to make the statistics look better? Do Her Majesty's Government consider that the French aircraft carriers may be able to provide what we cannot provide for ourselves?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, personally, I was thinking of the Americans, and American military power is a fact of military life.