The Queen's Flight

HL Deb 31 March 1982 vol 428 cc1450-8

7.19 p.m.

The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, when, in the interests of both economy and prestige, they will update the aircraft of the Queen's Flight and amalgamate the flight into one squadron.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Three and a half years ago in your Lordships' House I said that the Queen's Flight was the most prestigious flight in the world, and it still is. The Andovers are washed daily, they are polished weekly, and they are painted every three years. They are no longer 14 years old as they were I last spoke about them: they are now nearly 18. In fact, in about another six months they will have the vote! That, my Lords, is one of the reasons why they ought to be replaced. It is beyond belief that the Head of State, Government Ministers, foreign dignitaries and Chiefs of Staff, should be subjected any more to this somewhat obsolescent form of air transport. The decision is long overdue, and it is a decision which must, if we are to do the job satisfactorily, be taken soon.

The British Aerospace 1–11 production line is now closed and if the Government will not make a decision now, or very soon, we shall lose the last chance to equip the Queen's Flight, in conjunction with 32 Squadron RAF, with a wholly British-built solution and we shall continue the present unnecessarily complex, inefficient, wasteful and out-moded method of air transport. I do not believe there are many noble Lords or honourable Members of another place who would deny the need for the Sovereign, Cabinet Ministers, service chiefs and foreign dignitaries to have safe, comfortable, fast and convenient air travel. It makes no difference which political party is in government, because the same service is required and used. In fact, its use has probably increased because of the United Kingdom's ever-increasing role in NATO and our role in the European Economic Community, and that makes fast travel even more fundamentally necessary.

If we examine the two organisations, for want of a better word, we have the Queen's Flight at Benson and 32 Squadron RAF at Northolt. The Queen's Flight was formed in 1936 by the late King George VI, and it presently comprises three Andovers and two Wessexes. The Andovers, with average seating, have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles, and the Wessexes about 130. It is interesting to note that last year, from 1st January to 31st December, there were 865 passenger flights in fixed-wing aircraft of the Queen's Flight and 32 Squadron RAF. Of those, 182 flights were on behalf of members of the Royal Family, 261 were for Government Ministers, none for Members of Parliament and 36 for visiting foreign dignitaries. Due to the Andover's inability to fly over the weather and because of its design, with rather low performance, there are few people who fly in it as passengers, royal or otherwise, who appreciate it.

That brings me to 32 Squadron RAF, which at present has three Mark II Andovers, two British Aerospace 125/600 series, four 125/400 series and one Gazelle helicopter. Those aircraft are allocated by the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations), and the decision as to which aircraft are to be used is based on the number of passengers. But each Government department is required to pay for the operating costs. I have been slightly pre-empted by the tape machine this afternoon, but I shall continue because it did not say that the Ministry of Defence charges levied on the use of those aircraft are often higher than those of a civil charter company. And, with the economy drive of the Government, departments are often reluctant to use the aircraft of 32 Squadron. That may sound all very well, but as a result, air crews are frequently required to fly on training flights merely to maintain their flying proficiency and get their requisite number of hours in. That cannot be economical.

I come to the question of capability. Do the present means, methods and set-up meet the necessary requirements? Could matters be managed in a better way? The Andovers and 125s may be suitable for internal and short overseas flights, particularly when there are not many passengers, but they have a severe limitation over long distances due to their small passenger capacity and short range. That means, of course, that they must stop many times, and much more security is necessary wherever landings take place. I believe that not long ago His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh took two days to get to Canada and nine to Australia. In the England—Australia air race in the 'thirties a de Havilland Comet did it quicker with two tiny engines.

What about senior Government Ministers and foreign dignitaries? Why should they put up with the present state of affairs? It is an exhausting waste of time and an exhausting way to travel. I agree that there are certain instances where small parties can travel commercially, and that, where possible, is the usual practice. But that does not work with major overseas tours by Her Majesty or with major overseas tours and conferences attended by senior Ministers, particularly when a large staff is needed.

The drawback to scheduled services is that they may leave and arrive at inconvenient times. In addition, there is today the ever-present and much greater threat and hazard of international political terrorism if the Head of State or senior Ministers travel on regular airlines. One may charter, but the wide-bodied aircraft of which there are so many nowadays have made suitable aircraft for charter more difficult to obtain. It is true that RAF VC10s are used; they are altered internally for VIP flights. But two aircraft must be withdrawn from their military role to do that because of the need for a back-up aircraft in case one does not work, so the VC10s are taken out of service, and that must disrupt the defence schedules of the Ministry of Defence.

What can and should be done? Bearing in mind that it is never the right time to do anything about it, a much more rational and economical way would be to set up a combined royal and ministerial squadron with a mix of aircraft to provide for all normal needs and which would largely prevent taking VC10s out of service, except for extremely long distances and multi-passenger tours. The mix could comprise two British Aerospace 1–11/475 series with a range of 2,400 nautical miles, and I shall return to the question of the mix shortly. Those two aeroplanes, the 1–11s, could replace the Andovers, as they have an equal ability and capacity to operate from very short airstrips, and that is extremely important. For other trips with just a few passengers and for very short-range work—to Northern Ireland, Brussels and so on—the British Aerospace 125 would be fine, and the two Wessexes could remain as well as the Gazelle. That would be the most economical way to provide Her Majesty with a modern, British-built jet aircraft for the majority of her many flights, at the end of which she would arrive in much better shape for the often extremely arduous duties which she then has to perform.

This subject has been discussed since 1972, but the issue has always been fudged, for political or financial reasons. There have been lengthy debates in both Houses, and many articles have been written in magazines and newspapers. In fact, the use by Her Majesty of the elderly Andovers has attracted not inconsiderable adverse comment from the British public and in worldwide aviation circles. One cannot compare our methods of transport with those of other Heads of State or even certain top businessmen.

The question of cost is, of course, important and obviously that would decide the types and number of aircraft for the combined squadron, and that would be dictated by the number of hours needed to be flown by each aircraft. The combined unit might comprise two 1–11s, five 125s, instead six, and the three helicopters, which would make a total of 10 aircraft instead of 16. That suitable combination of aircraft merged into one squadron, one wing, or one combined unit—call it what you will—must surely be an obvious rationalisation. The combined unit must be based at one location, as opposed to the present two locations.

Here I wish to digress for a moment. The autonomy of the Queen's Flight would not in any way be lost. It would still be the Queen's Flight of the combined unit—whatever one wished to call it. So no prestige at all need be lost there. But it would lead to considerable further economy in administration, maintenance facilities and costly manpower. I would not dream of trying to tell my noble friend the Minister which is the best location; I would leave that for him to decide. But I maintain that we cannot continue both stations.

It is true that there might be some initial short-term expenditure, but over a comparatively short period of time that would be amortised. However, the snag is the capital cost, and, so long as the Ministry of Defence has to pay, the answer to my Question tonight is probably going to be, no. But why should the Ministry of Defence pick up the whole tab? Simply because it has done so in the past? Is that any criterion as to why it should have to go on doing so in the future? I maintain very seriously, and so I think do many other people in this country, that the costs should be borne by, and spread over, all of the Government departments. In fact the initial cost would be only about £9 million for the two 1–11s being partly exchanged for the Andovers, and should the Government not feel like putting down the cash, I understand that British Aerospace has some very advantageous hire purchase or leasing terms to offer over a period of 15 years. Lastly, in the event of hostilities, the 1–11 could be used for casualty evacuations, since I gather from the MoD that there are no aircraft specifically earmarked for that operation.

I realise that my noble friend may not this evening be able to answer in as affirmative or as positive a way as many of your Lordships might wish. But I should like to conclude by saying that, if we wait until the Andovers are 20 years old—which is only another two years off—and until the day finally comes for a change, it will have to be made not to British, but to American, aeroplanes. Foreign aircraft may be all right in the British airlines that operate out of this country, but the prestige of the Queen's Flight surely needs the best—and the best is British.

7.33 p.m.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, the noble Earl is to be commended for again raising this Question, and I congratulate him on the way in which he has done so. As he said, it is not a new question. The need to re-equip the Queen's Flight with new aircraft has been apparent for some years, and the need to replace ageing aircraft does not recede with the passing of time. I am very much hoping that this discussion will provide the opportunity for the Government departments involved to have another look at the matter and that it will tip the balance in favour of a common-sense solution to the problem.

I add only a very few words to what the noble Earl said about the need. I greatly hope that when the noble Viscount replies he will not again tell us that the Andover is a good, reliable aircraft, Of course it is, and it is superbly maintained. But, frankly, I was a little ashamed when on a recent occasion I saw the Prince of Wales, with all the television cameras on him, step out of this machine. That good, old, reliable aircraft really does not convey the image of a country capable of making some of the most advanced aircraft in the world.

It is probably correct to say that the objection to re-equipment has come from two quarters: namely, a certain section of Her Majesty's present Opposition and the Treasury. I believe that on the basis of the proposals put forward by the noble Earl the objections from both these quarters can fairly be satisfied.

May we look first at what might be thought to be the political objections? These are strongly held by some people, and we must accept, are sincerely held. It can sincerely, if mistakenly, be held to be wrong to spend money on what are thought to be personal aircraft if, at the same time, essential social services are being cut. We have to show, and show much more clearly, that we are not here talking of providing expensive aircraft for some kind of leisure activity for a privileged few. We have to show, and again show much more clearly, that a properly run communications unit can be a cost-effective, timesaving exercise, and not very different from the kind of thing that is operated by many large-scale organisations.

Of course the figures quoted by the noble Earl relating to passengers carried on the Queen's Flight show that the aircraft have not been restricted to the personal use of the Queen or members of her family, but utilisation could be extended, and seen to be extended, if we had a merger with the RAF Squadron. Personally I should be sorry to see the Queen's Flight title go, but I have no doubt that the new squadron could acquire its own special character and prestige without misleading anyone as to its workaday purpose. It is on that basis that I believe that some of the past political doubts about the functional character of the Queen's Flight could be met.

Then we come to what I have called the Treasury objection the narrow objection of cost, or the question of departmental estimates. We cannot across the floor of this House go into the details of a balance sheet, but, given the replacement of the old Andovers with the new 1–11s, given the merger of the Queen's Flight with the RAF Communications Squadron, given the consequent rationalisation of the flight with reduced overheads and increased utilisation, I should be surprised—very surprised—if any accountant could show me that there was not a net reduction of cost to the nation. Certainly there would be a reduction of cost to the nation, if not to a particular department.

There was once a possible response to this cost-saving assertion. It might have been said that it was all very well talking of an annual saving on the basis of conventional amortisation of capital expenditure on new aircraft, but the Treasury looks at capital expenditure in the year in which it is incurred. However, even that objection is met by the offer, which I believe British Aerospace will confirm, that the new 1–11s can be made available on a leasing arrangement. I am sure that the noble Viscount can see that this businesslike offer can be looked at in a businesslike way.

There is just one other point that I mention, and I mention it very reluctantly. Over the years the Air League has most nobly and usefully put forward the case for new British aircraft for the Queen's Flight. But I gather that more recently the Air League has suggested that an additional reason for acquiring the 1–11 aircraft is to show approval that British Aerospace is now, as they apparently put it, denationalised. I very much hope that the Air League, under its new Chairman, will not pursue that line. In the long run it can be counter-productive. In the short run it can divert attention into unrewarding argument.

The proposal to operate a really efficient national air communications unit of which we could all be proud, and which could profitably show the flag in all respects, seems to me to be overwhelmingly sensible, and, if anyone can ensure that it is fairly considered, I am sure that it is the noble Viscount. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but I hope that he will take into account, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that others will take into account in any reconsideration, the fact that since this evening's debate has started the Andover is an older aircraft, and, moreover, that the 1–11 leasing arrangement obviously cannot be held over indefinitely.

7.40 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the contributions they have made in the pursuit of the noble Earl's Unstarred Question. They have both been studying these questions far longer than I have, and they have raised a number of matters of operational significance in relation to No. 32 Squadron and the possible amalgamation which I shall ensure are drawn to the attention of those who are currently again reviewing the whole question of the organisation of both the Queen's Flight and No. 32 Squadron, and other matters arising out of last July's Defence Review, with the object of economising to the greatest possible extent in what we perhaps loosely term the support and logistic areas of the Royal Air Force in order to be able to afford what we need in the frontline.

So I would thank them for their detailed comments; and I think the House would regard it as being almost superfluous, and possibly even impertinent, for me to start by saying that I know the whole House will be of the view that we should put very high priority on anything we can do to lighten the burdens which Her Majesty the Queen and her family carry so conscientiously and, indeed, so superbly in the interests of the whole country. We all know, also, that our Royal Family have never disassociated themselves from practical and budgetary problems. Indeed, many of us believe that they have set a very fine example for us all in this respect.

We believe that the operational efficiency—and I have to say this notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said—and the safety standards of the Queen's Flight are paramount, and we know that under both those headings they are superbly carried out. We know that there could be advantages in being able, at some stage, to replace the Andover aircraft; but we say—and I shall return to this in a minute, if I may—that the main requirements are being met, and met perhaps a hit better than my noble friend has today indicated. But before I come to that let me deal with this sordid matter of money and with my noble friend's points about the fact that it is never the right time.

My old father had a cliché when I was not doing something immediately, when he used to say, "What's wrong with now?" So that is ringing in my ears, and I was brought up to it. But if I may answer his question and also that of the noble Earl, there really are quite a lot of things wrong with now, and it is not just a question of whose budget. The noble Earl knows very well that the national economy, which has been running down for years, is at a crisis stage; and that, in that situation, keeping a defence budget, and indeed increasing it by 3 per cent. real per annum, and keeping national expenditure under control and, indeed, lowering it in other and non-essential respects, is a monumental task. It is very easy to except any of a thousand very desirable areas from the necessary pressure on public expenditure and the necessary priority selection within a larger defence budget to meet the growing threat—the growing threat and the escalation of cost, which my noble friend Lord Kimberley also knows well, caused by the ever-greater sophistication of the threat and the reply.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? Is he going to leave it at that? Is he going to answer the assertion that is made—made by me and, I think, by the noble Earl—that the cost could in fact he lowered?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I am going to comment on that point at a later stage. At this stage I will return for a second to the requirements of the Queen's Flight as such. The requirements are for short journeys and for long journeys, at home and abroad, and for landing on big airfields and small airfields. In that context the aeroplanes that Her Majesty and the Royal Family can draw on at the moment are not too bad a range for doing all those things.

On a fllight to Scotland, for instance (and I have taken one recently in an Andover) you take an hour and a half and you are served with a very good meal while you are doing it—or you can be; I hope very much that the Royal Family has that opportunity, too. That is as opposed to a jet aircraft, which may go twice as fast but still takes an hour because it has to take off and it has to land. That is a measure of inconvenience; but the Andover can land where jet aircraft cannot. When longer journeys overseas are required, VC-10s are made available to Her Majesty, and the Andovers are often pre-positioned—in Africa, for instance, so that when the Queen arrives she can be carried to small airfields and on shorter journeys. I will deal with the matter of prestige in a moment, but in terms of the combined aircraft available to the Royal Family they are not so inconvenient. The HS-125 has also been mentioned. It does not carry the size of party that is often required, but it is a very fine aircraft and it is used from time to time.

My Lords, I note that the noble Earl was beaten, as he said, by the news on the tape. The coincidence of this Question and the news on the tape will strike noble Lords as perhaps being interesting. In fact, I am entitled and am allowed to say that in relation to the trips that His Royal Highness Prince Philip took to Canada and to Australia, which took 2 days and 9 days, I am given to understand that on both these visits, when an Andover was due to be pre-positioned for His Royal Highness's engagements in Australia early in 1973 and in Ottawa and Caracas in September 1980, His Royal Highness chose to travel out in the Andover rather than call upon the services of a VC-10 or charter aircraft. Indeed, the journey to Australia was carefully planned to take a couple of weeks to include several visits en route. So I want to get the media interpretation of this, which the noble Earl has mentioned and perhaps slightly echoed today, into perspective.

I will return to the economies of the thing, but perhaps I may turn for a second to the alternatives currently available should budgetary and priority considerations allow replacement of Andovers at this time. The BAC 1–11 is, as both noble Lords know, a very much larger aircraft. It is not, I suggest, the last British aircraft that could be available. The BAC 146s are being made, although they are only just coming into service and a much longer time would have to be considered in relation to them. Neither of them are perhaps ideally suitable. Whether the noble Lord's contention is right that there will never be another British aircraft that is suitable, I would question as a statement of certainty. On the capital cost I have to say to my noble friend that the estimated cost that he mentioned of some £9 million is not the net capital cost that would be necessray if two BAC 1–11s were to replace three Andovers. In total, including the requirement to keep them up to the standard necessary for this service, the cost would be in excess of £12 million.

It is perhaps at this point that I have to say to both noble Lords that there have been two reviews (and a third is currently going on) into the whole question of both capital and running costs of the Queen's Flight itself and of the possible amalgamation of No. 32 Squadron at Northolt and the Queen's Flight at Benson. On putting those two stations together, there could be a final economy. There would be an initial cost. So far as running costs are concerned, it is a complicated equation. The noble Earl made a number of interesting assumptions which I shall study with care in his suggestion that the whole affair could he run more economically. On the aircraft, per se, the BAC 1–11 is and would be a more expensive aircraft to operate than the Andover. That is not the whole of the question. I can say to the noble Earl that the figures are very much bigger on all the studies that have been done so far; although a new study on the amalgamation of the squadron and the Flight is currently taking place.

I think there is enormous importance in the Queen's Flight remaining as a separate entity, with all the esprit de corps that it has. The present flight is staffed by specially selected volunteers. The standards of the Queen's Flight are regarded as a pinnacle for the rest of the RAF to look up to. I believe it is important that in any amalgamation that might or might not come out of the current review, we keep the identity of the Queen's Flight, and also maintain the permanent rediness of aircraft for Her Majesty and for her family which is a feature of the present arrangements. There is already overlap in the operational use of aircraft for the Royal Family and other VIPs, as I have described.

So far as Ministers are concerned, I have had to travel within the current arrangements and I am not aware that either my senior colleagues or my immediate colleagues are inconvenienced by the present arrangements. The noble Earl has made a number of points about No. 32 Squadron and its present level of utilisation which I wish to look into and to come hack to him upon. But I say very sincerely that I believe that Ministers, too, take the view that priorities have to be selected for short-term economic reasons and there is no use pushing those to one side. Much as I should like other departments to augment the Ministry of Defence budget on this subject and in many other areas for obvious reasons, I think that all my colleagues and I are looking at this in terms of the priorities for the Government as a whole in the economic conditions that I have outlined.

The Earl of Kimberley

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me—I hate to disagree with him—I would say that I think my figure of £9 million which I have from British Aerospace is nearer the right figure than his £12 million. Perhaps he will look into it. Could he say whether there was any chance if the Government or the Ministry of Defence do not want to put down the cash in full that they would consider a 15-year lease?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, as my noble friend knows very well, whether it is looked at as a capital sum or as a lease, it is a financial burden and a financial burden at this stage. As far as his statement and assertion that his figure is nearer than mine is concerned, I can only say that this has been examined by all the experts concerned and the figure that I have given—which was not £12 million but well in excess of £12 million—I believe to be the accurate figure.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, could the noble Viscount say when that estimate was made?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, in a study which took place in 1980 or 1981. That is my recollection of that particular figure which I noted in preparing myself to answer this Unstarred Question. It is not just the costs of the aircraft; it is the cost of the necessary equipment to maintain them in the kind of permanent readiness, the degree of spares and of back-up that needs to be provided.

If I may say in summary, the Ministry of Defence and the RAF will continue to ensure the maintenance of the Queen's Flight at the highest conceivable standards of safety and reliability. The Government believe that the combination of aircraft available to the Royal Family, including the HS-125s and the VC10s for longer journeys as well as the Andovers of the Queen's Flight, meet the requirements for long and short flights including at times the use of smaller airfields at home and abroad. The strains on the defence budget caused by the increasing threat and the costs of ever higher technology to meet it are well known and are particularly acute at the present time. There are not at the moment any ideally suitable British aircraft available as replacements, and those that have been considered would require a substantial capital cost and, compared with the Andover, increased running costs, also.