House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Feb 1990

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The hon. Gentleman has outlined a background of a diminution in international tension. Would not it be ironic if that resulted in an increase in low-flying sorties over rural areas as many of these aircraft are relocated from German air space to United Kingdom air space? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the present level of low flying in the rural areas of Scotland is unacceptable as it is, and that any increase in Scotland is out of the question?

Mr. Clark : I am well aware that low flying is a matter of great concern to a number of hon. Members, especially those whose constituencies are directly affected. I propose to touch on that matter. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my comments, I shall refer to it again, if the House grants me leave.

The House will be aware of the importance that we attach to the safety of all display flying. Last year, we completed a comprehensive review of military flying regulations aimed at ensuring that the RAF would continue to entertain the public as safely and professionally as possible. None the less, every year tragically sees a number of major accidents involving RAF aircraft, in some of which service men are killed.

As the House well knows, every accident is exhaustively investigated, and we make every effort to ensure that the lessons learned minimise the risk of recurrence. There is no accident level that we regard as acceptable ; we are always striving to make military flying safer. But we also have to ensure that our aircrew receive the experience and training that they need to perform their operational roles. Well-trained, experienced pilots are an essential element in enhancing flight safety.

I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that 1989 was an exceptionally safe year for the RAF in terms of both the absolute number of major aircraft accidents and the more significant measure of the major accident rate per 10,000 flying hours--0.31. This confirms the long-term trend in major RAF accidents, which has been downwards for many years.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of safety, will he comment on the conclusions of his review? Does he agree that it is

Column 287

dangerous for aircraft to carry out tight turns over crowded areas, and that such turns can better be carried out over runways?

Mr. Clark : If the crews are properly trained and fly at the highest levels of skill and competence, as we believe they do, it does not make any difference whether a tight turn is carried out over open country or an urban area. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a tight turn, providing that the proper procedures and skills are deployed. I am confident that they always would be deployed.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : I am amazed at the Minister's answer to his hon. Friend. I understood that the RAF had issued instructions to its display teams that they should not do tight turns over crowded areas and that the RAF recognised the danger of such operations where there is a likelihood, as in Ramstein in Germany, that a plane could plough into the crowds and kill. Would he check on that? I thought that the RAF had issued such an order.

Mr. Clark : Aircraft do not plough into crowds simply because they are making a tight turn. Several factors are involved in a failure of a catastrophic nature such as the hon. Gentleman cited. Every accident is subject to a full inquiry and has different characteristics, although we deplore all accidents.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met the newly formed all-party group on low flying last autumn. The Public Accounts Committee last week considered a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. My Department has co-operated fully with the extensive inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Defence. We await the outcome of these investigations and will certainly give them the most careful consideration.

Mr. Salmond rose--

Mr. Clark : I should prefer it if the hon. Member developed his arguments in the course of his own speech, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Salmond rose--

Mr. Clark : I have concluded my survey of operational matters and I should prefer to move on to the procurement aspect. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says if he proposes to remain for the rest of the debate.

As the House knows, the RAF has several major programmes of equipment modernisation under way.

Mr. Salmond : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it a real point of order?

Mr. Salmond : The Minister said earlier when he did not reply to my intervention that he would make some substantive comments on low flying. His remarks were so insubstantial that many hon. Members may have missed them.

Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order. It may be a point of frustration.

Mr. Clark : I explained that the Department has been co-operating fully with an extensive inquiry. When the outcome of those investigations is to hand, we shall give it our consideration and a further statement will be made.

Column 288

On 23 January, in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I made a series of points on the European fighter aircraft--in particular the selection of the radar. I should like to reinforce what I said then and, in particular, reaffirm our wholehearted commitment to the project.

An effective air defence is essential for the security of the United Kingdom. The EFA will be, in the late 1990s and beyond, the leading air defence fighter of its generation. Work on the prototype aircraft is proceeding well, as is the development of the engine and the selection of equipments. The key to EFA is its ability to detect, track, identify and attack hostile aircraft. The radar must meet all our specifications, however exacting. Continuing and fruitful discussions on this subject between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his German counterpart last month give me confidence that a decision is near to hand.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) rose --

Mr. Clark : I shall complete my remarks on this subject before I give way.

I share the concern of many that the Ferranti Defence Systems' ECR90 radar should receive the recognition that it deserves. To this end, the anticipated acquisition of FDS by GEC should dispel any reservations our partners may have had concerning Ferranti's financial viability. In doing so, the competing bids will be considered on their respective merits.

To bring about this restructuring in so short a time was a remarkable achievement well illustrating the flexibility and the capacity for long- term strategic thinking by British industry. This has been widely welcomed by hon. Members representing the constituents concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : On the question of Ferranti, is not it outrageous that Sir Derek Alun-Jones, the chairman of Ferranti, should receive something like £0.5 million--I believe that it is £497, 000--in a golden handshake when the track record of that company over the past 12 months is appalling, especially in relation to the company's acquisitions? Is not it the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the bill for this, because the taxpayer is Ferranti's primary customer? Mr. Clark : The extent to which Ferranti shareholders, who have seen the value of their investment decline by over two thirds in the past year, share this view is for others to judge. The only sour note in this affair was struck by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) who searched desperately round, to the considerable embarrassment--I suspect--of some of his Scottish colleagues for grounds on which to oppose and criticise. The actual phrase he used was "dirty dealing", and he did his best to spread alarm and despondency with various accusations, all of them shown to be quite groundless. I shall look forward to his comments, if he feels inclined to make any, on how he sees the present situation--

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan) : I said that at the time, when I felt that it was justified in the sense that the disclosures trickled out and there was a lot of anxiety and many legitimate questions that had to be answered. In the main, those questions have been answered in the discussions and meetings that we have had with Mr. Dunn of Ferranti and with Lord Weinstock.

Column 289

I and others have been unreserved in our satisfaction at the outcome of that extremely worrying period which, given the Minister of State's characteristically languid approach to these matters, filled us with great alarm at the time. We now recognise that, in difficult circumstances, this is probably the best possible deal that could have been achieved. We have had assurances from Lord Weinstock, to which we shall seek to keep him, and we are happy to have that opportunity.

Mr. Clark : I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman's reference to my style and am gratified by his apology.

The first Harrier GR5 squadron is now fully operational at RAF Wittering and was declared to NATO at the end of last year. The second, at RAF Gutersloh, is due to be declared later this year. This aircraft has a greatly improved capability and performance over the Harrier GR3, which it is replacing. Delivery of the first Harrier GR7, the night attack version of the GR5, is expected later this year. All Harrier GR5s will eventually be converted to GR7 standard. In addition, we intend, subject to the satisfactory resolution of contractual and other details, to order 14 new Harrier two-seat training aircraft. Those aircraft, known as the T-10, will meet the rigorous training requirements of the Harrier GR5 and GR7. They will also have a full operational capability.

Progress continues to be made on the enhancement

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Has the Minister any idea of the costs of the conversion of the GR5 to GR7? As a Minister, he will know better than anyone that such conversions can be technically difficult and extremely costly, and that they are not quite as simple as they might seem.

Mr. Clark : There is a note of it. As this is a point on which the House will wish to be enlightened, if the hon. Gentleman will remain in the Chamber until the conclusion of the debate, I shall certainly give that information then.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : May I say how welcome it is that the Royal Air Force is to acquire the Harrier T10, so that the training aeroplane is now compatible with the GR5 and the GR7, which the crews will have to fly? Are the GR3s to be retained for service in Belize, or will Belize have an all-GR5 and GR7 force?

Mr. Clark : I think that, in the fullness of time, it will be an all -GR5 and GR7 force, but plainly that cannot happen overnight. Progress continues to be made on the enhancement of our air-to-air refuelling capability and the replacement of the aging Victor tanker fleet. Air-to-air refuelling increases the operational range and endurance of combat aircraft, allowing them to be deployed more flexibly. I can report that contracts have recently been placed for the conversion of a further 13 VC10 aircraft to a tanker role. The Royal Air Force utility EH101 helicopter programme is currently in the project definition phase. This involves examining in detail the RAF's foreseen requirement against a range of options and establishing the costs and risks associated with each. The results of this work will provide the basis for decisions on the next stage of the programme.

I note that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who frequently questions Ministers on this subject, is not in his place. I recognise, of course, that

Column 290

Wednesday is very late in the week for an SLD Member of Parliament to be in the House of Commons. I am sure that we all appreciate the urgency of the right hon. Gentleman's commitments outside.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : Can my hon. Friend indicate when a decision on the EH101 utility version for the Air Force is likely to be taken?

Mr. Clark : I cannot give such an indication. We do not yet have enough information on which to base a decision. I am quite certain that it would be wrong to make a decision before we are entirely satisfied as to the specification and whether it meets our requirements.

The RAF attaches special importance to the morale and well-being of the Air Cadet Force.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : I should like to put a point to the Minister before he leaves the question of procurement. He has not said anything about the LAH evaluation programme on which he has embarked and on which, he will agree, I have pressed him more than once. Of course, I understand why he is not yet in a position to say when he expects to complete that study. Can he say a word about the matter now? He will know better than most people that recent developments have pointed up the importance of the mobility factor to the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The LAH is a subject to which, with the whole question of balance in helicopter mixes in the battlefield, we are devoting great attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that a variety of broader deployment options and procurement options are being considered. Certainly, this programme, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a strong collaborative element, must be given very careful consideration in the context of an altered look at the whole question of the tactical deployment of helicopters.

I am delighted to report that we have recently placed orders for 53 modern gliders, to be known as Vigilant. Deliveries are scheduled to begin next month and to be completed by the end of this year. The Vigilants are self- launching gliders and will replace the existing fleet of Venture motor gliders, which are nearing the end of their useful life. This modernisation programme maintains the size of the glider fleet at over 140 aircraft and will ensure improved availability of gliders for student use.

The Bloodhound mark 2 air defence missile system has been in service with the Royal Air Force since 1964. Although Bloodhound continues to give useful service, it is becoming more difficult to maintain. There are no plans to withdraw Bloodhound from service immediately. However, to ensure more cost-effective management of the Bloodhound force into the future, we plan this year to concentrate it at only two locations. These will be RAF West Raynham and RAF Wattisham. The system will consequently be withdrawn from RAF North Coates, RAF Bawdsey, RAF Wyton and RAF Barkston Heath. Hon. Members in whose constituencies these stations lie will have received letters of explanation from me.

Mr. Wilkinson : What progress has been made to define the requirement for a medium-range surface-to-air missile to replace Bloodhound? When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to announce progress on this important matter?

Column 291

Mr. Clark : If such a requirement is determined, it would probably be filled by buying another system off the shelf, as it were. We are at such an early stage, however, that it would be premature to go into this matter in any greater detail.

It is important to mention two major infrastructure programmes. We have nearly completed a programme to provide hardened aircraft shelters, which, as the House knows, are designed to increase the survivability of aircraft at airfields. That work has been funded largely by NATO.

Another of our major priorities, to which I shall return in a moment, is to enhance the quality of life for service personnel. In this context we are intending to improve the entire stock of married quarters and single- service living accommodation in the next 10 years. This, we believe, will contribute substantially to improving the conditions of service life.

No speech about the Royal Air Force would be complete without a reference to its most important asset--the personnel who make up the service. In the past year, the trained strength of the Royal Air Force has fallen by about 4 per cent. There are increasing shortfalls in some officer branches as well as in ground engineering and support trades, but the shortfalls are manageable and the Royal Air Force maintains the ability to meet its operational commitments. Applications for voluntary release of trained personnel remain higher than we would wish, although I am glad to be able to report that there are now some signs of improvement. We have devised a major revision of the terms of service for airmen for introduction this year, designed to provide greater flexibility and reward longer service. A revision of the terms of service for officers is also under consideration. Greater flexibility is also being incorporated into the rules governing the return to service of ex-airmen and women.

We are continuing to improve conditions of service by reducing turbulence, increasing job opportunities for wives, promoting greater job satisfaction generally, and improving working and living conditions. I remind the House of the extensive married quarter improvement programme currently in train.

One particularly important development has been the decision, announced last July, to broaden employment opportunities for female aircrew. As a result, the RAF is now recruiting female pilots, navigators and air engineers, with first-year targets of 25, 10 and four respectively. Some have already begun their training, having been selected according to the same criteria as men. We have found the response to this major change in policy most encouraging.

Mr. Dalyell : We all know that there is concern about naval wives. Has there been any consultation with Air Force wives about such recruitment?

Mr. Clark : We are dealing with a completely different situation from that envisaged in sending women to sea in ships. Women are being recruited to use their skills in a number of callings from which they have hitherto been excluded. I wholly applaud that development.

Mr. Dalyell : I asked the Minister whether there had been any consultation. Is the answer no?

Mr. Clark : I cannot imagine on what basis such consultation would be promulgated.

Column 292

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Those of us who have direct connections with the RAF and who have visited RAF stations, have spoken with the wives ; we have found that many of them believe that the change of policy is interesting, as many of their daughters are interested in joining the service.

Mr. Clark : I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and I regard it as a progressive step.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : Does my hon. Friend intend that women pilots should fly combat aircraft, or will he keep them strictly to flying transport aircraft or aircraft other than those in wartime use?

Mr. Clark : Personally, I would have some reservations about that, but it is a matter that we shall look at as the situation develops. We shall weigh up all the factors that emerge as their skills as pilots are tested and evaluated.

Mr. Dalyell : The Minister has said that he has some reservations. I get the impression that the proposal has been ill thought out. What are the Minister's personal reservations?

Mr. Clark : I have given way to the hon. Gentleman four times already, and I will give way to him four more times, if he wishes. I always appreciate his interventions. My reservations--I emphasise that they are personal ; perhaps I am over-fastidious--relate to women going into combat and flying combat aircraft. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I associate women's special gifts with activities other than the taking of life. If a person goes into combat, the ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy, as those of us who were in the services know. I would be uncomfortable in considering that function being subject to disciplinary instruction to a woman.

Mr. Dalyell : The Minister said that he would give way to me four more times, but I shall take up only one of them. What is the considered view of the Air Staff? Does the decision have the agreement of the Air Staff? The House is entitled to know what the advice from the Air Staff is.

Mr. Clark : This is a totally different subject. We are talking about a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson)--women in combat. That is a long way even from the consideration, never mind the considered views, of the Air Staff. I told the House about the recruitment of pilots, navigators and air engineers. It is a long way into the future as to whether the skills that emerge should be used in combat.

Mr. Viggers : I share the concern of my hon. Friend about sending women into combat. Will he explore that comment further, asthat is exactly what will be happening in the Royal Navy?

Mr. Clark : We do not know what will happen. I do not want to get involved in that. There are differences between piloting a single-seater aircraft in combat, or piloting a bomber which will deliver a weapon system, and being a member of a crew of up to 1,000 in a situation, whether in combat or otherwise, which does not involve a woman in pulling the trigger, dropping a bomb or directing a missile.

I should like to conclude this review with a tribute to the Royal Air Force Reserve--the regular Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer

Column 293

Reserve. We are profoundly indebted to them for their motivation and commitment, and for their competence and skills.

I should in particular make reference to the unstinting efforts of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Barraclough as honorary inspector general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which have done much to achieve the current high standards. I welcome as his successor my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who will, I know, maintain the same high level of service and commitment.

Finally, I come to a subject that profoundly concerns all our personnel in all three services. The threat posed by terrorists of the Provisional Irish Republican Army continues to demand great vigilance from our service men and women and their families. Last autumn saw the particularly brutal murder in the Federal Republic of Germany of Corporal Maheshkumar Islania and his six-month old daughter, Nivruti--a dreadful event, which brought home to us all the depths of wickedness to which terrorists are prepared to descend. None the less, our people in all three services remain steadfastly determined to resist and overcome this threat, and we are taking a wide variety of measures designed to increase their security and to encourage their awareness of the threat and of how it can be countered.

I end on that sombre note, but I shall seek the leave of the House to address various points which may be raised by hon. Members, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye at the conclusion of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

4.35 pm

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the few who flew during the battle of Britain. As he said, this year is the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain, and I am sure that throughout the country tributes will be made in appropriate ways. Opposition Members would like to be a part of those tributes.

Significantly, in working-class areas--and, indeed, throughout the country- -there are many cenotaphs and memorials commemorating those brave people who went forth from the mines and factories, put on uniforms and fought to defend our freedoms. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those people and their families. I am pleased that this year the Government decided to treat war widows in a slightly better fashion. It was a step in the right direction.

The Minister was right to say that the battle of Britain was a close-run affair. That was because of the desperate state of our defences. I admire his usual honesty in acknowledging that there was a Tory Government in power at that time. Of course, I could mention certain instances that would highlight the paucity of our present air defences, but I must get on with my speech.

The announcement that women are to be trained to fly fast jets is a step forward. However, the problem of whether women should be used in combat requires greater discussion. The Government introduced the measure to allow women to go back to work in the coal mines--something which, coming from my background, I find appalling. Like the Minister, I also have reservations about women being involved in combat. I am assured by the specialists in the Labour party--none of whom is here today--that women are capable of flying in combat roles. The physical constraints involving

Column 294

G-forces and tight turns--although not necessarily over display areas--might be the only reason why they could not fly in combat. I join the Minister in condemning the cowardly indiscriminate bombing attacks on British service men and their families. There was a spate of bombings some years ago in Wales. I know one of the people who were responsible, and he received a long gaol sentence. He came from my village. Many say that such people are brave men, who are courageous in their cause. When that man was released, I told him that I could think of nothing more despicable or cowardly than to put a bomb in a left-luggage compartment at a railway station and then to walk away. In that instance the bomb was directed against people in Cardiff who were returning after work to the valleys. There is nothing brave about dumping a bag. The sooner that the people who give succour and support to terrorists realise that those are cowardly rather than brave acts, which require no physical courage, the better. Opposition Members condemn such actions and join the Minister in expressing sympathy to the families of those who may have suffered as a result of such cowardly attacks.

Last Thursday the Western Mail --which I know the Minister does not read because it circulates only in Wales, although a few copies find their way into the House--carried a report of a rescue operation by a RAF Sea King helicopter operating out of RAF Brawdy in west Wales. Some 240 miles out in the Atlantic, the 20 seamen were rescued in the most appalling conditions in which, almost certainly, they would have lost their lives. The skill and courage of the pilot and aircrew were outstanding.

I commend, in particular, the bravery of the winchman, flight sergeant Graham Philips, who was washed overboard. If it were not for his lifeline back to the helicopter, he would have lost his life. It was RAF Brawdy's second long-range rescue in just a few days. The previous incident was in the same area of the Atlantic when a disabled ore carrier had to be disembarked.

Among our lifeboat crews, the helicopter crews of the search and rescue squadrons have an envied tradition of selfless courage and humanitarian acts. They deserve the commendation of the House for their bravery. I mention those incidents, first, to praise those who participate, but also to highlight some aspects of the future of sea and air rescue and the procurement of helicopters.

Some time ago the Government proposed the privatisation of sea and air rescue. Against a background of massive protests from both sides of the House, the proposals were modified or withdrawn. When he winds up, will the Minister give the present status of those proposals? There are fears that the Government will resurrect them and consider privatising the service. I warn the Minister that if the Government do so, he will encounter the same problems as he did before from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

If the Government are not to privatise the search and rescue service, what will they do about re-equipping the squadrons with new helicopters? The present Wessex helicopters are coming to the end of their operational lives. A decision must be made soon on their replacement ; indeed, across a range of other helicopter requirements, a decision is required.

I reiterate the question of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) : when will the Government place a firm order for the EH101? The Royal Navy pre- production aircraft,

Column 295

with a full mission system, has been flying since 24 October 1989. The anti-submarine variant, as currently specified and contracted, is going well. I understand that the RAF's intended Utility EH101 is well within schedule. All that is needed now, three years after the previous Secretary of State said that the Ministry of Defence was looking for 25 RAF and 50 Navy EH101s, is for the Government to make a decision.

Mr. Bill Walker : The hon. Gentleman, with his interest in helicopters, will realise that we should purchase, not a particular helicopter, but the right helicopter, the best helicopter for the task that has to be performed. I hope that he will say that that is his view and what our Royal Air Force needs. We must be careful not to lock ourselves into a position where we never buy the right equipment.

Mr. Rogers : I think that that question would have been better directed to the Government than to me, because they have to make the decision, not me. I am rather alarmed if the hon. Gentleman, who I think is a member of the Select Committee on Defence--

Mr. Walker indicated dissent.

Mr. Rogers : No, he is not. Perhaps that explains--if I might say, in the kindest way--his ignorance on the matter.

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East) indicated assent.

Mr. Rogers : I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee is nodding.

I should explain the position to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), although I am sure that the Minister will do so in his wind-up speech. The Government have made a decision on the EH101. In 1987, the Secretary of State said that the Government were going to purchase 25 EH101s for the RAF and 50 for the Royal Navy. The helicopter has gone through project definition and pre-production trials. I think that nine have already flown. It is now merely a matter of integrating the mission system. One can go along that line, preparing for a project to come into operation, but at some stage a decision has to be made. Unless it is made now, the manufacturers and people involved in the industry will have a big gap in the middle of the 1990s when they will not have any orders. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North is proposing that we should buy, not the Apache, but the Black Hawk or some other shoe horn variety. I am sure that they have all been considered, but I should have thought that the EH101 was, if I may repeat the expression that has already been used, a cast iron, copper-bottomed decision. The question is, when? That is what we are asking.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the Government should do? Should the Government make a decision in favour of the EH101?

Mr. Rogers : Yes. The helicopter is important and the EH101 is vital to the industry. The requirements are known. The current contract available on the EH101 is a target cost-incentive contract which, when it was signed in March 1984, was hailed as a great step forward in defence contracting. At that time Sir Peter Levene extolled the

Column 296

virtues of the new process of procurement. One of the signal parts of such a contract is that the cost is shared between industry and Government. Certainly, the industry has already put its money where its mouth is and invested millions of pounds. It is now up to the Government to come up with firm orders so that it can proceed with production.

In Question Time some weeks ago, the Minister said that last October the Government entered into negotiations with the company for a maximum price contract. I do not see why we have to go on and on talking like this. The Chairman of the Select Committee is present and the Select Committee said, and it was implicit throughout the recently published report, that it was about time a decision was made.

Mr. Mans : Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the EH101 and the need for air mobility, does he believe that this helicopter is the right one to purchase in view of the fact that it will also have to fit in with the various RAF transport aircraft to back up that air mobility?

Mr. Rogers : The operational roles of many of those aircraft are, I presume, under constant review by the Government. The Opposition have been asking for a major defence review for a long time. I should have thought that with the changes that are happening, particularly in eastern Europe, the Government should have a formal defence review. I accept that the position is dynamic and not static, but a decision has to be made. Unless we plan ahead, we shall not have the equipment for our service men, to whom the Minister paid great tribute today.

Mr. Bill Walker : I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. Has he made any assessment of whether the EH101 is capable of being transported in the aircraft that the Royal Air Force has at present and looks like having for some time, particularly the Hercules?

Next Section

Home Page