House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Feb 1990

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : I trust that I shall be forgiven for absenting myself from the debate for an hour or so because of a speaking engagement, but I look forward to being present for the winding- up speeches.

The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) should not apologise for raising a matter which he described as parochial, as it is obviously close to the hearts of his constituents and receives wider sympathy given the

Column 309

history of the base to which he referred. I was watching the Ministers' faces during the debate, and I think that they are beginning to look sympathetic.

In their opening speeches, the Minister and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rightly condemned the cowardly attacks by terrorists on service men and their families. It says much for their courage that, like their colleagues in the Ulster Defence Regiment, in Army units particularly in Northern Ireland and Germany, and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, those forces have never been deflected from what they consider their plain course of duty. We honour and pay tribute to them for that. I know that we can rely on Defence Ministers to ensure that the maximum protection is afforded to the families of service men wherever they may be posted. Those families and service men will take much encouragement from the all-party support that has been so evident in the debate. I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force component in Northern Ireland. May I mention in particular the senior Royal Air Force officer in Northern Ireland, Group Captain Hawkins. He is a truly outstanding officer and does a superb job of co-ordinating the flying element, which is a many-sided commitment, and also has under his command the resident squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment. It contributes greatly to security, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Air Force bases in Northern Ireland but over a wide area of the Province. The ability of those squadrons to establish a good relationship with the other arms of the security forces is noteworthy and encouraging. The Royal Air Force Regiment has developed greatly since it felt able to dispense with my services in 1946.

In the early part of his speech, the Minister rightly suggested that we should continue to make the necessary resources available to all the fighting services, and used the phrase, which I hope was not accidental, "particularly the Royal Air Force", or words to that effect.

The Minister reminded the House of the events of 1940 and rightly and accurately said :

"the battle of Britain was a very close-run thing."

It might easily have gone the other way had the masterminds in the Luftwaffe been aware of the great advantage of low-flying tactics, which would have enabled it to duck under our radar. As someone who has lived for almost 70 years on the perimeter of a Royal Air Force station, I can understand the annoyance caused by low-flying jets, but I accept that it is absolutely necessary.

No one will take issue with me when I say that Fighter Command saved Britain in 1940. But it did much more than that. The Royal Air Force turned out to be the invincible guarantor of the freedom of other nations. In a sense, it provided an effective long-stop. There is a certain parallel with the position today. As hon. Members have conceded, Europe is in the melting pot. Regrouping is taking place with breathtaking speed. The political crust is breaking up and the balance of power is changing faster than in any decade this century. For different reasons, Russian and American influence is weakening.

The cosy relationships within the EEC are giving way to a degree of mutual suspicion. I put it no higher than that, but there are forces at work that cannot be tamed and will not be harnessed. When the parts of the jigsaw finally come to rest, the power pattern of Europe will look very different from a year ago.

Column 310

The hon. Member for Rhondda challenged the Government to give their ideas on a review of defence policies in the light of the events in Europe. My humble advice would be that, until the European map is stabilised, we cannot sensibly make an accurate threat assessment. The threat in Europe would not necessarily come from the Soviet Union. It would be alarmist to identify any possible new source, but we can re-learn the lesson of 1940. Even with the Channel tunnel, Britain is unlikely to be overrun in a conventional war by a European land power.

I do not belittle the need for an effective and well-equipped Army, and I certainly do not dismiss the importance of the vital role of the Royal Navy, but because of the mobility and strike capacity of air power, we must acknowledge that the guarantor role will inevitably belong to the Royal Air Force.

The air defence of the United Kingdom is very important, but that is only the outward and visible aspect of that wider guarantor responsibility. For that reason, I welcome the determination implicit in the debate that, whatever the attractions of various propositions, the House must never make the mistake of our predecessors in the 1930s and for the second time run the risk of another close-run thing.

5.55 pm

Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth) : It was either by good fortune or good planning that the Chief of the Air Staff brought his presentation team to the House only a few days ago. It was perhaps less good fortune that we were constantly interrupted by Divisions in the House, but it gave many hon. Members the opportunity to see for themselves the present image of the Royal Air Force. I am sure that they were impressed not only by the quality of life and equipment portrayed but by the high standard of the team that made the presentation.

The main role of that team is to take the Air Force's story around the country and to show it in the community. We know that the Air Force attaches much importance to establishing close relationships with the areas around its bases, but most of the country is not near an RAF base. It is extremely important, therefore, that the service encourages the closest possible relationship with the wider civil community.

A publication entitled "Royal Air Force 89" was recently produced. It will be an annual publication and I congratulate Sir Peter Harding, the Chief of the Air Staff, on his initiative, and squadron leader Morris, its editor, on getting the style of the publication exactly right ; it is interesting and informative and will, I hope, be widely read. I trust that its publication will continue for a long time. I have the pleasure of having just started on the armed forces parliamentary scheme between the House and the RAF. I am at the earliest stages of what will obviously be an extensive and interesting programme. So far, I have visited only one flying base--the central flying school--but where better could one start than the oldest flying school in the world, which was formed in 1911. My visit demonstrated to me the superb standard of airmanship in the Royal Air Force--the quality that gives it the edge over the other NATO services.

The main objective of the time that I shall spend with the service in the forthcoming year is to meet and talk to

Column 311

people--not just commanders of stations and units but the pilots, aircrew and those who support the aircraft in engineering, administration and supply.

The Chief of the Air Staff has gone on record as saying that people must come first in the Air Force of today, and I am sure that that is the correct priority. From what I have seen in the few hours that I have spent so far with the Air Force, I have no doubt that the quality of its personnel is as high today as it ever has been. I should like to concentrate on personnel. The life of a service man is inevitably turbulent. I can think of no other occupation that involves moving one's home so frequently and regularly. That is becoming more significant than it was in the past. We have a higher rate of home ownership, and if one's career requires one to move every two or three years, one will experience considerable problems in establishing a home. I pay tribute to the long- standing efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to introduce a scheme that will be of advantage to service men in overcoming that problem.

Frequent moves also affect the careers of the wives of service men. Far more wives have occupations than in the past, and while the husband's career is forwarded by moves from place to place, that has the opposite effect on the career of his wife, who must change her job every two or three years. It is difficult to counter that problem.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that particular attention was being paid to establishing a career pattern for wives. Sometimes husbands and wives can serve together in the RAF. I hope that it will be possible to post them either to the same station or to reasonably close stations so that they can maintain a normal family life, with the wife continuing to serve.

Significant changes in allowances were made a little while ago, and some necessary and overdue improvements resulted, but the improvements were basically financed by withdrawals of and reductions in allowances in other directions. The aim was to have a self-financing exercise. Worrying anomalies have been created. I hope that, in winding up, my hon. Friend the Minister will announce that the problem is being addressed and that there will be a review of those allowances.

There are good reasons for increasing the number of civilians in units in the support roles, but one effect is to reduce the number of men and women in uniform available to carry out the secondary duties for which service personnel are needed. I refer in particular to the need these days for regular guard duty to be carried out on all bases. Reference has been made to the cowardly attacks by terrorists from time to time, which are a constant threat to all the service's premises. That has meant that an intensive guard has had to be mounted. The service men on the base are normally the only people available to carry out that duty. As civilianisation expands, the number of people available to mount guard duty decreases, and we are in danger of having a vicious circle.

It is hard to recruit administrative and catering personnel, for example, because of the constant attraction of civilian life. As the job of supplying and providing support in the RAF requires ever-increasing guard duties, it becomes harder to retain people in jobs where there is already a scarcity of personnel. Is there not a case for increasing the strength of the Royal Air Force police?

Column 312

They are specialists in guard duties. I am sure that more RAF police on bases would be some solution to a problem that has resulted from guard duty coming around far too often on some stations. We should look into the idea of using reserve units to guard bases. Perhaps the current legal problems associated with that can be overcome. I should have thought that many people in civilian life would willingly serve in a reserve unit at their local base and that they could be used in that way. In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I suggest that we could start forming such reserve units in the north-east of England at some of the RAF bases in my region.

On the north-south divide, those of us who come from the north are well aware that life is better there. Costs are often much higher in the south. This will increasingly be a problem in retaining service men, as many of our bases are traditionally in the south. It is also difficult to recruit and retain the necessary civilians, because Ministry of Defence pay rates tend to be less competitive in the south. I suggest that there is thus an argument for building up the service in the north. There will be inevitable changes in the composition and basing of the RAF in the years ahead--there always have been changes, and it seems likely, given the present scenario, that those changes will become greater. We should bear in mind the advantage to the service in having bases in the north in terms of retention and the interests of individual service men.

On retention, a problem exists because a young second pilot on an airliner can start his career at the same pay as his wing commander in the Air Force. Young pilots who have been trained to a superlative level of skill by the Royal Air Force are attracted by the idea of leaving and securing a high income in commercial aviation. Retaining pilots will not only save the £3 million that it costs to train a fast jet pilot but lead to a reduction in low flying.

The House understands the need for low flying. I know from my discussions with the central flying school of the high priority that the RAF gives to the need to cause the least disturbance to the population beneath. It is given a high priority in all training. Much of the low-flying training takes place during a pilot's initial training. By reducing the outflow of pilots from the service, we would reduce the number needing training, which would not only be a cost saving but reduce the amount of low flying necessary. There is also a problem in retaining those involved in the ground trades. The number of young people who provide a recruiting pool is falling by 25 per cent. The fact that the service is turning increasingly to the role of women is a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to pilots and aircrew, to which ladies are now being recruited. There has also been a big increase in the number of women employed in the ground trades. Although women are being recruited to aircrew for the first time, women have made an excellent contribution to the ground trades for many years, and it will increase in the future. I understand that 10 per cent. of those working in the ground trades in the service will be women, who will make a very important contribution.

The youth training scheme has been a great success in the Air Force. It is a benefit to the young people involved, 80 per cent. of whom sign on for a career in the service. The scheme provides a useful introduction to the service for people with the right enthusiasm.

Column 313

On that point, the Air Training Corps continues to play an important role in the community and in providing young people for the services. There are squadrons all over the country, with some 40,000 boys and girls serving in the corps. I am proud of my local units and am always impressed by the smartness of the turnout at North Shields and Whitley Bay, which reflects the smartness and enthusiasm of the regular Air Force.

It is my happy annual duty to present the prizes at North Shields. A large number of the prizes are won in regional competitions, and I believe that it must be one of the most worthy squadrons anywhere. It has a splendid record. I was particularly impressed on the last occasion by the fact that the senior cadet was an extremely smart young lady. I pay tribute to the instructors who give so readily of their time in the thousand or so squadrons in Britain. We can all be grateful to them for their work in instilling good citizenship in the cadets and providing the RAF with a large part of its future membership.

I have spoken mainly about people, but I should like to say something on the equipment front. I am a great supporter of the European fighter aircraft. It is essential for the future of the RAF and this counry's defence. The Select Committee on Defence did us a service recently in drawing attention to the fact that we still do not know what we will do about replacing the Wessex helicopter, which is now 30 years old. It is more than 10 years since the Air Staff target for the replacement was produced.

The reason for the delay is the continuing uncertainty about the requirements. If we do not know what we want, it is not surprising that we have not found the answer. But the answer will have to be found and if we wish to retain a helicopter building capacity in this country, as I believe we must, there must be a regular ordering programme for helicopters. If not, we shall no longer have that capacity. We must make up our minds. I know that at times there are disagreements within and between the services about how we should seek to perform that role, but I believe that the time for a decision must soon be with us.

The Air Force provides mobility and flexibility today, as it always has. Air mobility is likely to be more, rather than less, important in the future when inevitably we shall see fewer soldiers on the ground. The need for speed, flexibility and ability to respond quickly and over distance will be essential. In the RAF we have the necessary qualities.

It is a wise man who can tell the future in Europe in the light of the changes in the past year. Who could have foretold at the time of the previous RAF debate the position in eastern Europe today? This is the first occasion on which we have debated the RAF since the momentous changes in the Warsaw pact. It would be unwise to assume that stability will be with us in the future and that we shall not need to maintain our defences. In the 50th anniversary year of the battle of Britain, it is only right to remind ourselves that it is absolutely essential to maintain the air defence shield so admirably provided for us by the Royal Air Force.

6.11 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : As a Scottish Member, I begin by paying tribute to the search and rescue sections of the RAF. Increasingly, our fellow citizens seem to be persuaded to go on hills and mountains at times and in weather conditions when they are asked not to do so. They

Column 314

risk not only their lives but those of the extremely skilful and courageous helicopter crews who are asked and never fail at least to try to rescue them.

I do not know what can be done because it is a difficult matter, but surely some minor sanctions should be exercised against those who risk other people's lives as well as their own. The time has come to do something about it. It is not right that the lives of helicopter crews should be put in jeopardy by those who take decisions that they are asked not to take.

I interrupted the Minister earlier on the question of the conversion of GR5 to GR7. I do not know the details of it, but he does. What some of us do know is that conversions have often turned out to be much more technically complex and, therefore, expensive than is generally assumed. Is the Minister convinced that it is a realistic conversion? He may be persuasive about it and may say that there are no problems, but I should like to know, in the light of the Spey conversions and much that has taken place in the past, whether it makes sense.

My next questions are about the Tornado, which was touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). First, is the SRAM- T insertion technically feasible? Secondly, what is the strategy behind it? Given the changed conditions, it should be subject to reconsideration. I repeat the question of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East; it is an important one, about which some of us were thinking before the RAF debate began: do we really need 250 Tornado aircraft? In the light of political events in the past six months, has there been any reconsideration? I ask a precise question. Has it at least been reconsidered?

Last Friday, at the request of the Minister's former colleague, Christopher Tugendhat, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I visited Edinburgh airport and RAF Turnhouse. During discussions, certain skill shortages faced by the CAA were raised. I was told that hitherto the CAA had relied on ex-RAF personnel because they had the skills needed for not only air traffic control but many other skilled jobs in the CAA and in British Airways and other airlines. Is the Minister convinced that sufficient help is given to those who want to transfer their skills from the forces to civil flying? I had always thought that the RAF was good about transfers, but the impression that I formed in that setting, talking to people who knew about the matter, was that it was not quite so easy to transfer these days, financially or otherwise.

I had the good fortune to visit RAF Belize some years ago and I was impressed by the work that the RAF did there. The matter that I raise today is a little different. There are two urgent problems. One is control of drug smuggling and the other is control of the rain forests in certain areas. The problem can be described in the words of the Brazilian Minister for the north, Fernando Cesar Mosquita, who, sitting in his office, said to me, "If anyone creates an airstrip in your constituency, you know about it whereas I do not." The attitude in Brasilia is that if the rain forest is a world problem, the world should help. One of the ways of helping is to provide not only fire-fighting equipment but skilled helicopter crews and equipment. However much good will Governments may show, they cannot do much about the forest unless they have the equipment to do so. Has any thought been given to Governments in rain forest areas who request help from the RAF?

Column 315

My penultimate question is on women in the RAF. Hon. Members who speak from personal experience must be careful that their experience is not many years out of date. Frankly, mine is. I did national service in a tank crew. During all that time in the Rhineland Army, I should not have cared for women tank crew members. Some of us are unhappy, to put it mildly, about recent events involving naval wives. Some of us believe that naval wives have a point. It is not clear what evidence the Ministry of Defence has about women operating in--heaven help us-- battle conditions. The same applies in the RAF. In the context of the RAF, one has to assume, whether one likes it or not, the possibility of action.

The questions put by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) and by me were perfectly valid. My question is simple. I am not jumping to conclusions ; I am open to persuasion. What evidence has the Ministry had from the air staff? The air staff must have taken a view on the matter. To put it bluntly, the announcements have been pretty casual. There was not a cheep about it with regard to the Navy until ten minutes to ten the other night. The Minister was a little offhand about the announcement on women in the RAF. It is a departure from previous practice. It could be justified and some of my hon. Friends may be in favour of it, but I repeat my question: what advice has been given to the Ministry of Defence from medical sources and air staff about the feasibility of what it suggests? Until the hon. Member for Newbury asked that direct question, it was not at all clear to me--perhaps the Minister and the House will forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick--that some kind of role in any possible action was involved--

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been looking at the newspaper reports of the United States experience in Panama. Will he ask the Minister what cognisance he has taken of that, and what contact the Ministry is having with the United States military authorities on the issue of how women perform in combat?

Mr. Dalyell : That is what is called a yorker in cricket. However, I am alarmed by the decision and--although I was hesitant to say so--I am alarmed also by the American experience. We are on delicate ground here. I understand that the figure of 35 per cent. pregnancies in the first year was given. If one talks to the American forces, one realises that they are less than happy about that. Perhaps we live in a different age, but there are some very angry people, one or two of whom are in my constituency, at Rosyth. The naval wives deserve some answer.

Mr. Bill Walker : The hon. Gentleman is old enough to remember the ladies who flew in the war in the Air Transport Auxiliary. There is no reason why a woman should not fly an aeroplane as effectively as a man. The question that the hon. Gentleman wants answering is, are they ever likely to be put into combat? The answer has been stated clearly--they are not.

Mr. Dalyell : I am on political and other thin ice here, so I shall skate off it quickly. However, the question that one is entitled to ask is, what technical advice--medical and from the air staff--has the Ministry of Defence taken? The House is entitled to know.

Column 316

The Minister will be grateful to know that I come to my last question. It relates to page 2 of The Times on Monday. Under the heading "Officials study spy-pay claim", the article stated : "A bizarre allegation that MI5 has been using Premium Bond cheques, supposedly issued by Ernie, the electronic lottery' machine run by National Savings, for paying freelance agents, is being examined by the Cabinet Office, it was disclosed yesterday."

Is it really being examined by the Cabinet Office? The article continued :

"The claims first came to light when a constituent of a senior Conservative back-bencher approached his MP and alleged that Ernie did more than just select prize-winners each month.

He said Ernie's address at Lytham St. Annes, in Lancashire, was being used as a front by the Security Service.

The man claimed that when freelance operatives--often referred to as cut- outs' because their undercover work cannot be traced back to MI5--were employed, their pay cheques came in the guise of a prize-winning, tax-free Premium Bond payment."

Lucky them. The article continued :

"There was no suggestion that real Premium Bond prize money had been used.

The constituent claimed he had been paid a substantial sum for working for MI5 and produced a letter from an official at Ernie's office, dated 1981, informing him that he had won a Premium Bond prize.

The bond number was checked and found to be genuine.

Last week the letter was handed over to Cabinet Office officials who agreed to take the matter further.

One official was said to have suggested that the letter could be a forgery. The constituent had been involved in a celebrated court case several years ago and there had never been any previous suggestion that he had worked for the Security Service.

Ernie--Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment--is the nearest thing in Britain to a national lottery.

Since the first draw in June 1957 more than 30 million cheques, worth about £2 billion, have been sent out to prizewinners. The largest monthly prize is £250,000 and about £5 million remains unclaimed.

Ernie which is now on its third model, takes 75 minutes to select the monthly winners from the 24 million owners of Premium Bonds. Results are published in national newspapers."

My last question is, did the Cabinet Office really spend its time considering this matter? Why did a newspaper such as The Times decide to put that story on page 2? Was it all fiction or is there a grain of truth in it?

Normally, whatever other hon. Members criticise me for, it is not for my parliamentary manners. Normally I sit through a debate, having spoken, but a long time ago I promised to uphold the honour of this House against the House of Lords in a chess match at the Athenaeum--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Very good idea.

Mr. Dalyell : I shall doubtless have won my two chess games against the other place, but I promise, either in defeat or in victory, to return to hear the Minister's reply.

6.25 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : In a characteristically generous mood, at the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), congratulated my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment as honorary Air Commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force--

Column 317

Mr. Bill Walker : My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is the honorary Inspector General.

Mr. Wilkinson : My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was formerly the honorary Air Commodore of the Highlands squadron--and probably still is --but now he is assuming what was the four-star mantle of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Barraclough and becoming the honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I am sure that the whole House was gratified by that news, aware as we are that my hon. and gallant Friend is no armchair warrior. Following world war two service, he was awarded the air efficiency award for his service as a pilot with the city of Edinburgh squadron, No. 603, of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I undertake to award to my hon. and gallant Friend the PE award--the parliamentary efficiency award--if, after due service as honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, he can get the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons flying again.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State made a fitting speech for a renowned military historian. Long before I knew that my hon. Friend was to be a politician, I read his book on aces in the first world war, and his book on Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union that was undertaken by the Wehrmacht. My hon. Friend made us look back to the battle of Britain and suggested that it was a close-run thing. He said that he hoped that never again would we face such a close call. I submit that in the battle of Britain the tide was turned not only by the gallant Poles who came in in early September, and flung themselves into the battle from RAF Northolt, which is in my constituency, without ever having been declared operational by Air Marshal Keith Park, but because one third of the crews involved in the battle of Britain were Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel. Without them, the battle could not have been won.

In an interesting speech, containing good news about the order of the T-10 training variant of the Harrier, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said little about strategy. He did not even vouchsafe so much as a single surmise about the strategic implications for the Royal Air Force of the changes taking place in central and eastern Europe at present.

If I may indulge myself briefly, I should like to speculate a little. It must be our earnest endeavour, by the process of arms control and diplomacy, to seek to eliminate the Soviet armed forces, including, of course, the Soviet air forces, from the territory of what is now the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. If we can do so, we shall ensure much greater security for ourselves in the West. But in that process, which will encompass the real possibility of the unification of the two German states, it is hard to foresee that, for very much longer, Soviet forces, including air forces, will be stationed in what would be the eastern part of the united Germany, or that foreign troops, including British troops and Royal Air Force Germany, will be stationed in what is now the Federal Republic.

The logic of events--this is something for which we must hope--is that there will be a demilitarised Germany, certainly a Germany in which no foreign troops are stationed, and no foreign air forces based. That need not mean that Germany will be any less reliable as a NATO partner. Denmark and Norway do not have foreign troops

Column 318

of NATO stationed on their soil in time of peace. Of course, they have the facilities and the infrastructure for reinforcement, and reinforcement is conducted regularly in exercises by the NATO allies.

I hope that the air staff, among all the scenarios, is at present looking at the possibility of questioning, at some time in the not-too-distant future, the Brussels treaty commitment to station an army of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the soil of continental Europe--in Germany. Just before the end of last year I inquired of Her Majesty's Government whether the Brussels treaty commitment was under review. I was told, significantly, that it was. That is a very new development.

We could, and should, spell out with some clarity the basic strategic dispositions that will ensue from the changing scene in central and eastern Europe and the process of arms control in which we are engaged. First, it is likely that there will be a premium on the capacity to reinforce, rather than on in-place formations, on the central front. Secondly, there will be a premium on the need for reserves rather than regular forces. The number of regular forces in place is likely to diminish, but we shall need a capacity to reinforce and to expand. Thirdly, there will be a need for reach and/or range. I have suggested a process of arms control which, I hope, would lead to the elimination of Soviet air forces and Soviet ground troops from central Europe. The Soviets still possess formidable air forces with great capability, and we ought to be able to reach far and fast over extended ranges. The quality of air power is a supreme consideration. It is a quality applicable not just to the central front but, of course, to out- of-area operations. In this uncertain world--I am thinking of the middle east, Iran, and so on--there are areas to which we may have to address our military attention in the future to secure our basic national interests. Having looked at strategy, I want to consider the consequences for the composition of our Air Force. First, there will be an even greater need for flexibility--the basic, fundamental, inherent ingredient of air power itself. Secondly, as there will be fewer forces in place, we shall need to be able to concentrate force and fire power rapidly at the decisive point. Fire power will be at a premium. So will force multipliers--tankers, so far as material is concerned ; auxiliaries and reservists, so far as personnel are concerned. In short, we shall probably need a rather smaller Air Force, but one of higher quality and enhanced capability. Certainly there is no case whatever for eliminating the European fighter aircraft from our long- term costings and our future plans. I should like to consider briefly how withdrawal of Royal Air Force Germany, if eventually it takes place--and, if so, it will be a gradual operation, I am sure--will affect our front line. There are seven Tornado GR1 squadrons and one recce squadron in Germany at present. It must be assumed that they will be brought back and based in the United Kingdom. The existing bases could be maintained for reinforcement and redeployment in time of tension or war if required by our German NATO allies, or if those allies chose just to be members of the Brussels treaty organisation or WEU allies. I think that in the redeployment back to the United Kingdom there will be an opportunity to replace the two Buccaneer maritime attack squadrons with Tornadoes--an overdue replacement and, I think, a sensible one. Secondly, we shall not need to police the air corridors to Berlin. It must be presumed that, following German unification, the four guarantor powers

Column 319

will accede to redesignation of Berlin as a fully German city. There would then no longer be a need to police the air corridors, so the two Phantom interceptor squadrons in Royal Air Force Germany--No. 19 squadron and No. 92 squadron--would be redeployed back to the United Kingdom. That would be a good opportunity to eliminate the Phantom, which is getting rather long in the tooth, from our air defence forces altogether, to get the F2s and F3s, which are in store in St. Athan, and to rationalise purely on the basis of a Tornado air defence variant force for the No. 11 group air defence task. With so many Tornadoes coming back from Germany, one must wonder whether it would be rational or good economics to equip the two United Kingdom Jaguar squadrons--No. 41 recce squadron and No. 56 defensive support squadron--with the Jaguar. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for them to be re-equipped with the Tornado. As for the Harrier squadrons--Nos. 3 and 4 at Gu"tersloh--they would probably come back, too. I am sure that it will be suggested that, in those circumstances, there would be basing problems in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that to be the case. The announcement by Defence Secretary Chaney that the United States is to relinquish certain bases--Fairford, Greenham Common, Weathersfield, and so on--suggests to me that there are sufficient bases in the United Kingdom. There would, of course, be a dramatic foreign exchange saving to the Treasury as a result of such redeployment.

Last but not least, in the modernisation of the Air Force to make it a service with a flexible structure that will enable it to endure into the next century, there is a very real need for reserves. At present, many highly qualified aircrew and ground crew are lost to the service as a result of premature, voluntary retirement, at great cost to the taxpayer. For example, we have to make up numbers by recruiting women into categories other than the normal ones. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I know that women will be fully capable pilots; of that there is no doubt. None the less we need to prevent that haemorrhage of talent. If auxiliary flying squadrons were in operation, they would ensure the economic use of skills currently going to waste.

There are a number of roles that auxiliary squadrons could undertake. First, the United States Air Force is giving up its aggressor squadron at RAF Bentwaters, which is currently equipped with the F16. The Auxiliary Air Force could have an aggressor squadron to practise air combat, probably using the single-seat version of the Hawk, the Hawk 200. Secondly, because we may need to reinforce Germany--that possibility will still exist--and because our main anti-armour component will be air power rather than tanks on the ground, I suggest that a wing of Hawk aircraft, optimised for air-to -ground operations, be constituted for the purpose. Thirdly, I believe that the communications squadron at RAF Northolt could be an auxiliary one manned by personnel who fly airliners or executive jets. Fourthly, there is a need for a cheaper maritime patrol aeroplane to supplement the Nimrods for inshore maritime work. Fifthly, there is a great deficiency of helicopter lift--many hon. Members have already spoken about that--and the old idea of equipping one or two auxiliary squadrons with Wessex until a more appropriate aeroplane comes into service to

Column 320

provide lift for the Territorials should be dusted down, re-examined and taken up. Last but not least, in the future, there will be a premium on air mobility, in the broadest sense, and air transport.

The Royal Air Force will continue to suffer a grave deficiency if it does not have a heavy-lift capability to fly helicopters, for example, to trouble spots or to transport armoured vehicles and so on. Heavy Lift Cargo Airlines has suggested to the MOD that that airline, in its entirety and with its crews, should become an auxiliary squadron of the RAF at no capital cost to the Ministry. That is a most imaginative concept, which I broadly support. I hope that the Government will seize the opportunities of the hour for some imaginative forward thinking to modernise our Air Force and to adapt it to the changing scene in central and eastern Europe. 6.42 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I want to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in what I can only say was an extremely good speech. I agreed with much of it, and he is obviously exceedingly knowledgeable on these matters. The hon. Gentleman is realistic about the situation in eastern Europe and its consequences for Britain's contribution to NATO.

I want to refer to the low-flying programme of the Royal Air Force. I have raised this matter on many occasions over the years, but I do so tonight in a different light--not so much from the basis of constituency complaints, as of following the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Ruislip- Northwood and their consequences for Britain's low-flying programme.

Following a major incident one and a half years ago outside Keswick, the town where I live in the Lake District, I asked the National Audit Office to set up an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness and value for money considerations of the low-flying programme. That inquiry was followed six months later by an inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence on similar matters.

The National Audit Office report was published some weeks ago and we had the pleasure of being able to examine that report and to take evidence on it from senior officials of the Ministry of Defence only last week. Although Sir Michael Quinlan was unable to answer many of my questions, I should like him to know that I hold him in great respect, as I regard him as one of Britain's great civil servants. When he has the opportunity to reply to those questions that he was unable to answer orally during our hearing, I hope that he will do so in some detail, because the public want answers to them. Sir Michael was unable to answer a number of questions relating to the developments in eastern Europe.

Tonight I want to place a question mark over the whole justification for the RAF's low-flying programme. Why do we need that programme now? To establish that need, I can do little more than refer to what was said in the National Audit Office report, when it referred to "NATO's forward defence strategy" when defining the requirement for the programme.

I also want to refer to a number of letters that I have received from Ministers in the past 10 years, in particular a letter of 26 August 1987 which stated, in justifying the programme :

Column 321

"In the event of an attack on this country or on our allies, our pilots must be ready to retaliate against targets deep in enemy territory."

The operative words are "deep in enemy territory".

Another letter of 3 November 1987 stated :

"I would only say that military experts remain convinced that high speed flight still offers the best chance of evading radar and defence systems to attack targets deep in enemy territory." Another letter of 19 December 1987 was a reply from a Minister about many of the complaints that have come through my office over the years. It stated :

"Low level, high speed flight still offers the best chance of evading radar and defence systems to attack targets deep in enemy territory."

What is meant by "deep in enemy territory"? That phrase is turned out so liberally from the MOD word processors when replying to the many thousands of complaints received annually.

In a letter of 4 February 1983, the then Minister said : "In a more settled world, of course, there would be less need for the flying, but it is no secret that the Soviet Union and its allies have greatly increased their military strength in the past few years and are a potential threat to Western Europe."

Mr. Alan Clark : Who wrote it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : It was written by the hon. Member for Weston- super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

Mr. Clark : That was 10 years ago.

Next Section

Home Page