House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Feb 1990

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Well, that may be so, but that letter defines the justification for the low-flying training programme.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Although potential targets and potential enemy territory will change from time to time, particularly because of developments in eastern Europe, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, during the Falklands conflict, there was a clear need for aircraft to fly extremely low beneath the Argentine radar? During that conflict, our aircraft flew over enemy territory at extremely low levels because of the experience and training gained in this country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, but the problem is that it is costing us nigh on £4 million to maintain that programme. Not that many jets were used in the Falklands campaign ; if the hon. Gentleman examines the information, he will find that no more than a dozen jets were used at any particular time. The hon. Gentleman's argument is no justification for the scale and nature of the programme currently in place. Who are the "deep in enemy territory" nations to which reference has been made? They are Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary, along with the part of the Soviet Union which is called Byelorussia. I think "Byelo" is the Russian for white ; it is the area of the Soviet Union referred to as White Russia. Those parts of eastern Europe have all been subject to political change. Let us establish what the change has been.

Let us take Hungary. Hungary is currently ruled by a Government drawn from the Hungarian Socialist party, the reformist successor to the old Communist party. However, that is merely a caretaker operation pending elections on 25 March which the Socialist party is unlikely to win. Hungary has arrived at that stage by a series of dramatic but peaceful transformations. To date, the USSR

Column 322

seems remarkably relaxed about the changes in Hungary, and individual spokesmen suggest that some form of neutrality might be acceptable in due course.

There seems to be surprising unanimity between the main political parties about Hungary's international status and alliances. In January, the National Assembly voted for the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. Negotiations to that end are well advanced. On 20 February, Gyula Horn, the Foreign Minister said that he would not rule out the possibility of Hungary joining NATO in the long term. Later he clarified his statement by saying that he envisaged Hungary belonging to NATO and the Warsaw pact.

Mr. Alan Clark : I mean well ; I hope to help the hon. Gentleman accelerate the pace of his speech. At least he can miss out this bit. There is no training in the Royal Air Force to attack targets in Hungary, from high or low altitude.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : When Ministers were writing those letters, the reference to eastern Europe and its allies was repeated ; it appears in letters as late as one and a half years ago. That has been the position which has been put consistently by Ministers over the years. That is what the word processor keeps churning out. Perhaps they should change the programme.

Mr. Rogers : Like my hon. Friend, I am surprised by the Minister's response. I thought that the pilots were being trained to attack countries in the Warsaw pact, and that Hungary was a member of the Warsaw pact. If they are not being trained to attack Hungary, I do not know what the target is. Are there any other Hungaries about?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Perhaps I may refer to countries other than Hungary. Let us take Czechoslovakia. It has undergone dramatic upheavals since November 1989. These followed similar upheavals in the German Democratic Republic and stemmed from the realisation that the unpopular and illegitimate Communist regime, installed in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of 1968, no longer enjoyed Soviet backing. Elections are scheduled for 8 June this year. President Havel has already visited Berlin, Bonn, Warsaw, Washington and Moscow. In Moscow, he signed an agreement on the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops by July 1991. Is Czechoslovakia the target? Is it one of the nations which is situated deep in enemy territory? Let us take the next one, the German Democratic Republic. Future security arrangements for eastern Germany are being hotly debated in the run-up to the elections on 18 March. Is not it strange that elections are about to take place in all these countries? They are all negotiating the withdrawal of troops ; they all want the troops returned to the Soviet Union.

The Federal German Republic will have elections on 2 December. The most likely outcome is that a united Germany will belong to the political part of NATO. Germany might not remain in the integrated military structure of NATO. France has been outside the military structure since 1966, so there is a precedent. Germany will probably remain within the Western European Union.

The preferred solution for eastern Germany is that proposed by Foreign Minister Genscher--that the present territory of the German Democratic Republic will have a special treaty governing military status under which the

Column 323

Soviet forces will be allowed to remain, and German and other NATO forces will not be introduced. But negotiations are going on all the time about the removal of Soviet forces.

Indeed, I understand that the position in eastern Germany is so bad that today the Evening Standard wrote this article about a country which is deep in enemy territory and for which we should have such fear and tribulation :

"East German's armed forces, the pride of the Warsaw Pact until just a few months ago, are falling apart as men desert in their thousands and discipline collapses, say NATO sources.

The East German army has stopped functioning as a military machine', said a senior NATO official with access to intelligence reports. It is amazing-- unlike anything else in eastern Europe.' The Western alliance estimates that the National People's Army, which had 173,000 men until the Berlin Wall came down last November, has now shrunk by almost half to 90,000.

Soldiers are simply not turning up for work, some have emigrated to the West, others have gone to take jobs elsewhere. A lot of them feel the army is useless. That famous German discipline has gone', another source said.

Last week a battalion of East German soldiers refused to take part in an excercise led by some of the 380,000 Soviet troops still based in East Germany, the source said."

Of course, those too are the subject of withdrawal negotiations.

Mr. Allason : Whatever the status of the so-called eastern bloc countries, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that agreement was recently reached within the United States to allow 195,000 Soviet troops to be based in Europe?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Negotiations may have taken place, based on the historic positions in conflict of the parties, but things are happening every week, every day. There will be developments prior to the elections in all the countries to which I have referred. It is clear that major changes are taking place. All I am arguing is that "deep in enemy territory" can no longer include countries such as those that I have mentioned.

I have not referred to Poland, but it is in the same position. Discussions are taking place about the withdrawal of Soviet troops. There are matters outstanding with East Germany, but they will resolve with the passage of time, and there will be a reduction in tension in eastern Europe.

Let us look further. What is beyond the boundary of eastern Europe? We have Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Moldavia. Most of those areas of the USSR are themselves the subject of democratic change. That is what the argument is about on the other side of the Urals. Indeed, elections have just taken place in Lithuania and elections are due in Moldavia. In the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, elections are taking place in three months. In Latvia and Estonia, there will be elections on 18 March. All these elections are against the background of the nationalist movements developing in those countries, most of which are opposed to further domination of their political systems by the Communist party. They want change based on the western model of applied democracy.

Column 324

Mr. Bill Walker : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we are witnessing rapid political change and enormous political instability. Would he care to cast his mind back to where we started, the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain? Will he reflect on how long it took Hitler to emerge from political instability to a position in which he threatened Europe? How many years did that take?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the clock will suddenly turn back--

Mr. Walker : No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Perhaps I misunderstood the implication of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

I have dealt with what I believe to be the major changes in eastern Europe and in those satellite regions that form part of the USSR. Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) rose--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I am sorry, but I must press ahead. I have a map of the area to which I am referring. There is the old iron curtain, there is the boundary of the existing

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be comprehensible for the Hansard reporters. He must describe exactly what he is doing so that it can be written down.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I shall do precisely that. This map shows the iron curtain, the boundary between the states that form part of the western USSR and that area of eastern Europe that includes Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. The significance of this map is that it shows also the operational ranges of the Tornado and Harrier jets that are currently deployed on three bases in western Europe--Bruggen, Gutersloh and Laarbruck. One of those bases has a Harrier squadron and the other two have Tornado squadrons.

Taking the maximum operational range--without mid-air

refuelling--based on an average load-bearing Tornado, and making a kilometre calculation from the bases where those aircraft are deployed, they only just cross the border from Poland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Germany into the Soviet Union. Their ranges are geared to operate in an area that is now the subject of political change. Most of the operational potential for those aircraft has been offset by the changes in eastern Europe.

The Tornado cannot even penetrate more than 120 km inside the Soviet Union when it is operating on maximum range. It cannot even reach industrial cities in the west of the Soviet Union, because it is built to deal with a problem deep in enemy territory in the satellite states in eastern Europe. Much of its operational capability and role is now defunct because of the changes. I am not saying that it should be withdrawn tomorrow. I understand that there is some question whether the changes in eastern Europe are long term, or whether there is the possibility of a reverse. My view is that there is not, but there are varying views. All I am asking is that Ministers take that matter into account. If the political conditions are changing, there must be some Government response, especially if the role and capability of the Tornado is interfered with by those changes.

Column 325

Sir Alan Glyn : The hon. Gentleman was correct when he said that there have been enormous changes in eastern Europe. He has correctly outlined them, and none of us disputes that. However, all those countries would have been unreliable allies to the Soviets. We are now faced with a much shorter Soviet frontier. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman says, we need different types of weapon. One of those weapons is the atomic deterrent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Soviet Union is deperate to cut defence expenditure. It cannot build a modern economy while such a high percentage of its GDP is spent on its defence efforts. It desperately wants changes. Western Europe must recognise that reality and respond accordingly, so that the Soviet Union can convince its public opinion and military institutions, which will probably resist a reduction in internal defence expenditure, that it is justified.

Unless western Europe recognises its responsibility to respond and so enable the Soviet Government, especially President Gorbachev, to sell the principle of reducing expenditure, it will fail in its historic duty. We must not speak that language, because changes are happening. I am saying not that we should unilaterally give up everything--on the contrary--but that we must take everything into account and not take an entrenched position on areas such as low flying and Tornado training just because, historically, pilots have been in a strong position to demand and secure what they wanted. I shall now deal with aircraft losses. Information is published in America that sets out the truth, which British Ministers have always refused to accept, about the attrition rates for Tornado, Jaguar and other fast jets used by the RAF. I want to know the answer to a simple question that I asked the Select Committee on Public Accounts last week. Why is it that, in 1979, the major accident rate, which includes aircraft losses, per 10,000 hours--as referred to by the Minister in his opening speech--was twice as high in the RAF as it was in the United States air force?

The figure was 1.49 fast jets lost by the RAF and 0.74 by the United States air force. In 1980, why was the figure 1.13 for the RAF and 0.51 for the United States air force--two and a quarter times higher? Why was it two and a half times as high in 1981--1.28 compared with 0.48--and in 1982 two and a third times as high--1.22 compared with 0.52? I am sorry to relate all those statistics, but they should be put on the record. They are published in the United States of America and they should be published in the United Kingdom. In 1983 the RAF figure was three times as high--1.25 compared with 0.40 ; in 1984 it was two and a third times as high --0.86 compared with 0.37 ; in 1985, it was 0.73 compared with 0.29--two and a half times as high. In 1986 we had a good year as the figure was 0.58 compared with 0.33- -one and three quarter times as high ; in 1987, figures were 0.84 compared with 0.33--two and half times as high. The Minister said that last year's figure was 0.81--

Mr. Alan Clark : The figure was 0.31.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I am sorry ; I thought the Minister said 0.81. Perhaps we had a better year last year. However, what is coming next year? The pattern of the past has repeatedly been that we lose, or have major

Column 326

accidents involving, far more fast jets than does the United States of America. That includes not only low flying, but flying at all altitudes in fast jets.

If we try to identify low flying, what happens? We are not given the figures, because figures relating to low flying are not published. The Ministry of Defence uses all sorts of answers to try to justify the fact that we cannot have statistics relating to low flying, whereas in Germany the figures are published. Why, in many of those years, were the number of Tornadoes lost--one type of aircraft--twice as high per 10,000 hours in the United Kingdom, with RAF pilots, as in Germany with Luftwaffe pilots? Are the Germans safer fliers? Those are the same aircraft, and the same basis of calculation has been used.

These matters are of great importance because, to some extent, they show that there is something about the British low-flying programme, or the use of Tornado generally, that might make low-flying more dangerous in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bill Walker rose

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I shall give way in a moment.

It may be that we are the only country in western Europe that allows low flying down to 100 ft. I wonder if that is it? I wonder if the NATO agreement that we have whereby we carry out low flying to 100 ft puts our pilots at greater risk.

Mr. Walker : I do not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's piece of paper with the statistics. Will he confirm that those statistics cover all fast jet operations in the United States, including the United States navy and the United States marine corps? The United States marine corps flies low and fast, and has more aircraft than the Royal Air Force has in total. Therefore, if those flights are included in the statistics, that would certainly change the figures enormously.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I am comparing like with like.

Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman is not.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The hon. Gentleman says that I am not, but I know what statistics I have here. I am comparing like with like. I shall now consider Tornadoes, in comparison with F111s. In 1986, not one F111 aircraft--I understand that, in terms of role and capability, the F111 is similar to the Tornado--was lost anywhere on earth. Let us imagine the scale of the United States operations and the use of F111 aircraft and consider that not one was lost. I understand that the F111 is a safe aircraft, yet over a period of years we have lost 22 Tornado aircraft in this country. The figures vary depending on what extent of damage is regarded as a write-off. There was a story in the national press last year of Tornadoes being holed up in some garage or hangar at a national airport, for whatever reason.

Mr. Rogers : I shall confirm for the record what my hon. Friend said about the aircraft being stored in a garage. In a report, the Select Committee on Defence expressed great concern about the fact that there were 32 Tornadoes in storage in a hangar at RAF St. Athan. The total worth of those 32 Tornadoes was more than £500 million and it was costing £60,000 a year to keep them in storage.

Column 327

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I am glad that my hon. Friend is able to confirm that report. I was obviously telling the story as it is. It is always significant in a debate in the House when a large number of hon. Members rise to intervene. It may be that I have provoked them to think about these matters tonight. I hope that they will check the figures that I have given and the figures that will inevitably be published in the report of the Public Accounts Committee that will be produced when the evidence that has been taken on the National Audit Office report is published. If those figures are given in full, they will justify what I have said tonight and endorse my case.

I do not want to say what I am about to say, but I shall say it : pilots tell lies. I know that because of an incident that took place on 7 November 1988, about 200 miles to the east of the boundary of Keswick, the town in my constituency where I live. Three people witnessed the incident, which was a near miss. None of those who reported the incident to me knew any of the others who had done so. They all reported the incident independently and from three different positions. The letter that came back from the Minister of Defence said :

"As promised in Roger Freeman's letter to you of 7 November, the points raised by three of your constituents about Tornado aircraft activity near Keswick on 14 September have now been looked into. I can confirm that no airmiss report has been filed relating to any incident over Keswick that day. As you may know, the pilots would have been obliged to file such a report if either of them had felt that their aircraft had been endangered by the proximity of another. It is, however, quite possible that your correspondent saw Tornado aircraft executing a navigational or tactical turn, manoeuvres which involve one aircraft crossing over the track of the lead aircraft. In such a manoeuvre the aircraft would be separated by some 500 feet. I can assure you that these manoeuvres are standard practice in the Royal Air Force. Both pilots would have been well briefed beforehand and would have maintained visual and radio contact throughout. Such turns are in fact carried out in the interests of aircraft safety. I hope this is helpful."

The background to that letter is that the pilots concerned told lies. When they were asked, they said that there had been no air miss. They did not file reports because they knew that that would lead to an inquiry. Two of those three constituents may well not be of my political persuasion and all three are reliable people, not known for hysteria. They are level-headed and know what they saw. Nothing on earth will convince them that it was other than what they said in the statements that they gave to officials.

I know that these air misses happen all the time. I have seen incidents ; I live under the flight path of one of these aircraft. As I am not there for most of the week but only the weekend, I do not see many incidents. However, in the summer months I have seen the aircraft coming down the valley over Keswick. Sometimes they come down very low indeed. People write in and complain, and the Ministry sends out officials, who write reports. We all know that the exercise is a waste of time because the pilot says, "I did not do that," and that goes in the record.

We cannot go on like this, on the basis of a Skyguard system, which I understand is some jacked-up, captured piece of Argentine equipment. Perhaps we are now buying new equipment--I do not know ; it did not come out in the Public Accounts Committee the other day. Something must be done to catch these people out. It is not just me who complains ; all hon. Members who live in such areas are complaining.

Column 328

I believe in a low-flying programme where it is necessary and when it is run properly. I object to pilots who tell lies. No doubt they will have the opportunity to read tonight's debate. I hope that those who have told lies know what I am talking about and realise that people strongly object. If three people see something independently and know it happened, we do not expect a pilot to go back and lie to his senior officers, as happened on that occasion.

There are alternative locations in various parts of the world where such low flying could take place. I have had a letter faxed to me today from Canada, from the leader of the New Democratic party, which I understand is an important party in Canadian politics. To some extent, the letter undermines my case, but I intend to read part of it out.

The Canadians object--I did not know this till yesterday--to the fact that some of us are advocating more low-flying training taking place overseas, particularly in Canada. It seems that that idea is causing a great deal of anxiety to the populations of certain

areas--especially to trappers, whose activities make an important contribution to the economy of certain northern areas.

The letter ends :

"The New Democratic party has appreciated the solidarity and friendship accorded us by the Labour party over the years. We now ask you to consider our position in formulating your policy on low flying in the dramatically changing international arms context." The letter objects to any possible NATO decision on increasing low-flying activity in Canada. It also refers to an aboriginal group known as the Innu and questions the low-flying programme on the basis that the changes in eastern Europe obviate the necessity of maintaining the present scale of the programme.

7.21 pm

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) : If we followed the line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) we should ignore the very nature of a credible defence policy for the RAF, the Army or the Navy. The whole essence of defence--this debate centres on an effective air defence--is its insurance policy element. An insurance policy should be taken out against all risks, and we hope that when one of those risks is called in, the policy will cover it. If we extended the argument of the hon. Member for Workington, we could talk ourselves out of having any defence at all, saying that we could see no risk for the foreseeable future, so we should remove our defence forces. That is unsound policy.

At a time of great changes we must, when deciding on the role of the RAF, examine some important underlying concepts--for example, those of technological deterrence and operational deterrence. In a rapidly changing world I should not like to predict in what sort of theatre of operations our Air Force may be called upon to perform its tasks. We have heard in the debate that the European theatre may be less important in the foreseeable future, but I can think of out-of-area operations in other parts of the world in which our interests could be threatened and in which the characteristics of aircraft such as the Tornado--it is built in my constituency--with its low-flying capability might be called into play. An effective Air Force must be effective in all the possible roles that it might be called upon to perform.

Column 329

Mr. Rogers : Would the hon. Gentleman care to mention any area in which the British Air Force is likely to operate-- apart from our present out-of-area commitments?

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : Oh dear, oh dear.

Mr. Rogers : Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of going back to the colonies, or of raiding another country? Perhaps the commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force could give us some guidance on this?

Mr. Jack : No one could have predicted that we would need to defend our interests in the Falklands ; no one could have predicted the need for the Armilla patrol. There are always possibilities that our defence forces will be called upon--

Mr. Bill Walker : Does my hon. Friend recollect that it was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who decided that we did not need an aircraft carrier squadron in the south Atlantic, and that it was the removal of that deterrent which resulted some years later in the Argentinians invading the Falklands?

Mr. Jack : I thank my hon. Friend for refreshing my memory. The thesis behind an effective Air Force is that it must be effective whatever the demands upon it. Part of our task now, with the conventional forces in Europe talks under way, is to determine the flexible nature and the technology that will be required for our Air Force to meet future demands, seen and unseen.

In my constituency 6,500 people are employed in British Aerospace's military aircraft division. It was refreshing to hear the commitment made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to the Tornado, to hear his questions about its operational capability, and to hear his commitment to the European fighter aircraft. I hope that those commitments last all the way through the Labour party's policy formulation and that at the next general election it will be able to explain why the party has reversed its policy of trying to run down the defence industry.

The Labour party has talked about some sort of conversion agency. If such an agency came into being not all the objectives that the hon. Member for Rhondda set out in his speech could be achieved, because the agency would undermine the technological base that provided the very weapon systems that he supports. How would he sustain the home-based defence industry without the contribution of its defence exports? In Lancashire we know very well the benefits of, for instance, the Al Yamani project, supplying Tornadoes, Hawks and other systems to Saudi Arabia ; but the Labour party made it clear at the last election and thereafter that it would dismantle the overseas sales network for British defence equipment.

At a time when we are--rightly--questioning value for money in European defence, orders for different aircraft systems, some of which will be endorsed by purchase by the RAF, will make the economics of planes such as the Tornado and the EFA come right--at affordable prices, for us and for others. It is very important that the RAF continues to order such planes. I recall the classic example of an American fighter developed by an American aircraft company. The United States Air Force would not buy it, so the plane made no export business.

The hon. Member for Rhondda should also bear in mind the importance of Britain developing its sale of

Column 330

defence equipment worldwide, which helps us to determine defence policy in new theatres of operation. To answer the hon. Member for Workington, sometimes the achievement of such sales is determined by the capability of an aircraft--for instance, in low flying. Apart from the 16,500-strong British Aerospace work force in defence procurement in the north-west, we also have Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick and Lucas Aerospace in Burnley. The work forces in those companies are worried about the conventional forces in Europe talks. They are aware of the dramatic developments that have resulted recently in a reduction in the number of combat aircraft to 4,700. As yet it has not been specified which types of aircraft will be involved or what the implications are for future defence procurement, and that causes anxiety.

I contend that there are also opportunities. The CFE talks put a premium on technology--what is left will have to be good. That maxim is certainly mirrored in the Warsaw pact's strategy of developing higher technology planes that pack a bigger punch. We need to know how we shall react to what emerges from the CFE talks.

We must remember that the RAF's strategy in future must be flexible. The achievement of flexibility will largely depend on our ability to develop highly sophisticated technological products, so we need to retain in this country the basic capability to produce such equipment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's commitment to the European fighter aircraft. He is right to say that work on that aircraft is advanced. Five prototypes are currently being worked on in the hangars at Warton.

The need for that plane cannot be overemphasised. The Soviet Union has made it clear that, while it may be reducing the number of aircraft that it has at its disposal, it is generating types that we will find difficult to deal with. Aircraft such as the Blackjack, the Flanker fighters and the Fulcrum are threats that the European fighter aircraft may be called upon to meet. The whole point of having a credible deterrent such as the European fighter aircraft is the hope that it will not have to meet such threats. If we show any weakness and do not proceed with a specific programme, other people could get the wrong idea.

In technology terms the European fighter aircraft is interesting. In real terms it could be argued that the aircraft is cheaper than its previous equivalents. It employs the new technology of carbon fibre in its wing construction and has new forms of mouldings and alloys, all of which contribute to improved serviceability. Those who seek justification for having it will find, for example, that one of the targets is to reduce the amount of time when it is not serviceable. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when he replies what is happening in terms of the availability of aircraft in relation to maintenance. Can he also give us some idea of the time that will be required to resolve the problems of the European fighter aircraft? It is right that the four nations concerned should look again at the question of radar and reach a conclusion. There are outstanding issues and many of my constituents would like a firm word on those.

I shall now deal with the matter of the delivery of Tornadoes that British Aerospace has on its production line. I am surprised that the Opposition did not reflect on the fact that, in spite of the efforts of the engineering union to mess up production at the British Aerospace plant in Preston, those at Warton in my constituency continued working and there was no disruption in the flow of aircraft

Column 331

to RAF and other customers of British Aerospace. Warton can be justly proud of its role in ensuring the continuity of procurement. It distressed me greatly to see the engineering unions pressing the strike to the limit and posing some fundamental questions on their suitability to continue as a source of labour for components for use in British Aerospace's wider activities. It is about time that the Opposition had words with their friends in the trade unions and told them to exercise more responsibility.

Nobody can predict with precision the future role of the RAF. We may see a need to increase maritime air power. What consideration has the Minister given to adapting existing marques or future planes such as the EFA to fulfil a maritime role? There has been some speculation about what comes next. I appreciate that there is considerable public pressure to reduce defence expenditure, but we must not ignore questions such as what comes next. The lead time on modern aircraft is very long. If we are to maintain our technology base and our leading edge on aviation technology in Europe, with the obvious potential spin-offs in the civil field, we must try to give an early indication, commensurate with CFE 1 and CFE 2, to our aircraft industry so that it can plan properly for technology and materials procurement.

The idea that we can all gain immediately from some form of peace dividend worries me. There would be no dividend from what has happened in eastern Europe if we had not been resolute on our defence expenditure and policies. Neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland place great emphasis on maintaining a credible air defence system to protect the inviolability of their air space and their national security. Such a strong view by neutral countries must reinforce our stance to place emphasis in the coming years on credible air defence. The European fighter aircraft has an important role to play in that.

7.34 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made an interesting speech that was informative about the Conservative view. Conservatives argue that defence is about liberty and freedom, but the hon. Gentleman uttered a thinly veiled threat to ban trade unions from defence factories. Effectively, he said that in his speech. He eulogised about arms exports. Arms exports have been expanded enormously and it is little wonder that British and European-made arms were used to kill British soldiers in the Falklands war. Conservatives have pushed ahead fast with arms exports because they are interested only in the money, but they should realise that British troops will be at risk from British arms in future wars.

I apologise to the Minister for missing the early part of his speech. I put it down to a failed attempt to improve my sartorial image. I have been trying to avoid bulging pockets by not carrying keys. Unfortunately, I closed my front door and then found that I did not have the keys in my pocket. I wish that I had had an RAF helicopter to lift me over my neighbour's back wall and into my garden so that I could get into my house.

It is difficult for hon. Members to visit Royal Air Force bases and it can be done only on strictly limited conditions. I tried to do it and was snubbed by the Ministry of

Column 332

Defence. I was told that I could not visit when I wanted to. I have a picture from Aviation News magazine of a girl in front of a Hawk. The caption says :

"A bird in the hand Pilot's Pal Kris Jaynes with a No. 151 (Shadow) Squadron Hawk T.Mk.1 make a fine combination for this year's Christmas cover."

It is clear that calendar girls can get into RAF bases. I appreciate that hon. Members are not as popular as calendar girls on visits, but nominally at least we hold the purse strings and if calendar girls can get in surely we can. Will the proceeds from such calendars be given to the Royal Air Force? That would save the taxpayer a few bob because I understand that such calendars make money.

I congratulate the RAF on its disaster relief work and its search and rescue efforts. My experience from meeting RAF officers is that they have an amazingly high technical standard and great expertise. They are immensely efficient. However, one must ask whether the Ministry of Defence is efficient in managing them or is it inefficient, incompetent and wasteful of public money?

I should like to read to the House a long passage that is worth reading from The Independent of 22 January. It points to that inefficiency and to the need for a major defence review. That was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It also shows that a peace dividend should be comfortably available from cutting our military hardware. That could be used for peaceful purposes such as the National Health Service and civilian jobs in an arms conversion programme. Only the Tories set their face against that. I have seen reports saying that changes in Europe mean that we have to spend more. That is plain stupidity.

The article in The Independent is headlined :

"Military budgets able to withstand £15 bn cut'."

It says :

"The RAF runs too many airfields, requiring duplication of services and more men than any other western airforce operating a similar number of aircraft. Five or six RAF air bases could be closed, including at least one of the major facilities in West Germany. RAF Germany will probably have to lose two of its 12 combat aircraft squadrons under the CFE treaty. Airpower should be reorganised with at least two of RAF Germany's nine squadrons of Tornado bomber aircraft brought back to Britain to replace elderly Buccaneers the RAF's strength could be cut by about 15,000 men from its current strength of 93,000. These changes could be made with the RAF losing only four of its 28 fast jet squadrons while retaining all its projects for upgrading UK air defences.

Further, the RAF's support helicopter force should be transferred to Army control. Currently, troops ride in helicopters operated by two services, a duplication of effort and something that hinders the development of airmobile tactics, which will become increasingly important as forces in central Europe are thinned out by the CFE accord."

I do not mind whether that is controlled by the Army or by the RAF, but there should not be that duplication. The article also says : "The RAF's plans to buy a new air-launched anti-tank missile could be cancelled".

That is particularly relevant if the CFE talks result in the scrapping of some of the tanks in central Europe. Another article in The Independent on the same day says :

"A comparison of the Royal Air Force with that of Israel shows the difference between an organisation which evolved through the abandonment of empire and one which grew up to meet a specific threat. Each force deploys about 550 combat aircraft but the RAF uses three times as many people to do it. There is only one general in the Israeli air force but there are more than 50 officers of equivalent or higher rank in the RAF

Some military experts also believe that the RAF deploys much of its strength too close to the East German border. The

Next Section

Home Page