---

Mr. Page : I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I should hate him to go away with that thought.

---

Column 572

Turbomeca must obviously charge for the work that it will undertake. My simple request was that we should also allow Strongfield International to quote for the work. If it is more expensive, it should not get the job. I was not seeking a one-off contract for Strongfield alone on that basis.

Mr. Aitken : Strongfield will have an opportunity to bid in a full and fair competition, but at present it cannot qualify or bid for the reasons that I shall explain.

Our paramount concern is the need to maintain front-line support to our troops. It is my and my Department's duty to assure the safety and airworthiness of the helicopter fleet.

If we are to be confident of achieving that, the successful bidder must give us firm assurance on his existing capabilities in a number of areas. First, he must have the expertise and facilities to undertake the work ; secondly, he must have the necessary quality and process controls to assure us that the work is being professionally managed ; and, thirdly, he must assure us that he is financially strong enough to take on that substantial commitment. Fourthly, and most importantly, the successful contractor will need to negotiate a licence with Turbomeca. Strongfield does not yet appear to be in a position to offer us or Turbomeca those assurances. Although my Department has been advising the company on the steps that it will need to take to gain such approval, it does not appear that any such steps have been taken.

It is not a question of bureaucratic delay. It is not a question of the Ministry of Defence being insensitive, as my hon. Friend suggested. The House would not expect me to award contracts on the taxpayers' behalf without checking thoroughly that a company could do the job.

Nothing that I have said is intended in any way to criticise Strongfield. I welcome the involvement of new companies in the business of defence, provided they meet the criteria that I have outlined. I should be delighted if Strongfield entered the competition. It knows the procedures, and it will have time to go through them before it bids. I am sure that the House would agree that we should not award a contract to a company that has not met such important requirements. However, that is what we would have had to do if we had not decided to make our interim arrangement with Turbomeca.

I emphasise for the House an important point about quality assurances and airworthiness. The criteria for safety and airworthiness dictate that those companies that seek to repair and overhaul any engines must have the requisite corporate quality controls for, and experience with, engine overhaul in the appropriate engine power range. Aero engines are qualified to meet stringent controls aimed at safe operation of the aircraft within the declared flight envelope, and the integrity of vital rotating components necessitates the observance of strictly controlled procedures during the overhaul process. Therefore, to meet the Ministry of Defence's minimum requirements, tenderers need to be registered with the Department as complying with the quality control and inspection requirements--AQAP/4 or ISD 9002--which would guarantee the control of processes, maintenance schedules and so on, and assure airworthiness.

I hope that I have shown the House that the whole saga, which my hon. Friend calls a sad affair, was more

---

Column 573

complicated. The Ministry of Defence had to take more precautions and move more cautiously than we would have wanted.

As for the human concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend, naturally, we are all anxious about the plight of the work force that is being shed by Rolls- Royce. I also come from a constituency in which there are serious unemployment problems. I wish that I could find some way to assist those 70 employees of Rolls-Royce to avoid unemployment, but there simply is no responsible way in which my Department can help at present. I am sorry that I have to tell Strongfield to come back, perhaps not in three years' time but in a few months' time. That is all I can say at present.

I emphasise that the decision to withdraw the work was taken not by my Department but by Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce is the prime mover and creator of the problem that we are discussing.

As I have said, it is our intention to hold a full and fair competition for the engine repair requirement in accordance with our declared competition policy. We are in the process of setting up the arrangements with the

---

Column 574

engine manufacturers. By those means we will ensure that industry is treated fairly and that all companies that want to bid for the contract are treated fairly. We will also ensure that the taxpayer is well served and that our defences are well maintained. The policy also helps to keep the British defence industry efficient, which underpins its superb export performance--now at record-breaking levels--in bringing jobs and wealth to this country.

I understand the consternation and distress that job loses can cause in a local area. My hon. Friend has been right to raise the subject tin the House this afternoon. I am sure that it will be given proper attention by the newspapers in his district. However, I hope that they will understand that my Department cannot take risks with safety and that we cannot intervene to stop industry restructuring, much as we sympathise with the plight of individuals and companies. We support industry and we need it. I hope that this has been a useful opportunity to explain how our policies for procurement translate into action and why it is to the benefit of industry, our forces and the taxpayer. I am only sorry that my words cannot extend any real comfort to the 70 employees whose plight we have been discussing this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

---