House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 1997 (pt 15)

Mr. Spellar: I had to go out of sequence to deal with that issue--which Conservative Members could not wait

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1175

to raise, so that they could make their party political broadcast. The excitement of following their central office brief was obviously too much to resist.

Last year, the Nimrod orders and missile contracts were a close-run matter, and created problems for industry. This year it has happened again, in the collapse of the Bowman competition--which was important in itself, but also to some of our leading defence contractors. It provides a case study in the limitations of the Government's narrow views of the procurement process. As consolidation inevitably occurs in the industry, that view will increasingly hamper British industry, until there is a change of philosophy. Given this Administration's stubborn resistance to change and Conservative Members' antics in the past few minutes, however, such change will occur only with a change of Government.

This debate also provides us with an opportunity to revisit the sale of the married quarters estate. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will tell us how much rent the Government anticipate they will pay for those properties this financial year, and how much they project will be paid in future years. Perhaps he will also tell us their estimates for movements in the cost of assured shorthold tenancies--an indicator that will set future rent levels--and the impact of those on defence expenditure.

After this week's press reports, will the Minister also tell us how much purchasers will make from the sale of surplus properties, so that we can assess--albeit retrospectively--whether it was a good deal for Britain and for our armed forces. Specifically, was it a good deal for the RAF, which generally had a much better standard of property? It might be instructive if, in his reply, the Minister tells us how much will be spent this year on additional upgrading of the estate, and how much will go to the RAF portion of the estate?

We have touched on the Eurofighter issue, but we should tie it in with the safety issue, which the Minister mentioned earlier in his speech. As he is aware--he alluded to it in his speech--concern has already been expressed in earlier debates and in the Select Committee at the number of fast jet crashes, and at the consequent cost in aircraft and, tragically, in human life. On those occasions, hon. Members spoke of the need for an overall inquiry to assess whether there are systemic problems, rather than simply to continue examinations to determine the cause of individual crashes.

Concern over safety must have been increased by figures in an article published in this weekend's Scotland on Sunday, to which I have drawn the Minister's office's attention. The article compared the RAF with the United States air force, and showed that, in the period 1992-96, RAF serious accident rates per flying hour were 80 per cent. higher than the USAF's. I realise that such data must be handled and examined extremely carefully, and I fully accept the need to examine like for like, but I think that we owe it to our air crews and to our taxpayers to examine whether we are sufficiently up to date with modern risk management.

We all recognise the superb skills, professionalism and dedication of those who serve in the RAF, but we need to be assured that they are aware of the best possible

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1176

techniques and that they are not overstretched. That is especially true, as the Minister said, when we are dealing with the role of air power in power projection.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentlemen clarify exactly what he means about risk management? How does he think that current risk management should be altered, and what action does he think that he would take?

Mr. Spellar: That question demonstrates precisely why I say that the Minister should examine the subject and consider an inquiry into it. I am not a professional airman, any more than I am a professional engineer, and neither is the Minister. However, if the US air force believes that it has achieved its lower accident rate because of the scope of its risk management, surely we should examine its practice.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware that almost every air force in the world comes to the United Kingdom to train and to learn how we deal with accidents. Surely that indicates that we know what we are about?

Mr. Spellar: Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if we can find ways in which to improve our record, we should do it. The Minister should not merely, in a cavalier fashion, disregard the proposal, which has been made not only by Opposition Members but, after hearing evidence from the RAF, by the Defence Select Committee. It is worth examining.

Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) is quite right. People come from all over the world to learn how we deal with accidents--after they have happened. In the Select Committee, we discussed how to stop accidents happening.

Mr. Spellar rose--

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spellar: Yes.

Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I should like to make one other point. One has to be careful about knocking copy from countries outside the United Kingdom, especially from the United States. I recall that when the Harrier, or AV8B, first went into service in the United States, there were many comments about a higher rate of crashes. The answer was quite simple: the aircraft was so popular with American pilots that they were flying it two and a half times more than they were flying their own aircraft.

Mr. Spellar: The figures that I quoted were to do with relative flying hours, and were therefore calculated on a ratio. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I said, we must be very careful with the data. We must examine the data and ensure that we are comparing like with like, but we should not disregard it. It has been obvious throughout the Minister's ministerial career that he is not interested in data or in evidence, whether it is on BSE or on matters with which he now deals. Evidence is not his strong point, although bluster and bravado certainly are.

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1177

The Minister, like the rest of us, will have seen press reports on the options for airborne heavy lift, and we all know that the Defence Select Committee is currently considering the entire matter of heavy lift. The Statement on the Defence Estimates states:

"we continue to work with partner nations and industry to establish a satisfactory basis for the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Future Large Aircraft project."

Only last month, the Defence Secretary reaffirmed that

"all three countries, including ourselves, have expressed great interest in the Future Large Aircraft."

We also understand that the current aim is to encourage Airbus to design and build a suitable military transport aircraft. Indeed, it is widely believed in the industry that the criteria set by the Secretary of State in December 1994 as preconditions for Britain entering the programme have largely been met by the Airbus industrial partners and Alenia.

Will the Minister explain the current thinking on the need for a British and European capability for strategic airlift compared with continuing dependence on the US air force? If not, how does he envisage procuring or leasing the aircraft, and what are the implications for the European aircraft industry and international sales?

While dealing with new projects, will the Minister comment on the ASTOR programme, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which, with the prospect of NATO-wide procurement, has considerable export implications? Will he tell us when he expects a decision, or at least an interim announcement, to be made on that programme?

We all recognise the importance of exports to our defence industry. The Opposition greatly welcome the recently announced success of our defence industry in cornering a quarter of the world's defence market last year. It is a tribute to the innovative capacity of the companies involved and the skills of their work force and, let us be frank, the involvement of the Defence Export Services Organisation--DESO--and, on a number of occasions, of Ministers.

The main concern is how much of that success depends on research and development work that was undertaken 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. We must be concerned about whether a similar programme is being carried out now and backed by the Government to ensure a similar pattern of success in years to come. We must also look to broaden our markets beyond the one very important customer, which is the key to so much of our export achievement. These are exports not only of equipment, which tends to make the headlines, but of many services.

As I visit defence plants around the country, sometimes stalked by the Secretary of State who turns up the week before, I hear endlessly about the difficulties of getting skilled and qualified workers. Those we have are recognised as world class but we must build on that strength, not dissipate it.

We must also realise how the lay-offs and redundancies of the last few years have scarred the work force. We recognise that across the world the aerospace industry and the forces have faced the problems of adjustment to the end of the cold war. However, those affected have to be sure that the people in charge have used their best endeavours to ease the pain. I am not sure that the work force or the management at Marshall's of Cambridge will feel very warmly about the circumstances in which they