In my written statement on 20 May, I set out in great detail the considerable efforts we are making on this issue. We have increased helicopter flying hours in Afghanistan by over a third since March last year, including uplifts to Chinook and Apache hours; we have deployed upgraded Sea King helicopters there as well, and we are converting eight Chinook helicopters to a support role. The Merlin helicopter is deployed to Iraq; the six additional Merlin aircraft that we procured from Denmark will augment our fleet by 25 per cent.
Helicopters are essential for our hugely important operations in Afghanistan, and there is a shortage of them. I recognise that some eight Chinooks, six Danish Merlins and the upgraded Sea Kings with Carson blades are on track to Afghanistan, but has the Ministry of Defence indicated to any of our armed services its willingness to procure light helicopters on their behalf? If so, what response has it had?
The hon. Gentleman will know that over and above the specific steps that we are taking in this coalition operation, others among our allies are taking steps. For completeness, the House should know that to support operations in Afghanistan, the Canadians—I spoke to their Defence Minister recently—have bought six additional Chinooks and eight Griffin helicopters. In the interim, while fitting out those Chinooks for deployment, they are leasing eight Mi-17s. Therefore, the number of frames, and consequently the hours available, will be subject to a significant uplift in Afghanistan.
The hon. Gentleman is right that light helicopters play an important operational role, particularly for surveillance purposes, although they can be used for other purposes. The helicopter that we currently use is known as the Lynx helicopter, and he will know that that does not perform most efficiently in the environment of Afghanistan. We look to our allies for such support, but for that surveillance role we also use the heavier Sea King helicopter, which, when rebladed, performs well in that environment.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what lessons the Government have learned from their decision in 2004 to cut £1.4 billion from the helicopter budget, so that Parliament is never again asked to send British troops into combat without the necessary helicopter support? Will the situation get better across all three services over the next three years?
I am pleased to tell the House that over the next 10 years the Ministry of Defence intends to invest some £6 billion to replace and enhance our helicopters. Over the same period, we will also try to reduce the maintenance burden. That is a significant investment, which addresses directly the hon. Gentleman’s point.
In 2004, the Public Accounts Committee described the acquisition of the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters for £259 million as one of the worst examples of equipment procurement it had ever seen. Since then, we have seen the reversion project and the night enhancement package, which will push the total cost well above £500 million. Will the Secretary of State tell us what lessons have been learned from the whole saga? When will we see the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters fully operational in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
The work done on the Chinook helicopters is on track and on budget. The work having been completed, it is intended that the first helicopter will be released early in 2009, and the rest will become available progressively thereafter. They will enhance our existing fleet of Chinook helicopters, and my written statement to the House on 20 May set out the detail of how we intend to deploy them.
My hon. Friend asks what lessons have been learned. The lesson that should be learned is not to overcomplicate our procurement. We did not order the helicopters, but when they were delivered they were of such complexity that they could not be certificated as safe to fly under the then regulations. After valiant attempts to overcome that, when I became Secretary of State I took the decision that they would be better converted to mark 2 Chinooks. That was the right decision, as subsequent reports have confirmed.
Given the shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, does the Secretary of State think that it was wise to award a £1 billion contract to build the Future Lynx helicopters at twice the cost of the alternatives—and they will not be ready for years—and without a full competitive tender process?
I was not involved in the detail of the awarding of that contract, so I am not in a position to respond to him on the detail of the negotiations in that regard. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned the importance of light helicopters in the battlefield, and the answer lies in our need for proper surveillance of battlefield circumstances. As in every aspect of the equipment that we use, our experience in the battlefield environment teaches us all sorts of lessons, and we have learned a lot in Afghanistan, particularly about the use of other forms of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. The challenges increase as the technology improves.
I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me two weeks ago to discuss the Future Lynx order. He will be aware of the concern of many of my constituents about the media speculation surrounding the order. In the light of that, will he be in a position to give a clear green light to the order, which was signed two years ago, before the August holiday period begins?
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his constituency interest in the matter, as well as his broader interest. As he knows, the affordability of our forward programme is being examined in the context of equipment. On many other occasions at the Dispatch Box I have turned down invitations to salami-slice every element, and I do not intend to do otherwise today. When I am ready to make any announcements, I will make them.
Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to the substitution of civilian helicopters to carry out conventional logistics tasks, so that more military helicopters can be freed up to go to Afghanistan?
I have done just that. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, we have entered into a contract in Afghanistan with a civilian supplier. As a result we are on track to move some 300 metric tonnes of supplies around Afghanistan, thus freeing up Chinook time, and time for the necessary deployment of attack helicopters to support the Chinooks. The arrangement has been very successful, and I am sure that we can build on it.
Given the shortage of military helicopters, why have the Government decided to withdraw the Gazelle helicopter from service some nine years before its planned out-of-service date in 2018? According to answers that the Secretary of State has given me within the past few months, it has clearly proved the most reliable of all our military helicopters. In view of the essential part that it plays in our national security strategy, is there not a danger that more pressure will be put on the helicopters that we need in Afghanistan and Iraq—although the Gazelle has not been used in Iraq since the early days? Will not its withdrawal leave a gap in our helicopter capacity, and how will the Secretary of State fill that gap without putting more pressure on our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Thankfully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s lengthy question is quite short. According to military advice, which I have accepted, the Gazelle is not deployable in either of those theatres.
I never said it was.
The fact that we cannot deploy it explains why it would not address our shortage in those theatres.
The Lynx helicopters that are in service with the Army and the Royal Navy are pretty well at the end of their viable lives, much like the Prime Minister’s own political position. When will the Prime Minister note the anger of people such as Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, who recently resigned from the Army after commanding the Paras in Helmand? When will the Prime Minister stop dithering, and authorise the Secretary of State to make a decision on the 70 Future Lynx aircraft which could make a real difference to our hard-pressed troops? Will the Secretary of State confirm that if they are not ordered, he will find himself with 150 Army helicopters going out of service in 2012 and nothing with which to replace them? What will he say to people who are trying to take up the role vacated by Stuart Tootal?
I come to the Dispatch Box every week in the hope that the jokes will get better, but they do not improve.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue: how can we provide the level of surveillance that we will need for the operational environment in the future? I have already said that helicopters have a role to play, but there are other ways of providing that surveillance, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. Indeed, we have discussed them before.
I heard Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal speaking on the radio this morning, and read with care the interview with him that was published over the weekend. He was deployed in Afghanistan and performed a very professional and worthwhile job there with 3 Para, which he commanded. They were very brave, and had a significant effect on the Taliban. However, as Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal was the first to recognise this morning, that was in 2006. There has been considerable investment since then, particularly in helicopters. Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal recognised that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.