MINISTER OF DEFENCE (FUNCTIONS) (Hansard, 24 January 1957)

§ 51. Mr. WIGG
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the future organisation of the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply in relation to the Ministry of Defence.

§ 52. Mr. SHINWELL
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the policy of his Administration regarding the future functions of the Ministry of Supply.

§ The Prime Minister
With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 51 and 52 together.
The Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply will continue as separate Departments of State. I have, however, taken steps to define more precisely the functions of the Minister of Defence in relation to them.
396 Under the Ministry of Defence Act 1946, the Minister of Defence is responsible for the formulation and general application of a unified policy relating to the Armed Forces of the Crown as a whole and their requirements. I have entrusted the Minister of Defence with the task of formulating, in the light of present strategic needs, a defence policy which will secure a substantial reduction in expenditure and in manpower, and to prepare a plan for reshaping and reorganising the Armed Forces in accordance therewith.
Subject as necessary to consultation with the Cabinet and Defence Committee, and with the Treasury on matters of finance, the Minister will have authority to give decisions on all matters of policy affecting the size, shape, organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces, their equipment and supply (including defence research and development) and their pay and conditions of service. He will similarly have power of decision on any matters of Service administration or appointments which, in his opinion, are of special importance.
The Minister of Defence will henceforth have a Chief of Staff, responsible to him in that capacity, who will be the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir William Dickson has been appointed to be the Minister's Chief of Staff.
The corporate responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff as the professional military advisers of the Government will remain unchanged.

§ Mr. Wigg
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in 1946, when the Labour Government made their proposals for defence reorganisation and the setting up of the Ministry of Defence, the proposals were embraced in a White Paper, a White Paper of great wisdom. That White Paper concluded by saying that it was laying down the proposals following a decade of experience. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has now come to prepare another White Paper, similar to Command 6923, so that the House of Commons and the country can have before them and understand the principles which are influencing the Government?
Would the Prime Minister agree that one of the proposals which the Labour 397 Government, in 1946, rejected was the setting up of a Chiefs-of-Staffs Committee answering to the Minister, because of the effect it would have on the Service Departments? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts my first proposal that there should be a White Paper, would he be good enough to state the considerations which have led him to reverse the decision of the Labour Government?

§ The Prime Minister
I will certainly consider the desirability of issuing a new White Paper. At the time to which the hon. Member referred the White Paper was connected with legislation—or very close to it. Now there is no need for legislation; this is in pursuance of Section I of the Act to which the hon. Member referred. I will consider whether it will be valuable, as experience shows, to have a further White Paper. I do not think that it is necessary, because no legislation is required. It is merely a logical development of what has been taking place.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question, for some time now there has been the appointment of the Chief of the Chiefs-of-Staffs Committee. Since that office works, and has worked, well, I think it is logical and right that that officer should be immediately in the Ministry of Defence and responsible to the Minister of Defence.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals do not go very much further than the present position and that what he proposes can be achieved by co-operation between the Minister of Defence and the Service Departments? Unless the Minister of Defence, apart from complete integration—which, for the moment, may not be a practical proposition—has some control over the administration of the three Service Departments it would be impossible to effect drastic economies which, after all, is one of the principal objectives.
May I ask a question about the Ministry of Supply? Has not the time arrived when the functions of that Department, which involve a great mass of labour and considerable expenditure, which the country cannot afford, should revert either to the Service Departments, as in the case of the Admiralty, or be co-ordinated in the Ministry of Defence? Is not that the way to tackle the job?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has great experience of this, and I have a very short experience of it. I am quite sure that this is an advance, though I agree more on procedure, and following a directive which I have issued. I do not wish to make any change which will require legislation. It seems to me that the sequence of the order of priority is as follows.
First, to make a long-term plan, of which the first fruits must be the Defence Estimates for this year. Then, in the course of working oat that long-term plan, it may well be that we shall find that a reorganisation of functions and a change of method between Ministers will be required; and that will be a matter for legislation of considerable importance. Therefore, it seemed to me that the first thing to do in the order of priority was to issue this directive and get this working arrangement between colleagues to do first things first.

§ Mr. G. Brown
While welcoming the fact that the advice which we gave on 28th February last has now sunk in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes; exactly that—there are three questions which obviously follow from the Prime Minister's statement. First, in view of this demotion of the Secretaries of State, can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be their relationship to this House concerning responsibility for their Departments? They may be answering for decisions which they have not taken. Will they still answer, or will the Minister of Defence answer for the separate Services?
Secondly, and following further upon the demotion of the Secretaries of State, what steps is the Prime Minister taking to see that the organisation of the Service Chiefs of Staff follows the same arrangement? Are we to have a building-up of the Service Chiefs of Staff, because the particular Ministers no longer have authority for it, or is the Prime Minister proposing to remove authority from the individual Service Chiefs of Staff to the new Chief of Staff to the Minister of Defence?
Thirdly, since all this needs much more explanation than we can get by question and answer in the House, can the Prime Minister say when the White Paper on Defence will be issued, and, when it is out, whether it will explain this matter in a great deal more detail?

§ The Prime Minister
I think it is true that this is more in the nature of a change of procedure between colleagues rather than any change in the collective or individual responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. At any rate, for the present, there will be no derogation of control exercised by Parliament over the Estimates of each Service Department, particularly as regards Vote A. The Minister of Defence will be answerable for matters of policy affecting the defence programme and the administration and efficiency of the Armed Forces as a whole.
The relationship of the Chiefs of Staff to the new Chairman of the Chiefs-of-Staffs Committee—I hope it will work out very much better, though the present system has worked well—is that the Chairman of the Chiefs-of-Staffs Committee should be an officer of the Ministry of Defence, and that the Chiefs of Staff will operate collectively under him as their Chairman. The responsibility is unchanged, and is laid down in Section (I) of the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946. All broad questions of policy remain with the Minister of Defence.
I cannot tell on what date the White Paper will be published, but I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said and see whether some further elucidation, more than can be given by question and answer, could be included in such a document.

§ Major Legge-Bourke
In welcoming what the Prime Minister has said in his statement, may I ask him whether he will have included in the White Paper a reference to the relationship which the Minister of Defence will have to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as the actual allocation of the total amount of finance allowed for defence purposes as between the three Services is concerned?

§ The Prime Minister
I will certainly consider that.

§ Mr. Strachey
While welcoming the centralisation in the Ministerial hierarchy which the Prime Minister has put before us, as we understand it, may I ask whether he can tell us something more about the parallel centralisation which he is making in the Chiefs of Staff hierarchy, because unless the new Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff 400 is given the same authority over the other Chiefs of Staff as the Minister of Defence is given over the Service Ministers this new arrangement will tend to reduce Ministerial control over the Services as a whole. I think we should all feel that that is very undesirable?

§ The Prime Minister
This is a very important point. I am sure that this is the right procedure—that this officer, who, at present, is Chairman, and is really not responsible to the Minister of Defence, should be regarded as the chief professional adviser of the Minister of Defence and that his loyalty should be to the Minister of Defence.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
In view of the importance of the subject and the fact that we have had no debate on defence, apart from manpower, for a very long time, will the Prime Minister consult the Leader of the House with a view to finding an early date for a debate on defence as a whole?

§ The Prime Minister
Certainly.

Mr. Lee
Is the Prime Minister aware that while we are all agreed on the necessity of running down the armaments programme, unless there is some expansion of industrial activity co-ordinated with it, there is a grave fear of increased unemployment? Are the Government making any plans accordingly?

§ The Prime Minister
I think there is a general view in this House that we must not shed our defences, but that they must be strong, powerful and efficient, and that they must not be wasted. They must not make a greater burden upon the economy than the economy can sustain.