Vote 6. Scientific Services (Hansard, 10 March 1960)

§ Mr. Willis
This Vote is up by £1,500,000, which seems rather strange in view of the fact that the Admiralty did not spend the money which it was going to spend last year for scientific research. Perhaps that might be due to the fact— and I am very pleased to see it—that the Admiralty has been successful in obtaining the scientists which it has been losing very badly over the last two or three years. I had intended last year to raise this question of the numbers in the scientific and experimental department, because it was losing staff. This year it 715 has managed to maintain that staff, and, indeed, has slightly increased it. I presume it is because of that fact that the Admiralty feels that it can now spend as much as the Committee voted last year and rather more.
I have one question to ask on nuclear research for surface vessels. I am not quite certain what the position is on this. The Admiralty is carrying out nuclear research and undertaking development on Dreadnought. I understand that the Minister of Transport is responsible for the building of the nuclear tanker. What does the Admiralty expect to do in nuclear research on surface ships? Is it to have a liaison with the Ministry of Transport? I ask this because the Civil Lord, in mentioning this once or twice in the last two weeks, has not been very clear in his remarks. Perhaps we could be told something about it now.

§ Miss Vickers
I see that there is an increased cost in the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. What does this observatory do? Is it manned by British personnel or by South Africans? Are we going to keep it there in future?

§ Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing
It is true that we have had difficulty in the past years in recruiting the staff we need to carry out scientific research and development. This year we hope, from the signs that we are getting, to be able to recruit them. This is all to the good. Perhaps it is a reflection of the tempo of the increased scientific and technical education over the last five years. So at last one is beginning to reap some of the reward of that effort.
This is a Vote—and I am sure the House will sympathise in this—which should not be cut down. In the long-term future of the Navy, its ability to build ships and equipment and weapons of the highest standard must depend on the amount of research and development which we undertake, so we are continuing at a high tempo. I am afraid that we shall not see this Vote reducing, for, as is the case with so many Navy Votes, whether we fit out 100 or 1,000 ships we still need the same amount of research and development; indeed, whether we fit out ten ships with a particular piece of equipment we still need the same amount. I think this Vote will stay on at this level.
716 I now turn to nuclear research. It is true that Dreadnought and its successor fall to the Navy Vote. It is also true that the 65,000-ton deadweight tanker, if it is decided upon after examination by the Minister of Transport, will not fall on Navy Votes. The only part which falls under this Vote is a small study contract which we have with the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department at Scotstoun. It is undertaking a feasibility study for us to see just what size ship a nuclear propelling unit might be fitted into. That is a very limited commitment and is all that falls at present under this Vote.
The observatory at the Cape of Good Hope does very valuable work. It would be wrong for us to drop the interest, long and traditional, which the Navy has had in astronomy, particularly because some of the more sophisticated approaches in the long term may well be in this field. We are carrying on with the observatory at Good Hope. It is manned by British personnel and comes under the control of the Astronomer-Royal, so that its work is controlled by the Astronomer-Royal, as are its personnel.

§ Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives)
The Vote, under Subhead H, "Coast and other surveys", is somewhat down. Can my hon. Friend say whether we are getting information about under-water conditions in the Arctic from the Americans, or doing anything in that line ourselves?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
I cannot give a ready answer about why that figure is down. As I remember, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, we had to go through these Votes in detail in the autumn session and, as far as I can remember, we undertook a certain amount of coastal survey as part of coast defences, as it was thought that we were the best people to do that on behalf of other Government Departments. That work is now at a slightly reduced tempo, which means that the Vote is down.
I cannot say whether there is any element of repayment to the Americans for their work in the Antarctic. All I can say is that this is one kind of scientific research in which there is a pooling of information among almost all nations under the I.G.Y., but I have no doubt 717 that we have equally supplied information on conditions in the Antarctic to other nations.