HC Deb 20 January 1964 vol 687 cc845-76

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

10.16 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will speak shortly, and if any points are raised in the debate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is here and will reply to them.

This is a short but not an unimportant Measure. It marks the passing of some high offices of State and the amalgamation of some historic Departments. It also marks the welding together of four defence Departments and the future conduct of their business in one new Department of State. I do not intend to re-examine here, and indeed it would be improper for me to do so, some of the interesting points which were raised in Committee, though I believe that the debates there were of value to us in the future conduct of administration.

Some concern has been expressed by some of my hon. Friends at the possible loss of historic terms like "The Admiralty". I have been considering with the help of the Service Ministers how those terms could be preserved in some measure. Clearly the Admiralty as a Department will disappear, just as the War Office as a Department will disappear, but as a descriptive term—Admiralty House, Admiralty charts, Admiralty Arch and many other historic names of that character—I see no reason why as a token of that type the term should not be retained. I hope that we shall be able to retain it in some connotations of that kind.

The Bill is not concerned with the details of reorganisation, which we debated to some extent on Second Reading and to an even greater degree when the White Paper was published. It is not concerned with detailed arrangements made about staff and finance and the rest. Nor is it concerned with the exercise of the prerogative powers of the Crown in respect of the three Services which are wide and of historic importance and interest.

The purpose of the Bill is relatively narrow. It is the transfer of certain functions from the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air to the new Secretary of State for Defence, if and when he is created, and from the Board of Admiralty and the Army and Air Councils to the Defence Council. What the Bill does is to transfer statutory functions from those officers and those institutions to the Secretary of State and to the Defence Council.

The Bill in a sense marks the end of a long, historic and rather proud road, but it also marks the beginning of another road. Let us be clear about this. The Bill sets up machinery and establishes powers. How that machinery is exercised and what use is made of those powers are the things which are of importance and interest to the future.

I have had some experience of defence matters in the last three years, when I have been associated first of all with the Minister of Aviation, which though on the fringes of defence covers some important aspects of it, and more latterly with the Ministry of Defence. I am satisfied that whatever view one holds about the future of defence policy, and many views can be held, the proper exercise of that policy, the adequate formulation of defence strategy, the proper control of defence spending, the proper arrangements for future operational requirements—none of these things is possible without a Measure of this character.

The attempt to go on trying to do it with four separate empires to contribute their bit to a final solution may have worked in a sense up to now, but many people in the defence world regard this bringing together of these powers and welding them into one as certainly due at this stage, if not overdue. It is the purpose of this Measure to bring that about. I think that it has been generally accepted in principle on both sides of the House.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I am sure the House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence in marking this occasion as an important occasion, although the hour is rather late. As he was speaking I could not avoid wondering why, if this Measure is so important for the effective running of our defence forces, the Government had delayed so long till the eye of the General Election before bringing it before the House for consideration.

Before dealing briefly with some of the points involved, in accordance with the pleasant custom of the House I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he treated the Committee through, as I agree with him, the valuable Committee proceedings. He may recall that at some point he received an unsolicited testimonial from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who accurately described him as one of the most skilled politicians in the House. He went on to say that the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to skate faster when the ice was thin. I think we have seen another virtuoso touch of that skill tonight.

Certainly we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, and since we appreciate that he was not always able to be in the Committee, I am sure those who served on the Committee would like me to pay a special tribute to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who sat through out debates, took great care and used the most persuasive arguments in dealing with all the Amendments that were moved. If sometimes we were not able to agree with him it was in no way due to the lack of skill and care of the hon. Gentleman. We are glad that he is to answer the debate tonight.

The main item that emerged from our Committee discussions was the change of mind—I think a very correct change of mind—on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government about the status of the Service Ministers who are to replace the Secretaries of State and the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am sure the House is indebted to the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who made that debate and that decision possible in Committee, and I am sure that the decision was welcomed in all quarters of the House.

While we have been told that we are to have Ministers of Defence, Army, Air and Navy, we are still a little vague about their precise status and rô1e. While I appreciate that the detail of the administration of the new Department is not a matter which is strictly within the Bill, obviously we want to know, as the Bill abolishes certain offices, how these offices are to be discharged. I think it would be for the convenience not only of the House but of the public who take a great interest in these matters, and the Services particularly, to have a little more clarification about the status of the Service Ministers.

We were told, rather surprisingly, in Committee that they will be full Ministers on the one hand but that, on the other hand, they will not receive the full salary which at the moment, while not particularly lavish, goes to all the other Ministers of Cabinet rank. I presume, although it has never been made clear, that it is anticipated that they will be Privy Councillors. Therefore, I think it would be of assistance if we could have a little further clarification of what is in the Government's mind in this respect.

I was surprised when the Minister of Defence, speaking in the defence debate last week, referred to what a Labour Secretary of State for Air would be telling the Air Force. I do not know whether he has forgotten that he had spent a lot of his time as Minister of Defence in abolishing the Secretary of State for Air. Whether his taste for polemics carried him away I do not know, but it could be that he was, in a sophisticated way, as would be characteristic of him, indulging in political prognostication as an antidote for the rash of political retrospection which seems to be occupying a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends at the moment. It occurred to me that perhaps he realised there was to be a General Election before 1st April and that the Labour Party would win it, because in those circumstances there could be a Labour Secretary of State for Air. despite this Bill, and in that sense he may prove to be factually accurate.

At the same time, while I do not wish to pursue the contents of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion, I was wondering what a Conservative Secretary of State for Air in the future, if there were one, would be telling the R.A.F. about the V-bomber force because, as far as I understand it, there is no intention on the part of the present Government to replace the existing strategic manned bombers. If it is to be an embarrassment, which I would dispute, to tell the R.A.F. that it is not intended to replace the V-bomber force, presumably it will be done by the Minister of Defence or the Secretary of State for Air, whichever party he happens to be in.

This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is concerned with the machinery, the organisation, of the Defence Department. We do not intend to oppose its passing because we recognise that the steps towards the integration of the Services envisaged by the Bill should lead to a more effective use of our defence resources. It is, in a sense, a blank cheque to the Minister of Defence, whatever party he happens to be in.

I did, however, ask on Second Reading whether the Government had in mind to stay at this kind of halfway house which the Bill represents. On that occasion, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that it was a question which he preferred not to answer. I wonder whether the longer reflection which has now been possible will enable him to take the House a little more into his confidence tonight.

We have the two alternatives: the organisation of the Armed Forces in the separate Services, or we could have—whether it is desirable does not, perhaps, arise tonight—the situation of much more fully integrated Services. The Bill is a halfway house and the important question in the future will probably be in which direction the reorganisation moves, because in such a situation it would be rather difficult, and, I should have thought, undesirable, to say exactly where it is.

We on this side have always argued that while we do not oppose the granting of additional powers to the Minister of Defence, it is not lack of power which has been the main problem in the ineffective and unsatisfactory defence policies in which the Government indulged over recent years. A machinery Bill of this nature will not be a substitute for a proper and well-considered defence policy.

I do not propose to go over our criticisms of the Government's defence policy, which were much more adequately expounded by my right hon.

Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) last week than I could do tonight or at any other time. Certainly, however, the new organisation that will come from the Bill would not have resolved the problem of the delays in dealing with a decision about the P1154 and a. successor to the Hunter and the Sea Vixen. Certainly, the new organisation will not get a decision about the engine for the AW681.

If the Government feel that they have solved, or are beginning to solve, the defence problems by this reorganisation, they are not only deluding themselves, but misleading the country. What will clearly happen is that the Labour Government who come into office will have an enormous mess to sort out. In particular, although I will not develop the point tonight because it has been made strongly on Second Reading in Committee, and in the debate on the White Paper, the Bill does not deal with the Ministry of Aviation. It is questionable whether one can get a proper defence policy unless there is the same co-ordination about the ordering and commissioning of weapons as exists about the actual control over the manpower of the Forces.

A further doubt is prompted by the function of the new Defence Committee which is to be set up by the Bill. Obviously, the success or failure of this concept will depend largely on the Cabinet structure that is developed, but there is at least the feeling that whereas the old Committee of Imperial Defence, which, I understand, worked very well, kept defence policy in the centre of the Government machine, there is danger under the new organisation that we will replace the narrow concept of separate Services by a, perhaps, even more dangerous, narrow concept of a Defence Department dealing with defence in isolation from the other great issues of disarmament, economic questions and foreign policy. Obviously, this is a matter for Cabinet structure, but it is in many ways the most important aspect of the consequences that will flow from this legislation.

There is, finally, the question of administration, We have grave doubts whether this reorganisation will lead to any administrative economies, either in manpower or in cost. It will be a tremendous disappointment if, after the early, initial stages when, perhaps, duplication may be unavoidable, the outcome of this legislation is a greater total number of personnel engaged in the Defence Ministry than at present are so occupied in the headquarters of the three Services and in the smaller Ministry of Defence. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill indicated that some additional expense was anticipated. Surely it would be destroying the object if, as well as there being the personnel of the three Services, there were a fourth body to co-ordinate their activities. The point has been raised before, but we have had no assurance from the Government that they are really trying to avoid this problem. There is a feeling abroad that, whether or not they employ any other expert outside help in the organisation of our defence, Dr. Parkinson is almost certainly going to join the staff. I hope that when the Civil Lord winds up the debate we shall get a little information about this.

I hope, too, that in thinking about the reorganisation of our defence forces the new Secretary of State—the right hon. Gentleman, if there has not been a General Election before 1st April—will be giving a little more thought to using people in the universities and outside in the advisory and research way which has been developed with such conspicuous success in a number of other countries. The attitude so far in Whitehall has been that if one is not in uniform and not carrying around a bag of classified papers what one thinks about defence policy is of no value at all. There is, I am sure, a feeling in Whitehall that it is rather an impertinence in hon. Members either to express their views or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has done time and again, to press for information about the defence policies of the Government, and about the way in which the very large sum of money involved is actually spent. I hope that we shall have greater willingness in Whitehall to provide information. A great deal of what is now classified does not need to be classified, particularly on questions on which policy has to be based. It would also be of enormous help if an institute of defence studies, or the existing Institute of Strategic Studies, could be built up.

However, at this hour I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I should not develop these remarks further. We hope that, in passing this machinery Bill, we shall in the future be able to have a much more effective defence organisation than we have enjoyed in the last few years.

10.38 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

The House knows, I think, that this Bill is one of the results of consultation and advice which my right hon. Friend very wisely sought from Lord Is may and Sir Ian Jacob. I thought it a little unnecessary for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) to make some gibe about this being introduced only just before a General Election. Personally, I would have been horrified if the Bill had been introduced before there had been adequate consultation with those most qualified to give advice, and if consideration of the advice received had been over hurried. The Bill deals with an immensely complicated issue.

Although I spoke on Second Reading on this matter I hope that I shall be forgiven, having not been on the Standing Committee, for raising one or two matters which seem to me, having studied the Report of the Standing Committee's meetings, not to have been sufficiently stressed and which I think are of enormous importance if this Bill is to prove effective when it becomes an Act. It is perfectly true that it is a machinery Bill, and I recognise that, but what we have to think of, about any machine, is, where is the mainspring? And who is going to keep it wound up?

I think that here the mainspring can be one of two beings. It can be either the Minister of Defence and all his Ministry or the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. I have been studying the memoirs of Lord Is may, who gives a fascinating account of the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence between the wars and, indeed, before the First World War, and it is very interesting to see that at the top of all the charts showing the structure was always either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, but according to the chart in the White Paper in connection with the Bill, it is the Ministry of Defence which comes at the top.

Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in paragraph 15 of the White Paper that the Cabinet will have considerable control. If I may quote from the White Paper, because it is absolutely essential to the understanding of the Bill, paragraph 15 mentions:

major questions of defence policy cannot be discussed in purely military terms.… The White Paper goes on in paragraph 16: These broad issues engage the collective responsibility of Ministers. Subject to the supreme authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, they will be dealt with by a Committee on Defence and Oversea Policy, which will meet under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister and will normally include the First Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, and the Secretary of State for Defence. Other Ministers will be invited to be present as necessary. Then we have one of the most important sentences of all: The Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Staffs will be in attendance as the nature of the business requires. I think I would be right in saying that the experience that was gained between the wars, during the Second World War and immediately afterwards points to the fact that unless there is some permanent military officer serving the Cabinet, there is a very great danger indeed of the Cabinet's Defence Committee getting out of touch with what is going on in defence. It was this rôle which Lord Is may himself actually played over many years.

I should have said that one of the things on which we would welcome an assurance when the Civil Lord replies was that this point has not been overlooked. Although we have the assurances written into the White Paper, it is only by implication that the Bill means that this matter will be properly looked at. I warn the Civil Lord that the moment an hon. Member starts asking in this House Questions about the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, he is likely to receive a message from his advisers saying, "You must not say anything about this in the House. "I resent this bitterly. I cannot see why this House should not be equally concerned with the Government about the structure and working of the Cabinet and that the legislation that we pass makes sense and works out. I am convinced that this is causing very grave concern.

There is a very real risk that, not actually being written into the Bill, these things which have been put into the White Paper as essential to the workings of the Bill may get forgotten from time to time. An enormous new structure is being built up, and it will be interesting to see how it works out. Nobody wishes my right ton. Friend more good fortune in forming the traditions of the new Department than I do, but there is a very real danger of having colossal power at the centre divorced from political control.

We have the implication that the staff will not be reduced as a result of this amalgamation, which has astonished a good many people far more qualified than I am to talk about these matters. There will not be an immediate reduction in staff; there will be an increase. We must face the fact that personalities differ, instincts differ and natures differ. There are some people who by their nature tend to group round themselves enormous staffs, given the slightest opportunity. There are others who like to keep staffs as small as possible.

Some of the very senior officers who already serve the Minister have had a tendency, on their records, to keep around them enormous staffs. Although they keep protesting that they want them as small as possible, they find it very difficult to keep them so. We must watch this. The bigger the staff gets the more dangerous it will be.

Lord Is may, on page 136, writes: The O.K.W."— the German High Command— was riddled with personal jealousies and had neither the team spirit nor the flexibility which are needed to cope with an unexpected situation. Earlier, he says: It is apt to be forgotten that in the First World War the German High Command was very far from being the perfect machine that some people thought. 'The machinery in Berlin was very clumsy', wrote Ludendorff in his memoirs. 'The right hand did not know what the left hand was doing'. The position was much the same in the Second World War. Referring to what happened here after the Second World War, Lord Is may says that he was sad to see the old title of "Committee of Imperial Defence" disappearing and …felt that perhaps the new organisation might lack the flexibility which had been one of its most valuable characteristics. I am certain that we must ensure that this new organisation remains flexible and elastic, that the right part of it can suddenly be enlarged or contracted. Let us not forget that elasticity does not necessarily mean the ability to stretch but also the ability to resume the former shape. We must ensure that the new organisation really can meet a sudden emergency adequately and then contract itself to the proper shape or re-orientate itself to deal with its continuing work.

Under this new structure, such enormous power is to be put in the hands of the Secretary of State and of those advising him that I am afraid that the whole of the Government, and particularly the Cabinet, must keep a very careful eye on what he is doing. This is shown by the wording of the White Paper which my right hon. Friend himself kept quoting in Committee: The Secretary of State for Defence must have complete control both of defence policy and of the machinery for the administration of the three Services". I am not so sure about "complete control". I am equally aware that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in the shape of Sir Thomas Inskip, before the Second World War, did not have a satisfactory set-up. He had a practically impossible rôle and merely put the Armed Forces in a queue rather like the war-time queueing for rations. That organisation never co-ordinated anything. We have certainly improved on it, and my right hon. Friend's clear intention, expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, shows that he is fully aware of the need to get co-ordination right.

Anything I have said so far should not be taken to imply that I do not welcome—indeed, I do—the bringing together of the three Service Departments. On the question of having a Minister in charge of each, I have noted what my right hon. Friend said upstairs and I take no exception to it. But we must be extremely careful to see that we retain general control through the Cabinet on the whole front of defence.

Perhaps the real trouble lies in the title he has chosen for his Department. It is not to be the Ministry of Defence. As has rightly been pointed out, when dealing with defence one must bring in everything, both civil and military. This is really an enabling Bill to provide machinery for controlling the Armed Forces.

If my right hon. Friend chose in another place through Government spokesmen there to change the title of the Bill to the Secretary of State (Armed Forces) Bill or Armed Forces (Department) Bill, we should be much more accurate in what we were doing. Then we could have a Minister for the Army, a Minister for the Navy and a Minister for the Air Force, and it would be a far more accurate description. Defence embraces labour and production and everything else, and no hon; Member would argue that only the Armed Forces are concerned in defence. If we could get that firmly into the heads of all Government Departments as well as our own heads we might find ourselves more conscious of the need to keep political control as well as to have the military, naval and Air Force efficiency which is so essential to the success of the scheme.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for having wandered a little far from the speeches customarily made on a Third Reading of a Bill. No one could possibly wish him more good fortune than I do in this matter. I only hope to goodness that he realises what he is taking on.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in acknowledging the kindness and courtesy of both the Minister of Defence and the Civil Lord in our proceedings upstairs. They made what could have been a chore into a very worth-while number of morning meetings, and they certainly added to my knowledge and again demonstrated the worth-whileness of that kind of proceeding in which we consider the well-being of the Services away from the limelight of controversy. I think that this is a procedure which ought to be followed, and our experience in Committee, with the help of the Minister and that of his colleagues, underlined that fact.

I turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who was a little worried about what happened when he put down Questions about the Cabinet Secretariat and in due course received messages, behind the scenes, presumably through the usual channels, asking him not to put such Questions down. That sort of thing happens only on the Government side of the House, and within a few weeks he will be removed from that embarrassment, for when he finds himself on this side of the House he will be under no such inhibitions and will be able to put down all the Questions he likes about the Cabinet Secretariat.

I hope that he will, because the one thing that matters if this new defence set-up is to work—irrespective of who sits on the Front Bench—is that the Ministers be given all the help they can get from all parts of the House in making this difficult organisational change function. Irrespective of party, I am sure that all those present tonight want it to work. There is, however, bound to be a period of difficulty, and it behoves all of us, whatever the Administration, to be sympathetic with the difficulties. It is, nevertheless, the function of the House in discharge of its duties to ventilate difficulties, but I hope that hon. Members opposite will play the same public-spirited rôlewhen they find themselves on this side of the House as they have played during the last dozen years on the Government side. When hon. Gentlemen have been over here a few years they will find that they can play a useful rôle on the Opposition benches.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely was less than fair in attacking my hon. Friend, who made a few pleasant remarks at the opening of his speech and asked why the Government had waited so long before taking the action now taken by the Bill. I am not suggesting, nor did my hon. Friend, that the Government are engaged in a Machiavellian plot, but we ought to get it on record that when the Conservative Party took office, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), they had not the foggiest notion of how the Department of Defence was working. I well remember that the right hon. Gentleman, then Prime Minister, himself became a Minister of Defence. Why? Because he thought that the Ministry of Defence which he found in 1951was the same as that which he had left in 1945. As soon as he found he had a job of work to do—after a few weeks—he dropped it like a hot potato and handed it over to Earl Alexander of Tunis. Many of our troubles sprung from the failure to grasp that fact. We have had countless Ministers of Defence. The Minister, whoever he has been, has had a hot seat. Ministers have come and gone with amazing rapidity. This is a fact from which we must not shrink.

The Bill has come after 12 years of Tory rule and after expenditure of colossal sums of money—over £18,000 million. Over £5,000 million has been spent on the aircraft industry alone since 1947, £4,000 million of it public expenditure. What have we to show for it? Fundamentally, it is wrong policy making which is the cause of our having so little to show.

I regret that I have to be slightly controversial, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely would not want me to be mealy-mouthed. I agree with him that there are grave dangers about this new set-up. At the end of the war, when we discussed the first Defence White Paper, many pointed out that we could easily produce the O.K.W. I very much hope that hon. Members on both sides will watch this tendency very carefully. The absolute top level policy-making machinery must be right in the centre of the Cabinet.

On Second Reading, I ventured to put my own views. I would revive the old Committee: of Imperial Defence, giving it a new name. I cannot think of a better one at the moment, however. As a devoted student of Lord Haldane, I have tried over a long period to understand what has been wrong with our military thinking in this century. Having read much of writings not only of the officers concerned in the First World War, but also of those who write about their doings, I am aghast at the incompetence of some of our leaders at top level. Goodness knows how they got through the Staff College. Men like Plumer and Sir Charles Harington were exceptions. The least said about the rest the better.

This does not come from an over-dose of original stupidity, or of original sin. It comes from the quality of military thinking as a whole. We must be careful not to substitute slogans for thinking. For example, we must not get caught up with blessed words like "integration". If integration is pushed too far, as the Germans tried to do, there is a tendency to overlook the basic fact that Service differences spring from the different tasks they are called upon to perform. The fundamental facts of life tend to keep the Services apart. The limited nature of our resources and the problems we have to tackle mean that, as far as we can, we must push integration because the circumstances require it. However, if it is pushed too far it will break down, or we shall reach utterly false conclusions because we have asked ourselves the wrong questions.

I agree with the Minister of Defence that we are at the end of one chapter and at the start of a new. Those of us whose hair is either disappearing or getting grey perhaps regret the fact that we are closing a chapter with which we have been associated for a long time. It behoves all of us, whatever Service is close to our heart, to wish the right hon. Gentleman, or hon. Members on this side who will take on the job from him, well in the most difficult tasks that await them. As I have often said—I make no apology for repeating it—we must discharge our duty to the House of Commons and to our party, we should be as critical as we must, and certainly bring difficulties before the House; but basically, in so far as we can find any common level of agreement, we must try to lift defence problems above the level of party controversy. If this can be done, I believe that after a breaking-in period, in which there are bound to be great difficulties, this new defence organisation may work smoothly and well.

I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that the first recruit to the Ministry of Defence will be Dr. Parkinson. Indeed, I think that he is already there. In view of what happened to the establishment strength when joint headquarters was set up in Aden, I shall watch this aspect with great care.

I want to put one practical point to the Civil Lord and ask for his help. The table at the back of the White Paper is extremely useful, but before we debate the Defence White Paper could we have roneoed copies placed in the Vote Office or the Library giving the names of the various officers and the civil servants, who will fit into the various slots? Leaving aside what cannot be published because of the normal conditions of security, could we be supplied with as complete a picture as possible of the individuals who have been appointed to the various jobs? I am sure that this information would be of help to all hon. Members interested in this matter.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him good fortune in the difficulties with which they have to contend after the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)

I agreed with the last remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that integration can be carried too far and that defence policy should be near the centre of Cabinet thinking. That is probably difficult to achieve by any Cabinet of any party, but I subscribe to the hon. Member's sentiments on that score.

The Bill comes for its Third Reading little changed from what it was on Second Reading. As we pointed out in Committee, the Measure is a difficult one to amend, for there is not a lot of it on which to bite. However, there has been one important change—the upgrading of the three Service Ministers. We will not regret that step. I will not go into the question of their remuneration, except to say that we must ensure that they have the prestige which is necessary for them for the scheme to succeed.

Owing to the survival of the prerogative in matters of defence, where it has seldom been supplanted by Statute—something which is useful in war—we have something of a skeleton of a Bill to discuss tonight. I had hoped that it would have been given more flesh and blood while in Committee upstairs. We should be told more about what is intended, remembering that it is not long before 1st April, when the new organisation is to take effect. I hope that before then the House will be told more of the details and how the Bill will be implemented to avoid the necessity of our bombarding my right hon. Friend with Parliamentary Questions, particularly since Questions addressed to him are reached on the Order Paper extremely seldom. I hope that he will keep us informed on this issue.

It is worth looking at the whole defence reorganisation and subjecting it to two tests as we go along. First, when it is set up will it enable the three Services to grow together? It is a tradition in this country that we like things to grow together, and when considering the various items in the reorganisation we should feel that everything is being done to enable the three organisations to come together.

Secondly, will it work smoothly, without further wastage of manpower and paper? This is important. On the face of it, in place of the three Service boards we are setting up four. One might think that that will lead to extra work. I understand that we have not taken this opportunity to reduce the number of members of the Navy Board, the Army Council and so on, and that is a pity. Have not the Service boards grown somewhat more than is entirely justified? I hope that this question of the four boards not doing more work and churning out more paper than the present three boards will be considered. In Committee we tried to discover the exact subjects which will be referred respectively to these Service boards or to a superior defence board. I hope that we will be enlightened on this subject.

In this connection, as far as I can remember the Board of Admiralty used to have a number of disciplinary cases referred to it. Will such cases in future go to the Service boards or the Defence Board? Will the blueprints of ships and aircraft be dealt with at the old Service level, or will the Secretary of State, as he will then be, deal with them at his Defence Board? These are important matters. One knows of the tendency for the staff divisions to try to put more guns into the ship or the aircraft until the question of tolerance becomes very important. It could be argued that it should be dealt with by the new Navy Board, or that it is a matter for the Defence Board itself.

Then there is the question of the industrial councils. Having presided over the Admiralty industrial council for five years, I have always thought that this system worked very well; and that the opportunity of meeting representatives of the trade unions was extremely useful. The Admiralty method is better, I think, than the system in some Departments, where a civil servant presides over the deliberations. Will these industrial councils continue? Will there still be three of them, or will there only be one integrated council—and will that be presided over by a junior Minister? That is, in many ways, much more satisfactory than reducing it to civil servant level, which I have seen suggested may be the case.

Another question that could be discussed by the Board is overseas bases, and whether mobile support would be better. Would that be discussed by the Defence Board, or at a lower level? Will all these matters be so arranged as to enable the Services to merge together? Customs may grow rigid so that, instead of getting increasing integration we get hard-and-fast dividing lines.

Joint projects are mentioned in the White Paper. For example, there is the integrated W.T. centre. Many of us feel that there has been room for economy; transmitting and receiving wireless stations have multiplied as between the Services, but it does not solve the problem just to have one station. One has to decide who is to have priority—the ships, the aircraft or the Army. Will one Service man the station at one place and another at another place? Or will there be a joint Service staff? Many questions arise, and we know very little about them—perhaps they have not yet been decided.

I wish the Bill well, and I hope that the operation is successful, but I must repeat that it will be very important to retain political control. By that, I do not mean just the control of the Minister himself. The Minister must be prepared to delegate, particularly on the financial side, a good deal of authority to his other six Ministers, otherwise there is a danger that the control of Parliament over the Armed Forces will be reduced by the Bill to a level lower than it has been for a hundred years.

11.8 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)

I sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has just said, and I must confess to retaining three doubts, resulting from this major enabling Bill, which my right hon. Friend has not yet succeeded in dispelling.

The first concerns manpower. I echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about the way in which staff officers of great experience tend to proliferate staffs when given greater commands of this kind. From all accounts, it seems that, at least for the time being, there will be involved in this re-organisation, a considerable increase in the numbers in addition to those already serving in the separate Service Departments.

One additional doubt springs from the same point. It is that there will be a kind of centripetal effect within this new organisation, a force which will attract the best brains from the three separate Services into the new organisation. It is perfectly natural that the best staff officers will be nominated and selected by the higher command to form part of this new integrated organisation. This will not only weaken the fabric of the remaining separate formed forces but it will inevitably assist the transition towards what we in the House fear at the back of our minds—the German O.K.W. principle.

A steady transfer of experience, intellect and efficiency from the individual Services must inescapably increase this effect, in my view. Others with far greater experience than myself believe that in this matter some tendency towards the O.K.W. form of organisation will be inevitableonce we get on to this slippery slope unless we watch it at every point.

I have a continuing fear of the separation of the formation of plans and operations from the purview of those who actually carry them out. At every stage we must watch the maintenance of the responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff for the operations of their own individual Service of which they will remain heads. My particular anxiety—and I crave indulgence for mentioning it—concerns the fighting efficiency of my own former Service, the Royal Navy. I believe that the Royal Navy in this new concept of integrated defence suffers from the fact that it is politically inarticulate by comparison with the other two Services. I pay the utmost respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport when I say that to my mind this is due to the long history of the Royal Navy and to the mischievous activities of the political admirals of the eighteenth century. No doubt the naval historians present will agree with me in this.

It has brought about two serious body blows to the Royal Navy since the war. These blows may well have had a detrimental effect, which has not been considered in the House or outside, on the fighting efficiency of the Navy in a future war. The first I must lay at the feet of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who when in power altered the age of officer entry into the Royal Navy for purely political reasons to 16. That was a serious body blow, the effects of which we may discover to our great loss in the future.

The second body blow, from this side of the House, results from the 1957 White Paper in which, it is true, tribute was paid to the naval service, but in which a sentence appeared which must be almost unique in the annals of a seafaring nation: The role of naval forces in total war is somewhat uncertain. This was a White Paper which included, in words addressed to a maritime nation, no reference whatsoever to the protection of merchant shipping. That second blow will be shown in its effects on our efforts in many parts of the world now, not least in South-East Asia where the lack of forces resulting from an utterly misconceived policy of massive retaliation will shortly be felt to its fullest extent.

The Defence White Paper says that Efficiency, leadership and morale require a focus for the management of each Service. It is in this respect that I have already expressed doubts in Committee. I mention them again in the hope that the Minister will be able to give me some more light on the matter. How does he reconcile that statement about the necessity for preserving fighting efficiency with the abolition of the concept of Admiralty as we have known it for these hundreds of years?

I am perfectly happy and satisfied to accept the transition back to the Navy Board in the context of the White Paper. But I think of the expression "Admiralty" not simply in its adjectival sense but as a kind of crystalisation of the authority of the Lord High Admiral, an office which now returns to Her Majesty, as we know. I believe that the loyalties which are the basis of the naval tradition, and which have played an immense part through the centuries in the fighting efficiency of the Royal Navy, must have some such focus as that of the present Admiralty.

Whereas the Army has its regimental traditions to fall back upon, I do not think that the abolition of the Admiralty will enable the Navy to have an efficient substitute in a ship, where the modern general service commission is down to 18 months, after which officers and men move to another ship. Loyalties would become sadly mixed up in a period of 12 years' service. I would ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that, in the practical effect of the provisions of the Bill, there will not be administered a third and perhaps fatal body blow to the fighting efficiency of the Naval Service. I feel extremely strongly about it.

I have followed with interest and attention my right hon. Friend's remarks. I should like to thank him very much, as I am sure all hon. Members will, for the way in which he has attended to every detail of our questioning in the debates both in the Chamber and in Standing Committee. I wish him well with this reorganisation. I have no quarrel at all with the general sense of it. I think it is necessary, but I ask him seriously to consider the doubts which I have expressed.

11.17 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay)

My right hon. Friend and I are much obliged to hon. Members not only for the kind personal references that they have already made to us, but also for the warm welcome that has been given to this Measure.

If I may say this without appearing sententious, it has seemed to me as the debates on the Bill have proceeded, both on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, that these proceedings have shown the House of Commons at its best, because there has been a general desire in all quarters of the House to try to achieve the most satisfactory form of organisation that we can, and also to see that the statutory powers, which is what this Bill is concerned with, are adequate to carry out the task.

From time to time it has been inevitable that things have been said which were not perhaps strictly in line with the operation that we have been carrying out. Views have been expressed about Government defence policy and matters of current defence controversy. We make no complaint about that, but, as I say, my right hon. Friend and I are obliged to the House for the way it has considered the Bill.

I should like to detain the House for a few minutes to reply to some of the main points that have been made in the short debate and to answer as best I can some of the questions which have been put. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) complained—thoughperhaps he did not complain, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said; perhaps he twitted us—for having delayed the introduction of this Bill till a very late stage of this Parliament, on the eve, as he said, of a General Election.

The hon. Member should know, after all the years that he has been in this House, that matters of this kind, which are far-reaching in their consequences and require an enormous amount of work behind the scenes, are things which cannot easily be done in a short time. This is this culmination of a long period during which a great deal of work has been done on this problem and a great many opinions inside and outside the Administration have had to be canvassed.

I think that if one were to accept the strictures of the hon. Gentleman, it would mean that there would be a kind of moratorium at this stage on any legislation because it could be said that we were introducing legislation on the eve of a General Election. We do not take that view. We say that there is a job to be done whether or not there is to be an election within a few months. We have to get on with the job and we intend to do it.

Mr. Mulley

May I make my position a little clearer? I did not make a personal affront criticising either the Minister of Defence or the Civil Lord, because their history in the Departments has been relatively short and one appreciates that it takes time. I understood the Minister of Defence to express the view that defence cannot be organised properly on the basis of three Services, and it may be that his predecessors did not have the perspicacity that he has. We have, however, had 12 years of Conservative Government, we have had discussions and previous White Papers, and we complain that only in the last few months has anything resulted—in fact, only since the present Minister took office. Although it is a criticism of his predecessors, surely the Government accept collective responsibility.

Mr. Hay

If that is the case, it is equally a criticism of the predecessors of the present Government. Why did not they do something about it? One could go back into history. That argument is always valid up to a point; whenever change is made, one can always ask why it was not done before. The answer is that things do not happen like that. A moment arrives when a change is appropriate and can be made and the work has progressed to the point where it can be made. That is what this is all about. I will pass, however, to the more important matters raised by the hon. Member.

First, I should like to say a word about the substantial change which was made in Committee concerning the status of the Ministers who will have responsibility for looking after the affairs of the individual Services under the Secretary of State for Defence. There were criticisms, which we sought to meet, that if we kept to the plan, announced in the White Paper, of having these Ministers as Ministers of State only, they would be somewhat lower in status than should be the case. My right hon. Friend took the decision that a change should be made to upgrade them and to make them full Ministers, with, however, some differential in salary, as has been explained, to make it clear that they are subordinate to the Secretary of State for Defence.

The Ministers will, however, be full Ministers and they will have particular responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State for the administration of their Services. In addition, as was explained in Committee, as Ministers of Defence they will have more general responsibilities to assist the Secretary of State in some of the important and difficult questions of major defence policy with which he will certainly be faced. They will be responsible across the board as well as for a particular Service. We regard this as essential and fundamental to the main object of the whole exercise, which is the creation of a single, unified Defence Ministry in place of the four separate Ministries now in being, each of which has a Minister answerable direct to Parliament.

There was a suggestion that we should write something into the Bill to define the status and responsibilities of the Ministers associated with the Services. I am convinced that that would have been a great mistake and I am glad that the Committee did not press the suggestion. The Secretary of State must have strong ministerial support if he is not to be overburdened, and this will arise from the increased status of the Ministers of Defence. It would, however, be quite another thing to define ministerial spheres of responsibility statutorily. There will be only one Minister ultimately responsible to Parliament in the unified Department and he will be the Secretary of State.

While on the subject of ministerial appointments, perhaps I might tell the House something about the position and titles of the three Parliamentary Undersecretaries of State. We have given further thought to this and as a corollary to the decision to appoint Ministers of Defence for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, we have decided that it would be fitting if the junior Ministers were known as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Defence, for the Royal Navy, for the Army and for the Royal Air Force, as the case might be. They, perhaps even more than the three Ministers of Defence, will be attached to a particular Service. The House will, I think, agree that it is right that their titles should reflect that position.

The second point which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park made was to ask me again whether we regarded this particular operation of reorganisation as the end of the road. Or did we intend to go further? Was this to be, as he put it, a halfway house? On previous occasions I have sought to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we do not at this stage of the game want to decide the final position. This is a very important and a very large operation which we are doing, and we would like to see how this works out in practice before we go any further. I really do not think the House should confuse integration of the Services with the operation we are carrying out.

What we are here seeking to do is to fuse together the responsibility for major defence policy and administration. We are not, as has been said frequently, trying to integrate the three Services. Whether that comes or not, it is really not for me to say at this stage. I do not think that any Minister having any responsibility in this matter at this point of time would want to forecast what the future will be. We have to see how things develop.

The third point which the hon. Gentleman made, which was touched on by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was the question of administrative economies, whether, in fact, we should be able to reduce the numbers of people at headquarters. Well, the position is still about what it was when my right hon. Friend spoke in the debate on the White Paper on 31st July last. If I may remind the House of what he said then, he said: We shall have to study whether we can reduce staff but the number will start at about the same."—[Official Report, 31st July, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 571.] That is to say that reductions during the year which we had estimated in our estimates for the Ministry of Defence and the three Service Departments are now not likely to be achieved.

During the 12 months of the financial year there will be reduction in our figures overall. Of course, there are a variety of factors which combine to produce the result. For example, in this present year we in the Admiralty are having to increase our headquarters staff by several hundred to take account of the increased responsibility we bear in connection with the Polaris programme. So far as defence organisation is con- cerned, this; will certainly involve some initial increase in the numbers at the centre, but I must emphasise that the increase is directed largely to performing tasks which have not been performed, or else to perform those tasks on a joint basis. For example, the Combined Operations Centre, the operational requirements staff, the new organisation for central control of the defence budget are, in fact, new services, and they have to be met. The House will be interested to know that we anticipate that our overall numbers on 1st April next, when the change takes place, will be the same as they were on 1st April last.

Mr. Wigg

When the hon. Gentleman mentions this financial year does he mean from 1st April, 1964? He mentioned "this financial year" and then said "this year". He has confused me a little.

Mr. Hay

I meant the financial year still running and ending 31st March.

Mr. Wigg

The hon. Gentleman meant that all the time?

Mr. Hay

Yes.

For the future, it is certainly our aim and our hope that numbers can be reduced, but we have got to get the emphasis right, for this reduction in numbers is not the main object of the new defence organisation. Once again, I refer the House to what my right hon. Friend said in the debate on the White Paper: But the savings there"— the savings on headquarters numbers— are nothing like as big as savings which could be secured if we get the operational requirements right and get real control over cost effectiveness studies, estimates and the rest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 571.] If I may put this once again in other words I would say that the object we seek is to have our defence policy better conceived and better controlled.

One other suggestion which the hon. Gentleman made was that we should use outsiders, people from universities and the like, to assist us in the new organisation. This will certainly be done where opportunity offers. I must say that I think that perhaps people who are not exactly au fait with what goes on inside the Department of Defence do not realise the great extent to which we already make use of this technique.

Let me pluck one example out of the air. Only a couple of days ago it was announced that Prof. Jones will assist the Ministry of Defence in forecasting the problems of air defence in the 1970s. It is a process which goes on all the time. A great many people are brought in in this way. We probably do more of this than many other countries.

I turn to the very important speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who was supported in some points by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney). The thesis that perhaps what is needed in the future is a greater control over strategy by the Cabinet and less of taking up prepared positions as a result of ideas starting in the Defence Departments is one which has been canvassed frequently in the last few weeks.

Of course, we are anxious to avoid the possibility of this new organisation in the course of time turning itself into something like the O.K.W. But there are two points which make it clear that this is a most unlikely event to happen. The first is that the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee of the Cabinet, which is referred to in the White Paper, in many ways is the counterpart of the old Committee of Imperial Defence. This means that the central political control of this very substantial accretion of power which will be in the Ministry of Defence henceforth will be firmly in political hands.

The second point is that, unlike the position in Germany before the war, the Department of Defence and the Cabinet itself are in this country responsible to Parliament. The Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister of the day and other Ministers who may be individually or marginally concerned are obliged to stand at the Despatch Box day by day and answer detailed and intricate Questions as to how they are controlling the Department.

For that reason also, therefore, I think that the possibility of an O.K.W. situation arising is most unlikely. It will be for Parliament, as so frequently in the many centuries of its history, to remain the watchdog of the public in this regard. Nevertheless, I think that there is a point that we have got to watch. We must be careful that the political control is there day by day. We have to be prepared to take perhaps stern decisions from time to time to prevent the military, with the best will in the world, from proliferating and taking over control of more and more of the field of policy.

This, I think, must inevitably be left under our system to the Ministers who happen to be in charge at the time. Frankly, I am not too attracted, if I may say so to my hon. and gallant Friend, by the idea of giving the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee some really high grade military adviser to operate for that Committee alone divorced from the Department of Defence. This was implicit, if I understood my hon. and gallant Friend, in the suggestion that he made—along the pattern of Lord Is may in the last war.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I am glad that my hon. Friend has said that. The sort of person I had in mind was someone occupying a rôle very similar to that which Lord Ismay occupied when my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Prime Minister and Minister of Defence combined. It was with that in view that I thought that there ought to be some soldier or other high ranking Service officer permanently in the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Hay

I understood that. I thought I had grasped my hon. and gallant Friend's point. This is something about which I myself am not too sure. People like Lord Ismay are absolutely unique. One comes upon them perhaps once in a generation. Unless my hon. and gallant Friend could guarantee that he could provide us with a good carbon copy of Lord Ismay in the future, I would only like to say, at this late hour, that I should like to consider the point. Anyhow, I have no doubt that as time passes and as the new organisation develops a number of adjustments and changes will have to be made here and there, and I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend will be as pertinacious as he always is in ensuring that ideas of interest are pressed upon his colleagues.

One point which my hon. Friend made did, however, strike a ready response in me. This was his insistence that the whole of this operation should be conducted in a way which puts into the system the maximum amount of flexibility. This is our intention. It would be nonsense to regard the White Paper as immutable in every respect. As time goes on and we get experience, changes and adjustments will have to be made and I assure the House that we are devoted to the idea of flexibility.

I was not very enamoured by his suggestion to change the Title of the Bill at this late stage, whether or not that would be in order in any case. We must stick now to what the Bill does, which is to transfer statutory functions from certain entities to others.

I take note of and will certainly consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dudley about the reprinting of the chart at the back of the White Paper in, or accompanying, the Defence White Paper to be issued in a few weeks' time, giving the names of the officials who will already have been appointed to the different posts there shown. We will think about this. It may be more difficult, however, in respect of some of the Service members. But if it will in any way help the House, we will consider what we can do. Perhaps the hon. Member will leave it with me to look into more closely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West regretted that more flesh, as he put it, was not now on the skeleton of the reorganisation and wished that more detail could be given to individual hon. Members. But I think that we have already, both in the White Paper and in numerous debates, done what we could, from the Government's point of view, to spell out how we foresee the operation will work. Of course, if opportunity arises, as we develop our thinking toexplain more we shall certainly take advantage of it, but I cannot now add very much to what we have already said as to how we foresee this will work.

My hon. Friend also suggested that we might consider reduction of the numbers of people who will be on the Service boards. This. I think, might not only meet some resistance, but might not be conducive to efficiency. I can only speak, as, I think, he can only speak, with experience of the Board of Admiralty. Every single member of the Board does a large amount of work, and I could not imagine reduction of its numbers without a corresponding reduction in efficiency when the Board is transferred into a Navy Board. I am sure, however, that, as times goes on, we would not disregard the possibility, if we thought there was a possibility, of reducing numbers, but, again, we have to be guided by experience.

The allocation of responsibilities between the Defence Council and the boards has been referred to. Here, one has to be empirical. One cannot say for certain that a particular matter will be immutably confined to a particular board or to the Council. Questions of types of ships, aircraft and weapons must inevitably engage both the Service board concerned and the Defence Council. No doubt in due course major matters would engage the attention of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee of the Cabinet and possibly even of the Cabinet itself. This all depends on the circumstances.

In the case of discipline, we set out to spell as clearly as we could in our debates the desirability of ensuring that appeals on disciplinary matters are dealt with as far as possible by the Service board concerned, so that a sailor, for instance, would be sure that, if he were convicted by a court-martial and wished to appeal, his appeal would ultimately be decided by somebody from his own Service and not by a distinguished officer from another Service. There, again, it is a matter of using commonsense.

But when dealing with the question of overseas bases, no doubt the Defence and Oversells Policy Committee of the Cabinet would be very much concerned and I doubt whether the individual Service boards would have much to say about them, except perhaps in such matters as logistics. Again, it is matter of an empirical approach to each of these questions.

We propose no change in the present arrangement of the industrial councils. There will be a change in the title. I have forgotten exactly what the Admiralty industrial council will be called, except that it is a jaw-cracking name which is not exactly popular with my advisers or the trade unions, but there it is.

Finally, I come to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East. I always knew that the Navy was the silent Service, but I never thought that it was as inarticulate as he suggested. Certainly, the question of the abolition of titles and the name "Admiralty" are subjects on which I heard extremely strong expressions of opinion by a number of distinguished serving officers and others who had left the Service and retired. But I put this point to my hon. and gallant Friend: we have done what we can throughout to ensure that what basically remains and what is not disturbed or damaged in the whole of this transformation is the loyalty of the individual Service man to his unit and to his service.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

Oh.

Mr. Hay

The hon. Member need not quibble about that. I am trying to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

We do not want to see the loyaties disturbed, whether it be to a ship, a regiment or a squadron. Our object has been throughout to see that the loyalty remains. It is true that the departure of the Admiralty as a concept, which is implicit in this reorganisation, is regrettable. I have no doubt that in its day so was the departure of the Navy Board, centuries ago when the Admiralty was set up. I have no doubt that in those days grave doubts were expressed.

But I put to the House the simple point that we have to move on, we have to change our institutions and be ready and prepared to change if the need is clear. In defence, I think, the need is very clear, and our object throughout has been to see that the change is accomplished in as simple and careful a way as we could, preserving as far as humanly possible those individual loyalties to the Service that men and women who have their lives in them so greatly enjoy. That, I believe, is what we have accomplished. We shall see. But it has certainly been our ambition and our hope, and with that perhaps I may ask the House to approve the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.