HC Deb 22 December 1965 vol 722 cc2144-60

1.36 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

On 26th October the Minister of Defence for the Navy made a sombre statement reflecting his intention to close down the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School at Londonderry, and I am grateful to have the opportunity of discussing this matter today. I want, first, to place on record certain facts and then ask the Minister some questions.

The unemployment figure for Northern Ireland has risen in the last month by about 4,000, which is a great deal, even allowing for seasonal or "unseasonal" factors. In Londonderry, the figure, which sometimes rises even further than it has risen in the last month, is about 11 per cent. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that this is a serious figure.

It is partly due to the fact that Londonderry is dependent on such volatile industries as shirt-making and the products of Monarch Electric. Anyway Londonderry's figure is about 11 per cent. Yet the submarine school is to be taken from Londonderry to Devonport, where, I understand, the unemployment figure is about 2 per cent. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will correct me. This is to be done, according to the Minister, so as to save £400,000. Does the Minister query that figure? I think that it is in his own statement. If he does not like that figure, I will say instead that it means a saving of one-fortieth of 1 per cent. of the total defence expenditure. The capital cost at Plymouth will be less than £500,000 we are told, though I find very few people connected either with Londonderry or Devonport who have any confidence at all in either of these figures. They believe that the cost will far exceed what so far has been stated.

The Minister stayed, on 26th October, for a small part of the Northern Ireland debate which followed his statement and in which we showed our feelings about the proposed move. However, despite the long drawn out struggle which preceded the announcement, reaction in Ulster and even in Londonderry was one of deep shock.

Perhaps I may illustrate this by quoting from one of the provincial papers, the headlines of which read, "Derry is stunned." The Mayor of Londonderry, who played a notable part with me in the campaign to retain the base, said: I am appalled at the announcement—I can't understand why the Westminster Government has done this. Reason seems to be on our side. This seems to be a purely political decision. The Secretary of the Londonderry Trade Union Council, who is not necessarily a member of my party, said: It is very bad news for the city. I don't accept that redundancy will be confined to 400. Mr. George Hamill of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union said that it was deplorable that the Government had decided to close H.M.S. Sea Eagle, and added: …it is particularly deplorable that it is a Labour Government which has given Londonderry this body blow. All the petitions protests and deputations had been of no avail. It is deplorable, indeed, that a Government of any colour should have taken this decision, if decision it is to remain. It is demonstrably destructive on social and economic grounds, questionable and indeed questioned on defence grounds.

The Minister knows full well that even among his own advisers there is not general accord as to the desirability of making this move. I do not propose again to relate in detail all the strategic advantages of keeping the school at Londonderry, such as the proximity of deep water, which is so much closer than off the South Coast, the proximity of the Scottish waters in which the submarines of the future are likely to be stationed, and the closeness of the Bally Kelly R.A.F. station, which has made the whole project such a great success as a joint Services operation. One may well contrast that situation that with distance between Devonport and St. Mawgan, which I understand is the closest R.A.F. station to that area. There are also the crowded maritime conditions off the South Coast in which there may be difficulty when trying out for the first time new and sophisticated methods of detection.

All these reasons for retention have been set out by myself and others in the Navy Estimates debate and on other occasions since then. I cannot pretend that I think that they have been sufficiently or satisfactorily answered—not to my satisfaction, anyway. The Minister has an opportunity to make amends today. However, I will reiterate certain of the economic and social facts of the situation. Perhaps I may first deal a little further with the astonishment which the announcement produced in Northern Ireland. This may have been partly due to the appearance on television screens in thousands of homes in Londonderry and elsewhere in the province in August, 1964, of the ebullient figure of the First Secretary, who declared roundly that not only could we in Northern Ireland build ships and aircraft in the years ahead—he had not dreamed of the H.S.681 cancellation at this stage nor heard the stealthy approach of Plowden—but went on, You want all your natural resources, you know, the ports, the harbours and all that, to be used. He continued engagingly, We shall want that, too, and I am quite sure we will neither of us let politics get in our hair. No problem at all". he declared in forceful style.

A great deal of that was taken at its face value in Londonderry, and perhaps I took too much of it at its face value, too, because, naïvely, I found myself soon after the present Administration had taken office asking a Question as to what increased naval activity could be expected in the Port of Londonderry. It was then that the First Secretary's "No problem" began to appear as the "No promise" that it was. The answer, paraphrased, was "Nil". From then on hopes began to falter and the story of the closing began to spread.

There is, I think, no need to go over the history of last year, the speeches, the Questions, the deputations, the visits to No. 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General. All that is fresh in the Minister's mind. No need to labour the fate, if closure proceeds, of several hundred men, many of them unskilled, and without experience of work anywhere save with the Navy. No need to dwell again on the loss of spending power to the city, estimated by some at £1¼million. That is a difficult figure to estimate, but that is the estimate made by some people. A proprietor of a large store in Londonderry told me over the weekend that in that store he had taken a hundred thousand dollars a year. This sounds a very large figure, and no doubt it was due to the very welcome visits of the crews and personnel of N.A.T.O. ships which come to the base.

If there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry or something wrong with the facilities, let us be told; because if there is something which does not meet the Navy's requirements there, I do not doubt that it would be rectified by a more-than-willing Harbour Board, which has already done a great deal and has spent £700,000 over the last few years in improving and developing the harbour. I do not doubt that the board would be delighted to do more if it were told exactly what was required.

There are certain specific questions which I should like to put to the Minister. First, is there anything at all in rumour that the irrationality of this whole project, this move, is becoming increasingly recognised in official and expert circles and that what amounts to a moratorium on the arrangements for transfer is now in effect? Is there any truth in that? Secondly, will he say whether in this whole matter there comes a point of no return? By that I mean does there come a time, when something is transferred, upon which it would be difficult to go back and put the whole process into reverse. We all know that changes of policy occur from time to time under any Government as world conditions change, but is there in this case any fixed point of no return? When is the transfer likely to begin?

In the past we have had some differences of opinion about the number of civilians involved in this closure, if it is to take place, and I do not want to repeat any of that this afternoon, except to ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance in so far as two places are concerned. I refer to the Lisahally Fuel Depôt and the Kilnappy Armament Depôt. Are those employed there to remain undisturbed or not? Can the Minister tell us what their future is likely to be and how long a future they have? This point has been disturbing many minds in Londonderry, for there are many who are uncertain whether the closing of the joint anti-submarine school itself will inevitably, in the end, lead to the closing of these other establishments. Perhaps he could set some doubts at rest this afternoon on that subject.

What of the employees at J.A.S.S. itself? I imagine that it has not yet been possible to ascertain how many established people are likely to accept transfer when and if that occurs. I gather that those who do not accept, if under the age of 50, are eligible for gratuity—and I hope that I am right. If they are over 50, I understand they are eligible for a deferred payment at the age of 60 of the pension which has accrued at the time of discharge. I gather from a reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—I am glad to see him here this afternoon—that there are 180 affected who are unestablished and that, of these, 120 have served less than five years and are therefore not due any gratuity of any sort.

When he made his announcement—and it has since been repeated by the Home Secretary and others—the Minister said that every effort to bring new employment to the Londonderry area would be made. He and the Home Office—perhaps the Home Office in particular—have a very special responsibility in this matter which we do not intend to allow them to shrug off. Frankly, I think that if the Home Office had shown slightly stronger opposition to this move it would never have taken place. We do not think that they have shown the strength in defence of this establishment which we might have expected from them. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us how far other Departments have been circularised to try to find employment for these men if the transfer is to go on.

More important, if they do not intend to relent, let us be told what the Government have in mind by way of alternative employment for the area as a whole. What have the Departments said? What did the War Office say? What will happen to the buildings if the school is moved? How will Ministers fulfil the pledge which he gave us on 26th October—because we intend to hold them to it. Do they believe that they will find anything—I hope that they will—which will provide the same amount of employment and anything like the same spending power in a city which so badly needs that spending power? Here I might perhaps fairly quote Mr. Quinn of the Londonderry Trades Union Council, because I think there is point in what he said. He said that the Minister had underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and he continued, If an industry can be produced suddenly at this stage, why was it not produced long ago when Derry needed it so much?". Incidentally, what has happened to all the science-based Government industries which were such a powerful magnet in the Labour Party's manifesto?

Another, perhaps smaller, point has been raised with me in the last few days. The Londonderry Chamber of Commerce has written to me saying that it has heard that there is a shortage of labour for the repair of ships at Barrow-in-Furness. If that is true, is it not possible for some of those ships to be sent to Londonderry, where there is an abundance of skill, splendid facilities and a great deal of experience? This would be one way by which the Minister could, in a small sense, make amends—although I repeat, only in a small sense.

I have been speaking I hope extremely moderately about this today, and not with that emotion of which I was accused on another occasion. If I did speak with emotion on another occasion it was because I felt emotional about this, for it is indeed a serious matter for Londonderry. There are sound reasons why the Minister should retract this decision. It is accepted in all parts of the House that defence requirements alter rapidly. No one would regard a reversal of his policy as a retreat for the Government. If the Government do change their mind on this issue they will, in the view of many, by no means all laymen, be regarded as acting in the national interest and such an action would be hailed in Ulster as a sign of humanity and an indication that their preelection promises, their regional professions, were not just electoral window dressing. I regret I am surprised that no other Ministers are present because this is indeed a regional test for the whole Government.

We in Northern Ireland take a great pride in our link with the armed forces. We regard it of prime importance to maintain our present visible link with them. We do not want to see a retreat of Her Majesty's Forces from Northern Ireland or a contraction of Service establishments there. Since the announcement of 26th October we have also heard the news about the Territorial Army and I fear that all these things may, in future, have an effect on recruitment in a loyal part of the United Kingdom, an area which has a very high tradition of service. I trust that these matters will be borne in mind.

We are holding this short debate against a background of a rise in unemployment in the area last month, in the shadow of the Plowden Report, with its prediction that there will be 3,000 to 4,000 redundancies in the local aircraft factory by the end of 1966, and in the light of the fact that 1,000 men have been paid off in the shipyards of Belfast in the last four weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is here this afternoon as these worries are very much in his mind.

This is a serious situation and this afternoon the Minister has an opportunity to afford some relief to the very real anxieties which exist. I beg him to face up to the consequences of what he is doing to the economy of the whole of north-west Ulster, which we desperately want to see expanded, and I earnestly beg him to return to his colleagues and think again on this issue. Finally let me tell him that neither I nor my colleagues will accept the closure of the school until the last shred of hope has been banished.

1.56 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

I intervene briefly. I must, first, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who has been fighting this battle for some years, particularly in the last 12 months, with a skill and tenacity that is greatly admired at home and particularly in his constituency. This is a matter of very great importance to the constituency of Londonderry, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it has a wider importance and it is regarded in Ulster as a test case of the Government's sincerity about regional development.

Prior to the General Election, we had many bright and hopeful sayings by Labour hon. Members—in Northern Ireland and outside it, particularly by visitors to the country—about the future. My hon. Friend has already quoted the First Secretary. Some equally important remarks were made by the hon. Gentleman who is now the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, although these words were quoted in the early hours of a March morning by my hon. Friend. The Joint Under-Secretary said: Unless the Government take effective steps to reverse the trends of industrial location we shall see two nations again, divided this time not by harsh class inequalities but by geography. Against the background of that sort of promise, we in Ulster view the decision about the anti-submarine school at Londonderry with considerable concern. It is important to Londonderry and its surroundings. My hon. Friend made a remarkably cogent and heartrending case which, if there is a shred of humanity left in the Government, should make them want to review their decision in this matter.

Above all, as my hon. Friend said, it is a test case. It is the very first issue which has arisen whereby the employment situation and the regional development argument can be taken into account and given due weight by the Government, as they promised to do before the election. Here is a case where—even if one concedes to the Minister that the strategic arguments of defence are nicely balanced; although I do not so concede because my hon. Friend and others have made out an almost overwhelming case the other way—the regional development argument could be held by the Government, if they are in desperate earnest about regional development, to have swayed the issue, as it did with their predecessors.

One could perhaps forgive the present Government their decision in this matter if it could be shown that the former Conservative Government had been on the point of reaching the same conclusions; if the arguments had been prepared in advance and that the former Government were, in any case, about to close the school. But the reverse is the case. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Londonderry in October: When the closure of the Sea Eagle base was raised on at least two occasions with us as a Government we refused to allow the closure and believed that regional considerations were paramount. That, I think, is stilt the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) reinforced this view during the Northern Ireland debate. In other words, the former Conservative Administration had decided that the defence and regional development arguments were so finely balanced that the regional development argument should prevail. That was based on the unemployment situation in Londonderry in particular, the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland as a whole and the fact that the trading influence which this base has on the general prosperity of the area must be paramount. Now the present Government have decided to move the base to the already overcrowded South of England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry mentioned a strategic argument and, like him, I do not want to traverse all the matters concerned with this issue. However, one of considerable importance struck me; that apart from all its other advantages, Londonderry is the only naval base in the United Kingdom which has very close proximity to an airfield.

As far as I know, it is the only base that has an airfield within about 20 minutes' drive along a good road. If one is training personnel in joint operations—which, presumably, is the purpose of the exercise—this must be an overwhelming argument. As to Devonport, I understand that the airfield at St. Mawgan can be as much as four hours' drive along narrow overcrowded roads away from the base. If one realises the advantages there are in briefing before an exercise and exchanging views after the exercise has taken place, this must be a very important argument, and I am surprised that it did not weigh more.

There are all the other arguments that have already been deployed. The argument used by the Minister in the Northern Ireland debate was the need for concentrating these facilities. I should have thought that that argument was equally good in reverse; that in the interests of regional development and of dispersal, it would have been wiser to have concentrated anti-submarine training in the North-West Approaches. The proximity of the Scottish base, the proximity of Holy Loch, the proximity of deep water, and all the rest, would seem to me to lend every weight to the argument to do this, and to lend weight to the idea that, while the Defence Review was under consideration, and pending its results, it was unwise to take the decision to close the base.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, and others, suggested—and the suspicion is undoubtedly in our minds—that the reason for the decision is that the advice given by the admirals was coloured by the fact that they regard Devonport as a nice, convenient place for them to carry out their duties, and not too far from London. I ask that when next the Minister talks to the admirals he points out that Londonderry is only a little more than an hour away from London. It has much pleasanter surroundings than Devonport. It has better facilities of every kind. It is at present only one hour's flight from London to Aldergrove, but if my hon. Friend has his way one hopes that there will soon be another airport somewhat nearer Derry. So that even that sort of special pleading, if it has taken place or has been colouring the advice given to the Minister, is not very well founded.

As my hon. Friend has said, this is a very serious matter for his constituency and for the whole of Northern Ireland, in that since we have had this decision without, as we think, due weight being put on the regional argument, it augurs ill in our minds for decisions that are the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government as they affect the economy of Northern Ireland. It adds tremendously to our anxieties about the future of our aircraft industry in Belfast, and to our anxieties for the fture generally.

I say to the Minister, "Please do not be afraid of changing your mind." We from Northern Ireland would not for a moment seek to make any kind of political capital if the Minister did so change his mind. We would not seek to taunt him with indecision, or anything like that. We would be only too grateful if he were now to say that he would look at the matter again; if he would now say that at any rate there would be a standstill for a while; that, at least, if he could not grant a reprieve, he would grant us a stay of execution, so that the matter might be considered again, and further representations made. As it is the festive season, perhaps he would give us that assurance as a Christmas present.

2.5 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew)

I should like to begin by associating myself with the congratulations offered by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on his persistence in raising this matter at every possible opportunity. Indeed, I must also congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry on his luck in the opportunities he seems to have had in raising the subject in this House and elsewhere.

I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member will also join with me in acknowledging that his hon. Friend did not produce any new arguments or facts to sustain his case this afternoon——

Mr. Chichester-Clark

It does not need any.

Mr. Mayhew

Whether his case needs new facts or arguments, I do not know, but it makes it a little difficult for me to depart from the reply on this subject that I have given on very many occasions, which I find completely conclusive, and which has been accepted as conclusive by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The hon. and gallant Member suggested that the Opposition, officially, are strongly against the closure of "Sea Eagle". I was rather struck by the report in the Daily Telegraph on 27th October after our last debate. The Daily Telegraph cannot always be accepted as inaccurate on matters concerning the Conservative Party. Its political correspondent said: Though there were … objections from the Opposition Front Bench, strongly reinforced by the Northern Ireland M.Ps., there is reason to believe that the Shadow Cabinet regarded the Government's decision to move the base to Plymouth as inevitable. Former Service Ministers are aware that it can be defended on operational as well as financial grounds.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

The Daily Telegraph may well have carried that report, but I have no doubt that the Minister is an assiduous reader of that newspaper and will have seen that this impression was very fairly contradicted by a subsequent article. Indeed, there was no need for the hon. Gentleman to read that article, because he had only to read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) at the end of the October debate—and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not stay to hear it. In any case, if he had read that speech, he would have known our attitude.

Mr. Mayhew

I think that I have read everything that has been written, and certainly everything that has been said in this House, on the subject. Honestly, I do not know whether the House would wish me to detail the overwhelming financial and operational reasons why the Navy feels obliged to move the base from Londonderry to Plymouth. The hon. Member for Londonderry, not unfairly, said, "If there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry, let us be told," but at no stage have we suggested that there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry itself. It is the situation of Londonderry which, as I have explained so often, makes this move inevitable.

I begin, though, by saying frankly that there has been no change since we last discussed this subject on 26th October. I do not know of rumours that there is to be a moratorium. I have not heard of one. There is no substance in them. I regret to have to tell the hon. Member the situations stands now as it stood on 26th October.

On the other question about the fuel establishment at Lisahally and the Kilnappy naval depôt, I can say that we have no proposals in mind to close these establishments. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Will the Minister go a little further to allay some anxiety and say that, if the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School does go, that will not in any way imperil the long-term future of those other establishments?

Mr. Mayhew

I say, we have no proposals to move those establishments, and that is quite irrespective of the move to Plymouth.

Like the hon. Member, I will not go over the history of the controversy—the numerous deputations that have been received, including the personal intervention by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland with our own Prime Minister. But he will agree with me that it is a matter which has been thrashed out exhaustively over a considerable period of time, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will accept that this is no hasty decision. I went there myself, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, before the decision was reached in order to meet the people locally and satisfy myself at first hand that no other way out was possible.

Perhaps I could remind the House that the tasks of the school are to train in anti-submarine operations those ships and aircraft, both R.N. and R.A.F., which have completed their basic anti-submarine training and to instruct R.N. and R.A.F. officers in anti-submarine warfare. It develops and evaluates anti-submarine tactics and recommends new anti-submarine tactical instructions. It assesses the capabilities of new anti-submarine equipment and weapons after acceptance for service, and determines operational techniques for them. It has joint Naval and R.A.F. directors.

Because so many tasks for which the submarines are needed have to be carried out in the South, most of the submarines are based on either Plymouth or Portsmouth today, and they waste much valuable time in travelling from their bases to Londonderry for courses at the school. If that could be avoided, it would be equivalent to an increase of about 1½ hulls to the submarine fleet. Moreover, when the school is at Plymouth, we will be able to make much better and more efficient use of the submarine while she is in the exercise area by co-ordinating the various anti-submarine training activities that go on in the area.

At present, quite a large part of the submarine's time has to be wasted, even after she arrives at Londonderry. The destroyers and frigates which have to carry out the training also waste time on passage, and here, too, the wasted time is equivalent to 1½ ships. Because submarines, destroyers and frigates have not been available, we have already had to reduce our courses at Londonderry from eight a year to six a year, and we have had to reduce the length of each course from four weeks to three weeks.

If the school is not moved, we shall simply have to make further reductions, because our submarine fleet is getting smaller. The effect would be to reduce out anti-submarine warfare ability to an unacceptable extent, and, but for the move, the school itself would have withered and died for lack of adequate work.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that topic, will he say whether future submarines, our atomic hunter-killers, are also going to be based in the south of England?

Mr. Mayhew

For a long period of time the majority of our submarines will be based in the South-West. It is true that the hunter-killers, and certainly the Polaris, will be up in the North. But there are different factors here. The speed of nuclear-powered submarines makes a great difference to the business of moving long distances, for example, down to the South-West. That compensates for the fact that the weight of our submarine fleet as a whole over many years may go northwards. However, they will be nuclear submarines, capable of moving much more quickly than the present conventional ones can. We are quite convinced that the proper level of training standards can only be ensured if we make better use of our submarines and escorts, and that means moving the school.

In addition to the savings that I have already mentioned, 1½ submarines and 1½ destroyers or frigates, the move will save up to 20 officers and some 200 ratings. It allows us to get maximum use out of a new anti-submarine tactical trainer, which itself reduces the need for submarines for training, instead of the 12 per cent. use which is all that we could give it at Londonderry—too little to justify its provision for J.A.A.S. alone.

The hon. Member for Londonderry was not far out in his estimate. The move will save between £400,000 and £500,000 a year in running costs. excluding the 1½ ships and the 1½ submarines. I would ask hon. Members opposite to realise that, in relation to that sum, to keep the school there with all these financial disadvantages would be wrong. I am convinced that if they themselves had the responsibility for the decision, they would not feel that any other was justified. In my view, it would be a gross extravagance in terms of public money and resources not to make this move.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Might I ask my hon. Friend, is not the logic of his argument that the Polaris submarine should come to the South-West too?

Mr. Mayhew

The logic has nothing whatever to do with the Polaris submarine.

I do not want to detain the House too long. May I finally come on to the number of civilian employees and the provisions for them which the hon. Member for Londonderry mentioned?

I think that we have ironed out the original discrepancy in the figures as a result of the last debate. It has brought down the total of civilians who are to be affected by the move to about 480. Of those, about 250 were established men who would be offered transfer to other jobs in Government service. That left about 230 unestablished men, and the number of those who would eventually have to be discharged on redundancy depended on their and our success over the next two or three years in finding and providing new jobs for them. There is no immediate rundown, and it will be over the next two or three years.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South on 24th November, the number has already come down by about 50 at the most recent count, compared with the figure of 230 that we had been using for consistency's sake. Of the remaining 180, about 120 have less than five years' service. I must say that I am not unhappy to find that the figure is declining. As long as it keeps declining, I do not think that any of us will be upset about it.

That is the problem against which we have to measure the annual extra cost of being at Londonderry which, overall, is not less than £1 million a year. The difficulty of finding jobs for that number of men has to be weighed against the £1 million plus that we save by the move.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Has the Minister been able to evaluate the number of established personnel who are likely to accept transfer, or has he not started that process?

Mr. Mayhew

The process has not started. I wish that I could say that it would be easy for all to accept transfer, but it will not be. I cannot give an estimate of the numbers involved.

As the hon. Member said, the finding of new work to go to Londonderry is primarily a matter for the Department of Economic Affairs and the Home Office. He will have noted the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the debate on 26th October. Of course, we offer jobs to the established men.

The hon. Member mentioned provision for pensions and gratuities. Those who do not want to accept transfer are eligible, if they are under 60, for a gratuity. If they are over 50 but under 60, they are eligible for deferred payment of any pension accrued at the date of discharge. Unestablished men who have to be discharged on redundancy are eligible for a gratuity, provided they have been working there for more than five years.

Over the last years, those arrangements have had to stand the strain of a very sizeable rundown of Naval civilian establishments. During the last eight years, by streamlining our shore support, the Navy has reduced the number of United Kingdom based industrial civilian employees by over 19,000. We have done it with a minimum redundancy problem by handling it carefully on an individual basis. That 19,000 has to be compared with the very much smaller figure that we are having to handle now, and we have two or three years for my right hon. Friends to bring into operation the action which the Home Secretary described in the last debate, designed towards increasing the level of employment in Northern Ireland.

If I may say so, I thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was a little hard on my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. He would be the last to claim that his regional policy had been 100 per cent. successful so far, but no previous Government have done half as much as he has in this business of regional planning.

I find extremely striking the figures quoted by the Home Secretary in the last debate about the bringing of new industry to Northern Ireland and the fact that at that time there were more men in jobs in Northern Ireland than ever before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] And at that time there had been a slow but steady and prolonged decrease in the percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland, to which in that debate hon. Members paid tribute. I thought that the strictures cast by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South were unfair——

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Mayhew

I have given way many times and I have been given instructions that as we are running a little late I must conclude as quickly as possible. I know that I have not satisfied some hon. Members opposite but I claim that on the facts which I have given about the operational advantages and financial advantages of moving, and on the statement by the Home Secretary in the last debate, this, unfortunately, is the only course. No one wanted to do this. We wanted to maintain our connection with Londonderry. It was a good and fruitful connection and was much prized on both sides, but on the facts given we had no alternative but to move to Plymouth.