HC Deb 21 July 1965 vol 716 cc1576-9
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the progress made in rationalising Service functions.

I have decided to introduce new schemes in two separate fields of activity. The first scheme relates to the organisation of the intelligence staffs in the Ministry of Defence, while the other results from the study of centralised responsibility for motor transport in the three Services which was mentioned in this year's Statement on Defence Estimates.

The intelligence staffs of the former Service Departments were merged in a single defence intelligence staff with effect from 1st April, 1964. In the light of experience since then, I have decided to take a further step in reorganisation by substituting two functional Directors—a Director of Service Intelligence and a Director of Management and Support of Intelligence—for the present Director of Naval Intelligence, Director of Military Intelligence and Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Intelligence).

I believe that this change will improve our ability to deploy our defence intelligence effort with the maximum flexibility and effect, and that it will open the door to economies, including the immediate cut of one two-star post, over and above the substantial saving which has resulted from the original merger.

On motor transport, I have accepted an outline plan under which the Army Department will assume responsibility for the development and procurement of all mechanical transport and spares for the three Services, except for a few specialist vehicles which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. The Army Department will also assume responsibility for the distribution of Service vehicles, for central storage and the repair of vehicles, assemblies and spares above unit or formation level. The three Services are now collaborating on the preparation of detailed plans and revised procedures, and the changes in organisation and responsibilities will start to take effect from 1st April, 1966.

It is not possible to be precise about the financial effects of these changes, but I would expect to save about £500,000 a year at the start, and to make additional savings when the full scheme is in operation.

Mr. Soames

Both these changes seem to us to be a natural extension of the rationalisation of our defence forces, which is, of course, agreed in principle on both sides of the House and which was started by the previous Government.

Where the intelligence services are concerned, may we have the Minister's assurance that this will not in any way lead to a reduction in our intelligence effort, which is vital in so many areas in which our defence forces are engaged, and to which, indeed, it may well be necessary to add?

Where transport is concerned, am I right in understanding that first and second line repairs will still be left with the units or formations of the Services concerned, and that it will be only third line repairs, very major repairs, which will be taken over by this joint organisation?

Mr. Healey

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There will be no reduction in our intelligence effort. Indeed, I am convinced that the reorganisation will make possible a better use of our available resources.

The right hon. Gentleman is broadly right in the distinction he made in his second question.

Captain Litchfield

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a good deal of Service intelligence is technical in the professional sense. Can he say who will be responsible ultimately for each Service branch of intelligence?

Mr. Healey

For reasons which the hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand, I cannot go deeply into detail on this, but I can assure him that the technical branches of intelligence will continue to be collected as now and evaluated by technical experts from the Service directly concerned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

First, what is the original amount which has been cut? Secondly, as my right hon. Friend is co-ordinating military, naval and air intelligence, does not he think that he should take over M.I.5, which involves enormous expenditure at the present time?

Mr. Healey

My hon. Friend must address his last question to someone other than myself. I am not in a position to answer his first question about the total volume of resources.

Commander Courtney

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the office of Director of Naval Intelligence will no longer exist as a result of this reorganisation, and, if so, can he name a naval officer who will be responsible to the Chief of Naval Staff for the technical intelligence referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Capt. Litchfield)?

Mr. Healey

As I said, the Director of Naval Intelligence, like the heads of the other Service intelligence organisations, will cease to exist. But suitable arrangements will be made within the new organisation to preserve close links between the individual Chiefs of Staff and the appropriate Service experts at the level of Deputy Director and below, working under the overall control of the Director-General of Intelligence, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Intelligence) and the new functional directors.