HC Deb 15 March 1965 vol 708 cc911-27

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £27,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay

This Vote covers a very wide sphere indeed, and I wish to ask some specific questions on it. I draw attention to Subhead C, which relates to the hydrographic services and the pay and allowances of the Naval Hydro-graphic Department. This inevitably raises the whole question of oceanography.

I would like to know what is happening to the National Oceanographic Council. There was, in the course of last year, a reorganisation proposed in which the National Oceanographic Council would lose its separate identity and be merged in one of the new research councils. I understand that that has happened, that the Earth Sciences Research Council has been set up and that oceanography as a subject—and I need not dilate on the importance of oceanography to the Committee—has been included. I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether there is a special sub-committee, as we had hoped, to look after the interests of oceanography specifically.

One thing I always feared—and as Civil Lord and, later, as Under-Secretary I had the honour and duty of being chairman of the National Oceanographic Council ex officio—was that the interests of oceanography, and particularly the defence interest in it, might be overlaid, if it were put into the Earth Sciences Research Council, by the more land type of sciences. I hope that that has not happened. I very much hope that special arrangements have been made inside the Earth Sciences Research Council to enable the interests of oceanography to be specifically looked after.

Does the amount of money now asked for under this Subhead include the contribution that is made by the Ministry of Defence, Naval Department to the National Institute of Oceanography? I have with me the annual report of the National Oceanographic Council for last year, and this short quotation from it shows how important this subject is: If advantage is to be taken of the work of the Institute in the last decade, its natural growth must not be inhibited. The impact of the sea on our lives is too important to ignore and with the impetus gained and the competence at our disposal, future advances can be looked forward to with confidence. Already, however, successful lines of research cannot be pursued as actively as they deserve and promising ideas are being stifled through lack of the means to develop them: these are the growing points of the future. That part of the introduction concludes with a quotation from a history of science in the United States Federal Government, which I will not read.

I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us how much of the total sum now asked for is specifically allocated to the funds of the National Institute. Are they satisfied that the Ministry of Defence, Naval Department interests are fuly safeguarded in the new arrangements, and has there been a new sub-committee set up to look after oceanography inside the Council?

Subhead B deals with research and development on other expenditure. The Committee will observe that no less than £17 million is being sought as against £15.8 million last year for research and development contracts, mainly—and I stress "mainly"—for contracts with industry. Would the Minister tell us what activities are envisaged other than those which are contracts with industry? In other words, if we are providing a large sum of money mainly for contracts with industry, what about the rest; what other kind of work are we undertaking?

I would like to know what is the general basis of the allocation of R. and D. contracts. What criterion does the Navy Department use in determining to whom and for what R. and D. contracts are granted? Under the new arrangements the Ministry of Technology is now making a series of grants of R. and D. contracts to industry, and I would like to know if there is some definite tie-up between the Service Department—here the Navy—and the Ministry of Technology in that scheme.

I return to the subject of oceanography, because it is, I believe—in the light of the future pattern of sea activities and warfare—one of the most vital areas in which the Navy should be taking an interest. Under the present Hydrographer a great deal of work has been done, literally on a shoestring, and I hope that the Minister is seized of the importance of this matter and will work manfully to see that all possible support is given to this work by him and his colleagues.

5.07 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

Like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I wish to pose one or two questions about oceanography. Will the Minister give us some information about the deployment of the naval services in this connection from the point of view of our strategic warfare requirements?

I think it is true to say that both naval and civil oceanography has largely followed warfare and civil transport requirements in the past. Is he satisfied that the services are at present deployed adequately in South-East Asia? I believe that if there were to be an inquiry now into the information available to the Navy about the present deployment of naval services in South-East Asia it would be found that there were very substantial gaps in our information.

In connection with Subhead Z—Appropriations in Aid—and specifically the item on charts, could we be told what is the major market for the sale of charts? Are they sold mainly to civil and possibly foreign transport customers, and, in any event, has sufficient attention been paid to the requirements of this relatively new and, I believe, wholly healthy and desirable development of private sailing?

My experience of this, which is relatively limited, is that the availability of Navy charts in simplified form for coastal waters would justify examination by those who are responsible for recouping some of the expenditure on the provision of charts.

5.09 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I too, wish to say something about oceanography, being another ex-chairman of the National Oceanographic Council. I had some Questions down not long ago, as a result of which we found that in oceanography this country, as a maritime Power, is rather lagging behind some other countries and that, when comparisons are made, we do not come out at all well.

I know that some hon. Members are a little worried about the new set-up. The former link between the Institute of Oceanography and the Navy was very close, and it helped research and development. Now that it has been put under the new body, called, I think, the Natural Environment Research Council, which has, as a somewhat queer bedfellow, the Nature Conservancy—all coming, in turn, under the Minister of Education and Science—one wonders whether the same relationship with the Hydrographer's Department can go on. We read in paragraph 176 of the White Paper that …added emphasis is being given to military oceanography". Anybody who has studied the subject will agree that oceanography is more important now from the military point of view than it has been for some years. I hope that we can be assured that, despite the new set-up, the work will go on.

In particular, I hope that the new ship "Discovery" can be fully employed. It is well known that in the past there have been times when the Institute could not have commissioned the former vessel for long periods without money from the Admiralty for naval research. I should like to be assured that the new ship, which is so much better equipped to go into oceanographic problems than her predecessor, will be fully employed; that the Hydrographer's Department will have plenty of work for her so that this important work can go on and we no longer find that we are lagging behind what is being done by other countries that have far fewer maritime interests than we have.

Mr. Robert Maxwell (Buckingham)

I must disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that oceanography in this country is not highly regarded by people abroad—

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I do not say that. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was talking of the total expenditure in this country on oceanography as compared with the amount spent in Germany, France, Canada and the United States.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell

I am obliged for that correction. Although it is true that the amount of money we as a nation devote to oceanography is not commensurate with that of the United States, it stands good comparison with Germany and France. Furthermore, it is a fact that on the little money that our oceanographers have been granted by the former Administration their reputation stands very high indeed, and they have been doing some wonderful work. I hope that later in the debate the Minister will confirm that he will implement with all vigour the statement that oceanography will receive further and additional support from the Government. Oceanography is not only important to strategic warfare problems—problems of the detection of nuclear submarines and hunter killers—but, looking 100 years or more ahead, it is likely to play a very major part indeed in solving the world's food problems.

I see under Subhead A—Research and Development—that the Department is employing over 7,000 people at an expenditure of about £8½ million. When the present Administration took office they rightly realised that as a country we cannot continue to use our scarce national resources of scientific manpower for defence purposes in the same volume as in the past. I should therefore like to know what contribution the. Navy Department is making towards redeploying some of these 7,000 people in the research and development of products that the country can export and which will help to modernise British industry. I should like to be assured that the Department is not overlooking the fact that it has some wonderful people who can make a contribution, and that it realises that unless we can pay our way we shall not be able to pay for a defence establishment even of the present size.

It is well known that research and development is necessary and useful, and I think that it is also well known that people in research and development have a habit of finding reasons why their piece of research should be continued year after year when it has long lost all relevance and the need for it has passed. What criteria or techniques does the Department use to terminate research and development projects and redeploy those resources and men to purposes more beneficial to the Navy and to the country as a whole than just continuing the research work that was originally authorised?

5.15 p.m.

Commander Courtney

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to Subhead B (1), where there are one or two items about which I—and, I think, the Committee—would like to know more. Mention was made on Thursday, as it has been in previous debates, of the desirability of the Navy developing at long last a surface-to-surface guided missile, and I should like an assurance from the Minister today that what means to many of us a very important technical requirement is not being lost sight of in the research and development programme.

It has been said—quite rightly, think—that the guided missile systems possessed by the small surface craft of our potential enemies, and often lent to other countries—whether with mixed crews or pure crews, we do not know—are equipped with a type of guided missile that is infinitely superior to anything that the Royal Navy possesses at the present time. The corollary which has been mentioned, and which has been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, is that logically, in the presence of such potential enemy warships, convoys or task forces should be accompanied by the fixed-wing aircraft carrier which now forms the first line of defence and the main armament of the Fleet, as the only means of defeating this kind of guided-missile small surface vessel.

I do not think that the Committee should be fobbed off, if I may use the expression, with the assurance that Seaslug has been given surface-to-surface capability within the research and development programme. I have heard Seaslug described very recently as being an excellent piece of agricultural machinery. There are potentialities, however, with Sea Dart. The Committee should have some assurance that the surface-to-surface missile is being developed within this programme by the Royal Navy.

Secondly, a subject on which there has been discussion in the Press as recently as today is the variable geometry project—of which I know the right hon. Gentleman has been waiting for some mention—being developed in conjunction with the French as possible joint service all-purpose aircraft to succeed the Phantom—Buccaneer—P1127 combination in ten years or so from now. Can we be told that this is being investigated from a specific naval point of view, in order to give the Committee some assurance that we shall not repeat the tragic experiment with the P1154, for example, which started from a pure air requirement and could not be fitted to a naval carrier requirement? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that research and development into variable geometry of the future will start with a staff requirement enabling it to operate this aircraft from existing carriers, from future carriers, and perhaps even from commando ships.

Thirdly, a few words would be desirable on whether the figure, which the Committee will be glad to see has risen by £1¼ million, includes anything in respect of surface nuclear propulsion for warships. This is a vexed question on the civil side. I, for one, feel that the time may well be approaching when the Admiralty should take a further initiative in the matter and perhaps combine the two phases of investigation, the military in the Royal Navy and the mercantile, which are, perhaps, not so far one from the other as some people would like us to think.

Fourthly, is it not possible to put some research and development into a modification of the Wessex II aircraft to enable it to conform to the Royal Navy Wessex V in stowing below in H.M. Commando carriers? Is it beyond the wit of our research and development so to mould the R.A.F. requirement into our own Wessex V helicopters that they can be entirely inter-operable, the Wessex II and the Wessex V? It is a matter of a folding tail and one or two other small modifications, but would it not, from the point of view of the production line, be most advantageous if the two Services, for what is after all a common purpose in the Far East at the moment, could have a modified Mark II, to include the R.A.F. requirements incorporated into the basic naval Mark V?

Finally, a small but, I think, important point. Is it not time that our research and development went flat out after the hovercraft in its application in certain parts of the world where the staff requirements for such a machine—I do not know whether to call it a ship or a aircraft—are perfectly united? I am thinking in particular of the Bahamas, where there are wide sweeps of tidal water, with low sand banks and no high obstacles in the shape of rocks; where there is a particular political problem with Cuban exiles, Cuban revolutionaries and Cuban refugees; and where it is not suitable, in view of the navigational difficulties in the area, for a frigate to be saddled with the entire responsibility. Are not those low sand flats and shallow waters perfect operating conditions for hovercraft? Could not the flag officer—it used to be the Commander-in-Chief, America and West Indies Station, now with headquarters at Nassau and in a frigate—have one of these at his disposal as part of our research and development programme?

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The amount we spend on research and development grows from year to year. I would welcome some announcement from the Ministry that some of the time of those employed in research and development activities for the Navy was devoted to research into reducing the costs of the various items included in the Navy's expenditure. For example, the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) referred to the guided missile. I should welcome an assurance that, instead of men being employed on such research, which increases cost, they could be employed on a type of research which would reduce costs.

In The Times today there is a very interesting article on aircraft carriers. It is headed: Aircraft Carrier as Costly Floating Town. Chips with everything in Ark Royal. I will give one quotation to show what I mean. Speaking about the weapons in the aircraft carrier, it says this: There are rockets, bombs and missiles extending through a price range of £850 for a 500 lb. bomb to £8,500 for a guided missile. Eight thousand five hundred pounds for one guided missile seems to me an excessive amount. Is this a guided missile which was supplied by Ferranti? The activities of the research department might be devoted to reducing the costs of weapons.

Is any research being carried out into reducing the cost of an aircraft carrier? The more research we get, the more expensive the aircraft carriers become. The article in The Times analyses the cost of a new aircraft carrier. The result seems to me to lead to the conclusion that the research department is a very expensive department, because it increases the total sum which we are called on to pay in the Navy Estimates. The figure which was given in the debate on the Navy Estimates was approximately £60 million for an aircraft carrier. Are any research activities being devoted on how to reduce the cost of these enormous floating towns?

The article in The Times comes to the conclusion that, when the aircraft carrier is complete with aircraft—presumably, it is no good without aircraft—carrier and aircraft will cost £200 million. These are astronomical figures. How many aircraft carriers can we afford for any policy East of Suez, or anywhere in the world, if they are to cost, with aircraft, a total of £200 million?

I would welcome an assurance that those engaged in research work at the Admiralty are engaged in research on how to reduce the cost of aircraft carriers and missiles. Instead, the more we spend on research, the more the bill mounts and mounts to figures we cannot afford. Therefore, I would welcome a reduction in the number—7,000—engaged on research under this Vote. I should like to cut the number by at least one-third, because if the number of people engaged on research for the Navy were reduced, the possibility would be that we should not have such enormous Estimates every year.

To what extent is research in the Navy carried on as a separate department? Is there any co-ordination with the various other research departments? I remember a criticism being made of the naval research department that it was a watertight department which had few contacts with research carried on by the Army and the Air Ministry. Some of the research activities of the Navy might suitably be handed over for review by the Ministry of Technology.

These are enormous figures. I hope that the article in The Times has been widely read, because it will give the British public an idea of how expensive the rôle of the aircraft carrier will be, unless the cost is considerably reduced.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I should like to say a word in support of the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), that versatile seaman, to whose hydrographic experience I may refer in connection with his following the bed of Chichester Harbour when acting as a human outboard motor—and he is very suitably equipped so to do—with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Snow

I should point out that I was acting as "dogsbody" for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and that is a feat in itself.

Dr. Bennett

I wish to refer to the Hydrographic Department, under Subhead C (2), and to say how satisfactory it seems that whereas in the past year the cost of producing charts and the like has amounted to £200,000 odd, the appropriations in aid, under Subhead Z (2), from the sale of charts amount to a much bigger figure. This seems to be a very profitable enterprise. I see that the cost of producing charts has increased by £54,000 but the expected increase in appropriations in aid is £80,000. This seems to be a very promising field of operation. As the Navy Department has more or less a monopoly in this matter, I hope it will use all its energy and enterprise in developing the market, to which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth referred, for the smaller types of charts used by the enormously increasing number of amateur seamen who sail around our coasts.

I want to know in particular whether a full range of charts for all the coasts which are used by amateurs is likely to be forthcoming, and whether the new ideas in waterproofing, in coating with plastics to make sure that these articles are indestructible by water, and the ingenious ways of folding or rolling these charts for easy stowage, are likely to be applied by the Department. I am sure that any attempt which is made in this direction will be even more profitable than the exercise in which the Department already seems to be engaged.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Mayhew

On the subject of charts, I agree that this is a satisfactorily profitable undertaking on the part of the Navy Department, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will note this point when he criticises us for our expenditure. We save the taxpayer some money by this efficient and profitable venture.

The first requirement, on the other hand, is first-class accuracy and reliability. That goes without saying. I know of no hon. Member who wishes in any way to prejudice the fulfilment of that requirement. This point may arise in connection with the arrangements for the sale of charts, which we are reviewing, but we wish to maintain the enormously high standard of accuracy and reliability, especially in view of the needs of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). If he goes sailing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I am sure that some especially accurate charts will be required for this purpose.

The main market for the charts is the Merchant Navy. Whereas we do our best to help private yachtsmen, I understand that £1½ million worth of charts per year are sold to the Merchant Navy.

I have been asked a large number of questions—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of charts, may I ask him if he will simplify the method by which amendments are made available to the general public? This is important. If one has a chart and a lifebuoy changes its flashing, for example, the details should be readily available. The amendments should be easily obtainable.

Mr. Mayhew

I agree on the importance of these amendments. This particularly rams home the importance of having organised channels for distributing charts. Otherwise we may get charts which are not properly amended and people may come to grief as a result.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire asked for research into the question of reducing costs and especially the costs of aircraft carriers. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) asked about the deployment of scientific staff. We very much appreciate the heavy responsibility which rests on the Navy Department for employing such a large number of our very best scientists and technicians, and we would be much at fault if we wasted any of the staff that we have or, indeed, if we continued with research and development projects after they were really effective.

I can only assure the Committee that we have a constant review at all stages not only of particular projects but of the whole deployment of our scientific staff. We are answerable not only to the Treasury and the Ministry of Technology but, inside the Department, to the Chief Scientist who, within the Department, is responsible for the deployment of scientific and technical manpower for each of the Services. The Committee can be well assured that this is carefully watched in order to prevent misuse of very scarce manpower.

Captain W. Elliot

Is it not also a fact that there is a constant stream of modifications and minor revisions from the research department which are incorporated in ships and aircraft and give greater efficiency?

Mr. Mayhew

Indeed there is a considerable fall-out from our research and development work which is beneficial in many directions.

Mr. Snow

I accept the dangers of being slightly anecdotal in these matters, but the point that I put about the need for the most up-to-date and detailed research in connection with charts required in new theatres of war is perfectly sound. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Services in question are looking into the urgent requirements of the Navy?

Mr. Mayhew

I shall be saying something about oceanography later. I wish to deal with some individual points. First, a number of questions were asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) about nuclear propulsion for surface vessels. I can assure him that we understand the tremendous operational advantages of nuclear propulsion for warships. The enormously increased range, flexibility and speed are well understood. Also there are other advantages of a secret nature which I am sure the Committee will not wish me to enlarge upon but which are known to some hon. Members. The drawbacks are also well known to the Committee—in particular the great cost of nuclear propulsion.

We have taken the line that if we are going to make a major effort in this direction it would be sensible to ensure as far as possible that the areas of our research are equally available to the Merchant Navy and to the Royal Navy. At the same time, even here there are some difficulties. There is no disguising the fact that the criteria of success in the two fields are rather different. Nuclear propulsion in the Merchant Navy must pay; that is the major point there. Nuclear propulsion in the Navy must be operationally effective. The fact is that these two things are not always the same. Our criterion in the Navy must be cost-effectiveness. There are other problems of size, fuel and so on which enter into the equation.

We have not had much time to study this extremely difficult and complicated question, and we have not taken a final view about it, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have not been idle. In fact, we have already undertaken a number of limited studies here which are helping to provide the framework for our policy decisions. These limited studies are now being considered at a high level by a group under the Chief Scientific Adviser. We expect conclusions to emerge soon, which the Government will then be able to consider alongside the parallel studies of the civilian departments. On this basis we hope that we can reach a settled policy. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked about the Wessex. I can only say that we are doing everything we can to make the Wessex II and the Wessex V inter-operable. We are not unhopeful.

I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East will not mind if I dodge the question about variable geometry aircraft. I am not sure whether it is in order on the Navy Vote, but in any case my right hon. Friend said in the course of the defence debate that he hoped to be able to inform the House during the next few weeks of a Franco-British agreement which, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, would cover a joint strike trainer and also the study of a long-term project which would employ the variable geometry principle. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member had better await my right hon. Friend's statement. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked on Vote 4 what "mainly for contracts with industry" means. The other things excluded are contracts with universities and also one or two with outside experts.

The main question raised by hon. Members was that of oceanography, and here I think I can reassure the Committee. We are giving up responsibility for the administration of the National Institute of Oceanography, as the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East made clear, and we are handing the responsibility over to the Natural Environment Research Council. Perhaps I should say a few words of farewell and thanks to the National Institute of Oceanography and also to the National Oceanographic Council which is the governing body of the Institute. They did splendid work and we in the Navy are very grateful to them.

Although this is now a matter for the Department of Education and Science and the future constitution is not yet settled, it is the intention and our hope that there will be a management committee specifically for oceanography on which the Navy Department will be represented. We understand the importance of what the hon. and gallant Member said and we are satisfied that the Navy's interests are safeguarded.

We share the views expressed by a number of hon. Members about the importance of oceanography. I think that I said in the debate on the Navy Estimates that from an economic, let alone a defence point of view, there are wide areas of sea space today which are far more important and valuable than wide areas of land, what with oil drilling, gas drilling, fishing and the rest, quite apart from the defence angle which, of course, is of enormous and growing importance. The nuclear submarine has vastly increased the interest in and importance of this subject. The Navy has always been involved in oceanography yet despite the work put in it is astonishing how little we know about the oceans. We need to know, with modern sophisticated weapons, a great deal, particularly about the deep ocean.

This is almost an unknown world. The whole of the deep ocean has still to be charted. During my period of office I have been fascinated to find that the ocean bed is just like the land, with its mountains, plateaux and its weather. The weather, just like the weather in the air, has its varying temperatures, denseness and storms. All this study is of vital importance to modern weaponry. There is the fascinating study of the limitations imposed on sonars by the meteorology of the sea, the differences in density and temperature which can confound much sonar research. We are well in the forefront in this matter.

I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who unfortunately is not now present. He paid a great tribute to the reputation of British oceanography in the world. I am sure that that is right and I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly continue with this work energetically. We shall have three new Oceanographic Survey Ships this year. They will be largely employed on the western approaches, on projects in co-operation with our N.A.T.O. colleagues. We are studying the Eastern Atlantic with our N.A.T.O. allies, and we are trying to get a prediction system for undersea weather which can be used by pro-and antisubmarine forces. We have already achieved a certain degree of reliability.

We have also provided more money this year in the Vote. This is not for the Institute but it is for the oceanographic work of the Navy. We can say that the limiting factor in oceanography is not money so much as imagination and the right approach to it. I have been struck by the strong sense in which the Navy understands this work and I assure the Committee that we shall not be behind with it. I cannot recall particular questions which I have not done my best to reply to, but I shall study the report of the debate, and if there are any questions outstanding I shall reply to hon. Members individually.

Mr. Hay

Can the hon. Gentleman say what contribution the Navy makes to oceanographic work either to the Institute or to the new Natural Environment Research Council? If the hon. Gentleman knows, we ought to be told how much is being devoted by the Navy to this research because, as he has said, it is important. We want to be certain that the amount of money which the Navy puts in is matched by equivalent interest on the part of oceanographers in work which will benefit the Navy.

Mr. Mayhew

As I understand, none of the money in Vote 4 will go, as from 1st April, to the National Institute of Oceanography. This will all be done now by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Hay

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much the Navy will spend, forgetting the Vote for the moment? How much will the Navy contribute towards oceanography? It is true that it may be on the Vote of the Department of Education and Science but there must be a military contribution in money which comes from the Navy Department.

Mr. Mayhew

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member. We have oceanographical work, on Vote 4, but the financing of the National Institute of Oceanography will be from 1st April entirely a matter for the Ministry of Education and Science.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £27,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.