HC Deb 26 October 1965 vol 718 cc18-22
The Minister of Defence for The Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew)

Before the debate on Northern Ireland begins, it may be convenient to the House if I make a statement, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, about the future of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have visited this establishment, and we have given long and careful consideration to the representations made to keep this Training School at Londonderry, by the Prime Minister and Government of Northern Ireland, the Mayor of Londonderry, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and other hon. Members.

Nevertheless, we have come to the conclusion that the advantages in economy and efficiency to be gained by moving the school to Plymouth are so great that they must be accepted. The move will save between £400,000 and £500,000 a year, and will also make available well over 200 officers and ratings for service elsewhere. The run-down will not take full effect for about three years, and during that time, in conjunction with the Government of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will make every effort to bring new employment to the area.

This was a hard decision to take, because it must break a strong and fruitful link between the Royal Navy and this part of Northern Ireland, and will be a blow to the city and people of Londonderry. Nevertheless, quite apart from the substantial economies I have mentioned, the move will have decisive operational advantages not only for the Navy but also for the R.A.F.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Can the Minister tell me what capital cost will be incurred at Plymouth as a result of the transference there of this school, and what capital expenditure will be written off at Londonderry as a result of facilities there becoming useless for other purposes?

Mr. Mayhew

The capital cost at Plymouth will be less than a single year's saving on the move—that is, less than £500,000. As for the value of the accommodation which we are leaving, it is difficult to calculate this, but we have circulated all relevant Government Departments with a full statement of the facilities and the accommodation.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Is the Minister aware that this is a very sombre note to strike just before the opening of a debate on Northern Ireland and that in Northern Ireland the Government will be judged by their actions rather than their words? Is he also aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. May we begin as we mean to go on? There is no point in hon. Members shouting across the Floor at each other.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the forthcoming debate today will provide an opportunity, which I hope the Government will take, of spelling out the case for this step in far more detail than has been spelled out here, because at the moment it is wholly unconvincing, having regard to the damage which it will do in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mayhew

The case, broadly, is that the move will, in effect, make available to the Navy the equivalent of 1½ extra submarines and 1½ extra frigates and 200 more officers and ratings and will bring about a saving of nearly .500,000 a year. We are strongly pressed by hon. Members opposite to make economies in defence expenditure. Indeed, I thought that it was the Opposition's policy to try to restrain Government expenditure and to make it economic. If that is so, the Opposition have no right whatever to oppose a move so obviously dictated by operational and economic considerations.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Is not this a shocking decision both socially and economically? How many hundreds of unskilled men, mostly middle-aged, who have known no other work will be put out of work by it? Is this really an eleventh-hour decision? If the Minister has had all the figures wrong this summer, will he make a new submission to his colleagues and see that the matter is considered by the Cabinet, otherwise the regional professions of the Government will look like an empty cynical sham?

Mr. Mayhew

It is quite untrue to say that there has been any confusion on our part about the figures. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the figures which I have mentioned to him, and, indeed, to the Mayor of Londonderry and to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, are that 232 unestablished and 249 established civilians are involved. But, as I say, this move will not take place for two or three years. After all, we in the Navy Department have been concerned, unfortunately, with the possible redundancy of thousands of civilian workers in recent years as a result of trying to ensure greater efficiency and greater economy. In all cases, by taking great care in individual cases we have avoided hardship, and we firmly intend that this will happen again.

Mr. Ogden

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an honest and courageous statement to make, particularly in view of the debate which will follow? Is this to be a complete closure and abandonment of the base, or is there to be any attempt to maintain a nucleus for possible use which we hope will never be called upon? Is this to be a mothball operation?

Mr. Mayhew

No. The plan is to replace the base with other forms of work using this accommodation.

Mr. Lubbock

Has the Minister considered extending the scope of the consultants who have been appointed to try to help with the Short Bros. and Harland redundancy so that they can also advise on the kind of work which would be most suitable for the people who will be made redundant in Londonderry?

Mr. Mayhew

I will look into that suggestion.

Captain Orr

Is the Minister aware that this decision will be greeted with anger and dismay in the whole of Northern Ireland? As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said, it involves the livelihood of hundreds of people who will have difficulty in finding other employment. What does the Minister mean when he says in his statement that the Government will make efforts to find alternative employment for those in the area? Can he amplify that? Will he repudiate the laughter with which his statement was greeted by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Mayhew

Of course, as I said in my statement, this is bound to be a blow to Londonderry. I have been there, and I have spoken to everyone concerned. I am fully aware of the deep emotional attachment on both sides—on the Navy side and on the side of Londonderry—but I ask hon. Members who are constantly pressing the Government to be efficient and economical in their defence expenditure to judge whether we should go on renouncing economies of the scale I have explained and operational advantages of the size I have explained even for the prospect of the possibility that in two or three years these civilians may still be without work, which I do not expect. We have to balance one thing against the other. In my view, the Opposition should have faced this problem years ago when they were the Government.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Would the hon. Gentleman give the House the unemployment figure in Plymouth compared with that in Londonderry?

Mr. Mayhew

Not without notice. But it is part of Government policy to build up Plymouth.

Sir Knox Cunningham

The Minister stated that this scandalous closure was due to economic considerations. Would he say how much public money will be involved in unemployment benefit for the people who will be put out of work in Londonderry?

Mr. Mayhew

Our plan is to take new work there. We sincerely hope that there will not be extra unemployment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The Minister has visited Londonderry with a view to effecting economies. Is he aware that he could achieve far greater economies if he went to Garloch and scrapped the £45 million polaris base?

Mr. Mayhew

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall apply the same effort to being economical and efficient in Garloch as in Londonderry

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We have pursued this far enough.