HC Deb 12 March 1968 vol 760 cc1223-47

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £34,042,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, 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, 1969.

5.34 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

We now come to Naval Research and Development. Vote 4 A gives the pay and allowances of those engaged in such research and development, and Vote 4 B details the other expenditure associated with it.

When we come to look at the explanation of the proposed expenditure totalling some £34 million, we find that only about 34- pages are devoted to it in the White Paper, and the burden of my song today will be to ask if we can have more information about a number of detailed topics which I will outline. In addition, I wonder whether £34 million out of a total of approximately £250 million for defence research and development is a fair and equitable share to allocate to Naval research and development.

Under the heading "Ships, hulls and machinery", which is Vote 4 B(1), can we be told what research has been done on the Harrier carrier hull design? Has research been done? If not, why not, and, if so, with what result? I would emphasise the importance which I attach to the Harrier carrier, the "cheap" carrier, the "Healey" carrier, or whatever it is called. Incidentally, let us not call it the "mini" carrier. I wonder if the Minister has seen a copy of The Naval Review for October, 1967, which carries an article entitled, "Woolworth Carrier—V.T.O.L. version." There is a diagram of how such a hull could be devised, and the author's estimated cost is between £10 million and £20 million, according to the equipment, on the basic hull built as a tanker with an estimated building cost of between £2½ and £3 million.

I do not pin my faith on the details of this ship, but we would like to be assured that the Minister has looked at this basic concept without prejudice and that he will let us know what the results of those investigations were. It is a subject which has been raised more than once in these debates, and I do not feel that the Opposition have had a satisfactory answer on a matter about which they feel very strongly.

Next I come to the hunter/killer submarine programme. We have been told only one fact, and that is that it will be cut. Can the Minister say whether there were any research and development factors concerned with it? We want to know why it has been cut and why the Government do not go ahead with the type of ship which they themselves declare will now form the main striking power of the Royal Navy. Under the heading of research and development, we seek to know whether there may be some R. & D. factor or snag which has arisen causing the Government to take this astonishing action.

Are the present hulls and machinery giving cause for concern? If not, why do not the Government press on with this project? In addition, would it be possible to get on faster with the hunter/ killer submarines, for which we understand there is a new basic design under consideration or development? Would it be possible to avoid delay if a bigger proportion of the R. & D. effort was applied to this submarine?

Arising from that, can the Minister say something about nuclear propulsion for surface vessels? It seems to be a matter of growing importance, as the number of bases available for refuelling round the world become fewer in number. I am aware that nuclear propulsion for surface vessels is a subject which often appears in these naval money Votes.

My third subject, which is of terrific importance, relates to anti-submarine warfare and the research and development which is being devoted to it. Page 85 of the Grey Paper has some schematic diagrams showing the block allocations of money to the various defence items. Opposite "Research and Development" there is a big block of £254 million. Of that very considerable total, we see only a little block of £15 million for ship and underwater warfare. At first blush this seems an extraordinarily small allocation of research and development funds for a subject of such importance to this country, as was clearly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night when he reminded the House that this nation has been brought near to starvation on two occasions in the last 50 years.

The Royal Navy, by common consent, is, or has been, in the forefront of the world both technically and operationally in the deployment of all the various forces, weapons and equipment which comprise the subject of anti-submarine warfare. Can the Minister say whether there has been any significant breakthrough in technique? Can he convince the House that enough emphasis has been placed on this subject at Portland, where the research work is concentrated, because the total expenditure appears to be marginally down? Will he also be a little more forthcoming than has been the case in the past, because many people feel that, although obviously there are security classifications, there has been over much security and over much secrecy on this important subject? For instance, there are only six words about it in the Grey Paper. At page 38, it states, … sonar equipments and their associated trainers… We feel that he can do better than that, or we hope so.

The next subject is hovercraft, where, again, we have very bald statements. The Navy apparently is to be responsible for the base repair, spare provision and so on for all the Services. Not only has the hovercraft tremendous significance in anti-submarine warfare, which we were talking about a few minutes ago, but we know that the Army is interested in it. If the Navy is to be responsible on an inter-Service basis, it must put its best foot forward.

I refer next to torpedoes. I was a torpedo specialist, and I am well aware of the history of torpedo development. It has not been particularly brilliant. However, we should like to be brought up to date about torpedo research and development. I have heard it said that a hunter/killer nuclear submarine of the most modern type armed with only a mark VIII torpedo from the 1930s, based on a World War One concept, is like going into action in a Chieftain tank waving a spear out of the front.

I now turn to the amount of effort which is being put into the whole sweep of oceanography and hydrography. There are much wider issues involved here. There are not only anti-submarine considerations, but pro-submarine considerations. In other words, increased knowledge of the sea—conditions in the sea, under the sea and on the bottom of the sea—is necessary if one is to operate this altogether new concept of nuclear submarines darting about. It used to be said—if I might have the Minister's attention—that a submarine is a slightly intelligent mine, but this is no longer true of nuclear submarines, which go faster than any surface vessel. I should like the Minister to explain how much research and development effort is devoted here, because there are wide issues involved. There is the whole question of minerals and proteins growing under water and diamond mining and fish farming. What help are the Government giving to the oil companies and our fishing fleet whose troubles have been ventilated in the House very recently?

It is important that the Defence Department should take a very wide outlook and not confine its attention to the pure defence aspects of this type of research. There is a great deal of fall out or spin off, or whatever one likes to call it, which can help the economic situation of this country.

Arising directly from this and from Vote 4 C, Hydrographic Services, I should like the Minister to say something about the Falkland Islands. They are of obvious strategic importance, besides being the access point to the Antarctic with its untapped reserves by way of mineral geophysical exploration and so on. A circular letter has been sent from the Falkland Islands headed with the impeccable sentiment "Desire the right". It says Are you aware that negotiations are now proceeding between the British and Argentine Governments which may result at any moment in the handing over of the Falkland Islands to The Argentine? Take note that the inhabitants of the Islands have never yet been consulted regarding their future. They do not want to become Argentines. They are as British as you are, mostly of English and Scottish ancestry, even to the 6th generation. Five out of six were born in the Islands. Many elderly people have never been elsewhere. There is no racial problem, no unemployment, no poverty and we are not in debt. This is directly linked with Vote 4 C. It continues, and this is the question I ask the Minister: Are you aware that the people of these Islands do not wish to submit to a Foreign Language, Law, Customs and Culture, because for 135 years they have happily pursued their own peaceful way of life "—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Member may be relating this to the Vote, but it is not apparent at the moment. I wonder whether the hon. Member can help us?

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

I agree that it is difficult to see where this might be related to this Vote, but it is directly related to it under Hydrographic Services. We see from the Grey Paper that H.M.S. "Protector" has been engaged on hydro-graphic services in the Falkland Islands Survey.

I was asking the Minister whether he was aware that the people of these islands do not wish to submit to a foreign language and so on. They do not wish to be placed under the Argentine.

The letter continues: Lord Caradon said to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1965, ' The people of this territory are not to be betrayed or bartered. Their wishes and their interests are paramount and we shall do our duty in protecting them'. Can we he assured that that is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government? British Ministers have said the same until 1967 since when there has been silence. Therefore, not unnaturally, the people of these dependencies are worried.

My last question is the question that they ask: Is our tiny community to be used as a pawn in Power Politics? Do you not feel ashamed that this wicked thing may suddenly be foisted on us? What can you do to prevent it? What are you doing? Will the Minister please say what the Government are doing?

5.50 p.m.

Dr. Bennett

My hon. and gallant Friend and neighbour, the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), in one of the many important and germane points which he touched on his speech, referred to Vote 4 B(1), ships, hulls and machinery, and referred to the cutting of hunter/killer submarine programme, the one which was itself so much magnified in prospect by the future Prime Minister in that famous speech long ago. This programme, the darling it would seem of the Labour Party when in opposition, is now being cut, and the interesting thing is that it may well be that it is under this Vote that the real trouble comes

I should like to know a great deal more about H.M.S. "Dreadnought", which I imagine to be the prototype of these submarines. I believe that all is not well. It is all very well for the Government to say that she is going in. It has been trumpeted during every debate with any relevance to the Navy throughout this marathon of defence debates in the last week, that she is going in for this greatest of all refits next May, or whenever it may be. I see from the Annex to this grizzly Grey Paper, on page 93, that she is listed under the heading, Reserve or undergoing long refit, conversion, etc. If she is going from one refit to another, this may give some substance to what I have been hearing about her not being a particularly effective ship. There is, of course, no criticism of the men aboard her, but is she fully seaworthy? Is she capable of proper operational use? Is she capable of the deep diving for which she is designed?

I should like specific answers, and I should, in the fullness of time, like to know how many days she has spent at sea outside harbour during the last 12 months. I believe that things are not as they should be, and this perhaps gives substance to the grounds for cutting back the programme. I hope that what I have heard is not true, but this is something which must be stilled formally, or it will have to be assumed to be true.

5.53 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

I am glad to be able to take part in this short debate on the research and development Vote for the Navy. I regret that, owing to a commitment, I have to leave at 6.20, so I hope the House will excuse me if I appear to be discourteous.

Obviously this Vote has been under discussion, and presumably this explains the fact that, compared with last year, we have no detailed break-down of the programme as between the different heads. Last year we were told quite clearly that so much would be spent on aircraft, so much on guided weapons, and so much on electronics. This year it is all left in the melting pot. I hope that following their considerations, all three Armed Services, and particularly the Navy, will, in their next White Paper in June, give us a detailed break-down of these research and development programmes.

Perhaps the Minister could also tell us what proportion of research and development is inter-mural, undertaken at the Navy's own research establishment, and how much is extra-mural, undertaken in industry by industrial firms. This information will be of interest to the House, and if one can compare it with the other Services, it will be an even more useful yardstick.

I propose now, to say a word about the contract procedures for work—it is sometimes development, and sometimes production—which is undertaken for the Navy by industrial firms. It was recently announced by the Government that firms would be rewarded to the extent of 14 per cent. when there was an element of risk in the contract. This compares with 15 per cent. in the United States, but it is better than some of the rumours, which we heard were coming from the Treasury, that 8¾ per cent. was the maximum return likely to be given to firms for the work they did. I wonder whether the general directive given by the Treasury has been passed down, and is getting down into industry, about how this 14 per cent. profit margin is likely to be achieved. Obviously a code of conduct will have to be worked out, but as far as I know this has not yet reached the lower echelons of the Civil Service and into industry.

I cannot help feeling that one of the weaknesses in controlling research and development programmes in the Navy, and in the other Services, lies in the shortage of fully qualified accountants. It is a rather strange fact that there are only 300 qualified chartered accountants in the whole of the Government's Whitehall machine. This means that there are a limited number of qualified people who can control research and development programmes, and this may explain why errors sometimes occur in the Ministry of Technology, and sometimes in the defence establishments.

I hope that, progressively, contracts will be placed with a considerable incentive for those firms which are trying to improve on prices, and that extra profits will be shared between the Government and the firms which show that initiative.

I should like to see a more widespread use of value engineering which is coming in, and I commend the Government for it, because this is widely following the United States on research and development and production contracts. It is the right way to get the best value for money in our defence services.

In the 1966 White Paper we were told: We shall develop a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile-firing ships. Since then we have been probing to discover what progress has been made on that stated objective. Only last week we had a statement from the Minister of Defence for Equipment that this has apparently been postponed, and that we are to rely on helicopter-borne missiles to perform this function.

I do not object to that, but I should like to know how much has been spent so far. I hope that the new weapon will be truly effective. I recognise that from a helicopter one gets a further horizon, that one lifts the horizon to a much greater extent than from a ship, and therefore there is some advantage in using the helicopter, but, up to date, despite innumerable inquiries, and I think even one Adjournment debate, we have had no information about any firm programme to follow up the promise that was made only two years ago.

Every Government—and I touched on this in a speech last week—have to cancel research and development contracts. Much was made of this in the election campaigns, and in the Labour Party election literature, which I study carefully, in 1964 and 1966. I hope that we can call a truce in this contest, because in two and a half years, in money terms, the Government have cancelled as much as we did in 13 years. I hope it can be made clear that if the Government undertake projects, in relation to which technology is advancing rapidly, if they do their duty, in the early stages there will inevitably have to be cancellations. If there are no cancellations, they will not be doing their job. Someone wisely said, "If you make no mistakes, you make nothing".

My fear is that because of mistakes made in various respects, of which much political capital has been made, the Government may be slow to initiate new projects, and that in a few years' time we shall find ourselves bereft of advanced technological weapons in all three services. The Government must not fall for this error. I hope that they will be robust in standing up to the Treasury, and starting projects which they believe to be in the interests of our defence Services, even if at a later stage some have to be set aside. This is only natural. It happens in commercial industry in our efforts to export, and it is natural that it should happen in our defence industries as well. If mistakes are not made, we shall get none of the weapons we need but shall be forced to buy them with valuable foreign exchange, which would de disastrous for our balance of payments.

Everyone who has served in the Admiralty respects the Hydrographic Department, which has a deservedly marvellous reputation throughout the world for the quality, accuracy and printing standard of its charts. While I was there, we initiated the miniature chart, which was to be suitable for the smaller yachtsman. How are they going?

I notice that there is to be an expansion of the sale of charts this year, which is agreeable. As a result, it comes on Vote 4 Z, Appropriations in Aid, and, over the last three years, the proceeds from sales have risen from £480,000 to £526,000 to £640,000. This is worth while and I hope that we will consider whether we have enough retail outlets. They should not be concentrated in the hands of the Admiralty or the Hydrographer. I hope that we can use the places where young people increasingly use small boats and yachts in this expanding industry and that the Admiralty realises the potential. The charts might also indoctrinate young people with the advantages of the Royal Navy and thus attract recruits.

It is agreeable that the cost of production has risen from £320,000 to £340,000 to £402,000. Since the Admiralty is getting £640,000 I am glad that it is not keeping to the niggling 4 per cent. profit margin which the rest of industry has to exercise. More power to its elbow: it is making a unique profit which is a good thing so long as it is in the face of overseas competition.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I am sorry that this Vote has decreased by £500,000, but it is difficult to delve too deeply, and nor would it be in the public interest in the case of certain projects. But it would be all right to ask whether there is likely to be any reduction or concentration of research establishments, as one might expect in present circumstances.

I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Hydrographic Department in the past. One does not grudge it the expenditure, but one wonders what is the total cost. The sum of £1,400,000 is obviously only part, for its ships. Page 54 of the Grey Paper tells us that H.M.S. "Vidal" has been in the Indian Ocean most of the year, that H.M.S. "Dampier" has also spent her time in the Far East and has now been paid off. Will she be replaced? It strikes one, at a time when our withdrawal east of Suez has been announced, that there must have been a great deal of work going on there, and that some of this oceanographic work was perhaps paid for by the National Institute of Oceanography or its successor, which comes under the Department of Education and Science.

I should like to know how far this work, which must have been expensive, was on a repayment basis and whether it is intended to continue hydrographic work east of Suez, even though we now contemplate withdrawing our own ships from the area.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

Vote 47 concerns £7 million for research and development on ships, hulls and machinery and over £10½ million for weapons systems. I want to discuss surface-to-surface missiles and ships' hulls. In February, 1966, in the White Paper, the Government said: We shall develop a small surface-to-surface missile for use against missile-firing ships. They referred to the same weapon again on the following page. Nothing was said about this in the 1967 White Paper, but in an Adjournment debate on 13th November last year, the Minister of Defence for Equipment said: Since last year we have been examining—and this is what the Defence Review White Paper said—the development of a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile-firing ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 186.] Nothing is said about this weapon in the Grey Paper this year.

This is the story up to date, except for last night, when, in winding up, the Minister of Defence for Administration said: We are providing surface protection helicopters and so on and not planning to supply the Fleet with any surface-to-surface guided weapon in the sense of a missile fired directly from a ship. In other words, it is now clear—I should like the Under-Secretary to confirm this—that the Government have dropped the development of any surface-to-surface missile, leaving aside, of course, the surface-to-surface capability of existing missiles. They have now said clearly that, for ship strike, they will depend on helicopters carrying certain air-to-surface weapons.

I have already suggested that helicopters have several disadvantages. The first is vulnerability. If any fixed-wing enemy aircraft were in the vicinity, a helicopter pilot would not be happy. Then there are the questions of bad weather, visibility and night flying. I understand that the weapon which will arm the helicopter is the AS12, which is wire-guided, which means that the target must be visible. What happens at night?

Even more fundamental is the question of range, In the Adjournment debate which I mentioned, the Minister said that the range of this weapon, the AS12, is 7,500 yards, and that this outranges the cannon and small guns of the Russian fast patrol boats, but that was not the point. We were asking how the Government would deal with the Russian-built fast patrol boats in the Ossa class which are in the hands of many other satellite navies and which have a range of 17 to 20 miles. That is certainly given in many reference books, but, if the range is not accepted, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the Admiralty considers the range to be.

Therefore, the Government said clearly in an Adjournment debate that the range of the British weapon was 7,500 yards and the range of the Russian 17 or 20 miles. Last night, the Minister said that they were not planning to provide surface-to-surface missiles but would provide more helicopters, and, referring to the missiles on the helicopters, he said: These missiles have a range far exceeding that of the Styx missile or any other missile likely to be developed for fast patrol boats of the Komar type."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 11th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1108, 1109.] That seems a complete inconsistency. One Minister of Defence says that the British weapon's range is 7,500 yards and the other that it has a bigger range than the equivalent Russian weapon, which we know to be approximately 17 miles.

Also, of course, we were not necsssarily talking about the Styx missile. I referred, both last night and in that Adjournment debate, to the new Russian surface-to-surface missiles carried in their Kresta class and later destroyers which are said to have a range of up to 300 miles. This may be in excess but I believe everyone will agree that the likely range of the weapons is well over 200 miles.

On a number of occasions in this House I have asked the Government Front Bench to tell me how the Royal Navy is to deal with these Russian destroyers. If we have fixed-wing aircraft we know how to deal with them but if we have not is it really expected that a helicopter is to go up and to get within 8,000 yards of a Russian destroyer and then fire these wire-guided missiles, to discharge them at a ship which is equipped with a missile with a range of 200 to 300 miles? To me that is absolute nonsense. That is why I asked the Under-Secretary, as I have asked on many occasions in this House, how, without fixed-wing aircraft, the Royal Navy are to be expected to deal with modern long-range Russian surface-to-surface missiles with which all the new destroyers are equipped.

The Minister said last night that, of course, the missiles will be shot down—or that is the implication—by the surface-to-air missiles with which our ships are equipped and I agree that the Sea Dart and the more modern surface-to-air missiles have a very effective antimissile capability. As I understand the Minister he said last year, and repeated last night, that we are developing further new surface-to-air missiles. I am delighted to hear it, but that is not the point of the basic question which I want answered.

My other point is the question of ship hulls. Last night, I asked the Minister of Defence whether it was cheaper to develop a long-range surface-to-surface missile system than to develop flat-tops. We have discussed during a number of our naval debates whether a converted oiler or ore-carrier hull, to carry helicopters or short take-off aircraft is cheaper than developing a long-range surface-to-surface missile system. He dismissed the suggestion in two or three words, saying that a flat-top would not be cheaper. I understand that to mean that the development of a whole long-range missile system will be cheaper than developing a number of hulls for flat-tops. I cannot understand this; for the facts do not seem to fit and I should like the Government to explain how they reach that conclusion.

On a number of occasions, various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on these benches have put forward suggestions for what we jokingly called the Healey carrier, a large ship, a converted oiler or a ship built with an oiler hull or ore-carrier hull—a large hull or "flat-top" should be comparatively cheap. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that a standard hull could be used for anti-submarine work, if that should be needed in the Atlantic, for air strike in the Indian Ocean should that be necessary to replace the Commando carriers which are ageing rapidly and will have to be replaced at some time, and also for headquarter ship functions. Thus, there could be four different naval functions embodied in one hull.

The Parliamentary Secretary discussed the new cruisers to follow "Tiger". One assumes these will cost £30 million to £40 million. What is to be their function? We are trying to find out what will be the rôle of the ships and therefore how they will be designed. Taking the "Tiger" as the starting point, one takes it that instead of 6-inch guns these will have Sea Dart and that instead of four Sea Kings they will have, say, six. Would it not be cheaper to put research and development into developing the suggested form of flat-top instead of going on with cruisers costing large sums of money for which I cannot see a real rôle?

I suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to explain to those on this side what the rôle of these cruisers will be, and I feel that it is putting forward a perfectly reasonable case to suggest that spending research and development on a standard hull for a "flat-top" might be cheaper than spend research and development on the new Commando carriers when they become necessary and on the new cruisers already referred to in the Estimates. If we are wrong we should like to be told why. It is no good the Minister, in winding up, dismissing this whole question in two or three words. I and a number of hon. Gentlemen on this side believe that the Government will eventually have to provide some form of air strike or surface-to-surface missile for the protection of ships of the Royal Navy. I believe that on the whole the "flat-top" concept is more likely to be cheaper than the surface-to-surface missile, and that any Opposition is entirely justified in asking the Government to explain their views and to be annoyed when they merely try to slap us down by saying, "We do not agree". We want to know why they do not agree, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will this time reply in some detail.

6.17 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)

I intervene very briefly to ask the Secretary of State a question which arises from pure ignorance on my part. Every time I hear my hon. Friends putting a stream of questions to the Government Front Bench I am impressed by the amount they seem to know on so many subjects. I notice that Vote 4, which we are considering, includes a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau. I am neither an hydrographer nor a bureaucrat but on looking at Subhead D I see that there is a note saying: Expenditure out of this subscription will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Any unexpended balance of the sum issued will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. From this it looks as though the Minister and his right hon. Friend can spend a night or two of rum and riot on any unexpended portion of this Vote. In the preceding year, 1967–68, the sum entered into was £3,930. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred to certain items on which it would not be in the public interest for us to be informed about. I do not know whether one could get very much secret activity going for £3,930, but I notice that the sum entered for the current financial year is £7,835. We are seeking to put in almost twice the amount for this international subscription. I know we have devalued but we have not devalued by that much. I would ask the Government, therefore, if they can tell me why this subscription has been nearly doubled, whether the sum has been fully expended and what value the country gets from this international subscription.

6.19 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers

I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for not being here earlier, but I had to be present at another Committee. I should like to follow the point of my hon. Friend on the question of hydrographic services. I believe that at present there is a great need to develop the food resources of the sea to meet the needs of the expanding population and I feel that under this Vote there is a need to co-ordinate the efforts being made by so many small independent organisations.

I gather that there are three major faculties, art, science and marine engineering, and we need to develop this side far more. I was glad to see that the amount of the Vote was slightly increased. I gather that the marine services, hydrography, oceanography, marine biology and ocean bed geology could all be tackled under this Vote and coordinated far more than at present.

Then there is the question of the human factors incorporating the psychology of diving and medical problems of men under water, as well as survival and rescue. We have seen recently in the episode concerning the fishermen in Icelandic waters how necessary it is to have knowledge on how one can survive and to understand the psychology of the people who undertake these jobs. The Faculty of Marine Engineering would, in addition, be concerned with the development of underwater chambers, diving equipment and submarine design.

At Plymouth we have an excellent marine biology laboratory which we can say leads the world. Much more should be done in co-ordinating these services. Perhaps there could be a central headquarters at Plymouth rather than keen all these small organisations going, which is probably a considerable waste of money. The Royal Navy has played a major part in underwater training of research, but now the expansion beyond the limits of defence requirements demands the coordination of naval expertise with civilian development.

Will the Under-Secretary of State consider working in with civilians in these matters? Many ships are working in tropical oceans and therefore we might have a joint project with Commonwealth countries and perhaps eventually a student degree course and develop more aquatic sports and training in sea rescue and survival techniques.

This is not a novel idea. We discussed at the Council of Europe the provision of more knowledge of the sea, particularly from the point of view of feeding the expanding population. The Navy could perform a considerable peace-time rôle which would be intensely interesting and which would add to our knowledge of the sea. There are some great experts in this country, including Surgeon Rear-Admiral Miles, of the Royal Naval Hospital at Stonehouse, who understands the techniques of this subject. It is a question, not of having to train more people, but of using their knowledge in the best possible way. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider these points, because they could be of great advantage not only to the Navy but to many people in the world.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I wish that the Leader of the Opposition had been present to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). If he had been here, he might not have poured ridicule on the conference organised by my right hon. Friend on precisely this subject. If I am late for the debate, it is simply because I have been attending that conference since 10 o'clock.

The Ministry of Defence deserves the maximum credit for the initiative which it has taken. It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition, in his ignorance, to make the silly remarks which he made. I hope that he will read what the hon. Lady has said.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Powell

We are all glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has surfaced from his deep dive.

I should like to make two points. First, I emphasise that I hope that we shall get substantive and sensible replies to the clear and definite questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) addressed to the Government. The manner in which the Minister of Defence for Administration reacted last night after my hon. Friend had spoken was, in my view, insulting to the House and therefore to the country. I do not think that the crucially important matters which my hon. Friend raised can be swept aside in sentences of half a dozen words, as unfortunately happened last night.

Secondly, I wish to reinforce a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), who referred to the research and development programme described in Chapter VI of the Defence Statement. There is a significant difference between this chapter and chapters in preceding White Papers. We have always had in preceding White Papers the costing of the individual programmes, and the total has been the sum of the individual programmes. In other words, it has been a total arrived at rationally. Even when we were told of the £30 million cut as at 1970–71 in the White Paper of last July, the Government said that it had emerged from a study of the research and development programme. On page 9 of last July's Red Paper, they said: We have also reviewed the defence research and development programme. A cut of about £30 million is to be made in the planned level of expenditure for 1970–71. Significantly, it happens the other way round this year. We are told this year what is to be the total figure for research and development for 1968–69. It is £6 million less in money terms than the corresponding figure for last year, but it must be considerably less than the planned figure would otherwise have been for the financial year 1968–69. We are told that the figure "takes into account the reduction announced immediately following devaluation in November and the further cut announced by the Prime Minister in January". But we discover later that the Government have no idea how that cut is to be absorbed.

Here we have the proof of what we have been saying throughout these debates—that the Government have been proceeding on the principle of "cut first and think afterwards". We were told that there was to be such-and-such a cut; we know the figure that it results in for 1968–69. But we do not know the implications of the cut. We do not know the reduction on the otherwise planned programme which the Prime Minister's statement involved. Now we are told that the Government propose to settle down and see what the consequences of that will be. Therefore, instead of building up to a lower total through a careful review and whittling of the programme, the opposite is happening. They have thought of the figure and propose to set about seeing how it can be fitted in. Therefore, we have an irrational outturn and an irrational Vote.

We see very clearly the process on page 36 of the White Paper, the Government say: Work is now in hand to establish what further adjustments to the programme will be necessary in the light of the Prime Minister's statement. This is no little matter in itself. The impact of this thoughtless, unplanned cut, the consequences of which are not yet known, on the research and development programme is no light matter. What is more serious is that it is typical of the way in which defence policy and defence expenditure generally have been affected by the decisions announced on 16th January.

We must record under this Vote that this gives evidence of how justified our criticism has been and how well founded our fears are about the slapdash manner in which the January decisions were taken and of the fact that the Government, when they took and announced those decisions, had no idea at all of their practical effect on the Services and our defence.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Foley

Before commenting on the points that have been made on Vote 4, it might be helpful if I refer to the presentation of the heads in the Vote and wonder if this has added anything to what has been the previous practice of presenting these matters. I assure hon. Members that I am willing to consider this matter again to see if it is possible to present the items to the House in a more adequate way.

The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) mentioned the figure of £34 million and asked F we were satisfied that the Navy was gating a fair and equitable share. He will have seen in the Grey Paper on pages 84 and 85 a functional analysis of defence expenditure. Under the head "Research and Development" is the figure £254 million. I assure him that many of the other heads are of direct benefit to the Navy. Although I do not want to go into too much detail, I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figure is much more than £34 million. It so happens that we are carrying that share of the load in these Votes.

The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) wondered what work was being done at establishments and outside them. The answer to that question must depend on the nature of the work. It is our policy to make the fullest practical use of the research of industry. However, in some spheres, such as in under-water matters, industrial interest up to now has been limited and that has restricted our ability to work with industry. In recent times, however, there has been a noticeable change in the attitude of industry in this matter.

This brings me to the question of how we should develop contacts with industry. It is our intention to try to do this because we prefer to see a joint partnership in the development of schemes. This is particularly so when we wish to pay our share of the investment in R. & D. projects, if we can show that sales and an export potential exist. In such instances we and industry share the costs and personnel in carry- ing out a task if we can see a military and civilian application.

The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) asked about the "Dreadnought". To my knowledge, she is going in for her first major refit, and this will be a nuclear refit. There have been, and always will be, teething troubles with the first of a new class, particularly when one is pioneering something. However, I have no grounds for thinking that anything fundamental is involved or that anything so profound arises as to set back this whole development of nuclear propulsion in submarines and surface vessels.

Exhaustive tests are taking place at Dounreay into the nuclear propulsion of vessels and this work will prove useful when we assess the cost involved. I think that, in the last analysis, it will be a question of cost, and in this respect private industry has not so far shown a great deal of interest. One might have expected to see greater and accelerated progress in this sphere if there had been a sharing of the load. This is an example of how we are carrying the whole burden in these Votes in developing something which will be of tremendous benefit to the whole nation.

In considering the hunter/killers, I cannot add anything to what was said yesterday. We have ordered the O 7. which is the improved class of "Valiant". We already have an improved nuclear reactor and this will give far greater power, greater diving capacity and the ability to withstand greater pressures, in addition to enabling faster speeds to be achieved.

When we talk about research and development we must remember that not always do the big things matter. Not necessarily the dramatic but the small advances are often the most important in the long run, such as eliminating noise and the achievement of more effective lubrication. All these things add to the effectiveness of the present and future generation of ships.

In the same way, when we speak about new weapons and so on, there is really not a beginning or an end in terms of research analyses and studies. I agree that, with regard to a surface-to-surface missile, things have changed. The change has occurred because of the evolution of the project, because of reconsidering the requirement of the Fleet—what it will be up against, what we can produce in the time-scale and in terms of the quantity and quality required—and similar considerations. These things are not immutable and it would be foolish for us to stick rigidly to any preconceived idea in matters of this kind.

I assure the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), particularly to answer his questions about carriers, that a rethinking is taking place all the time. I fully understand his concern, and the concern of those who serve in the Fleet, about the nakedness of being at sea without air cover. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's desire to have us guarantee that this will never happen. However, it is equally difficult to spell out in detail, for obvious reasons, precisely where we are going, what we have achieved in terms of research and development and what we have in mind in this respect. Hon. Members who are serving on the Select Committee on Science and Technology have had a chance to visit a number of defence establishments and will have found points of great interest to them.

It may be that to try to define what is classified, and what is not under that heading, should be further considered. I would be willing to do this to see what further information can be given. After all, if, when we think in terms of modern weaponry, we say that we have torpedoes which are inadequate, what is the reason for that? I ask that question without apportioning blame. I merely pose the question without making further comment. If we try to apportion blame, does that help us? Of course it does not. It has already been announced that we are developing the Mark 24 torpedo and—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

I gather, since the hon. Gentleman is talking about torpedoes, that he has concluded his remarks about a surface-to-surface missile and carriers. We appreciate the difficulty of the Government, of any Government, from the security point of view in giving details of weapons and advanced technologies. However, this is much more than an R. & D. matter. The surface-to-surface missile, about which the hon. Gentleman is saying that things have changed and with which we will not be proceeding, was given as the primary excuse for doing away with the aircraft carrier. We were told that the carrier would be replaced by an alternative means. Now the alternative means has gone, which makes this far beyond an R. & D. security matter. Indeed, it makes it a fundamental watershed in British naval history.

Mr. Foley

I have no intention of straying too far from the R. & D. aspects of the matter. In terms of broad thinking, within the R. & D. framework, as we lose our commitments east of Suez, we of course arrive at a watershed, particularly in terms of decisions about carriers. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no question of our going back on that. It was announced in 1966 that the carriers would be phased out in the mid-seventies. In so far as we have accelerated the process, the carriers will be phased out some time in 1972.

It is difficult, when planning for new ships, weaponry and so on, to look five to 10 years ahead and say precisely what we will need and where we will be in a given situation. As I have said, I accept that those who have served in the Fleet appreciate the importance of air cover. This was a great argument for the carriers. The party opposite made a great point of it, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must admit that they fluffed it.

The second thing which has accelerated this notion of surface-to-surface missiles was the "Eilat" incident last year. This has been answered in Adjournment debates. The Styx missile was dealt with yesterday in the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration. This missile will be used from a helicopter. We have said that it will have a stand-off range and we have given its range. One cannot develop this too far, but we have stated in the White Paper the studies that are being made for an anti-ship missile fired from a submarine. This is all part of the research which is going on. When we evaluate something and it is going into production we can talk about it, but there is very little I can say about it now. This is why that is as far as I can go this evening on this subject.

Mr. Powell

We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties and we appreciate the considerations of security which are, or may be, involved, but my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) put to the House two apparent and apparently glaring contradictions. One related to the range of the anti-ship missile in relation to the range of the Styx or the F.P.B. missile. The other related to the range and capability of missiles of the new Russian missile-firing destroyers. I am seeking to help the hon. Gentleman, and recognising that there is something here which is very worrying to hon Members. I wonder if he can communicate with my hon. Friend after further consideration and see if this apparent contradiction can be cleared up without any prejudice to the national interest.

Mr. Foley

I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. I think that is a helpful suggestion. I was tempted to visualise an occasion when we could have a forum or seminar in which these things could be discussed more rationally. This may well be within the confines of what is possibly a worth-while exercise, not necessarily to be undertaken by the Ministry of Defence but for the Institute of Strategic Studies. There is, however, a danger of projecting this as if we were thinking of something separate from anything else. When one talks of the Fleet, its shape and composition, all these things come together and cannot be considered in isolation from the rest. I shall pursue the situation and write to the hon. Member.

The question of hovercraft was raised. The Navy has the task of evaluating this further. There is considerable interest in sales potential in a number of countries. I have seen hovercraft operating in the Gulf and off the coast of Libya in evaluation trials. The hon. Member will be delighted to know of the exercise in R. & D. in the Falkland Islands. There is a hovercraft with a group of marines and a control ship in the area. This leads me to deal with questions raised about the Hydrographer. Anyone who has met our Hydrographer is aware of what a great chap he is, what a tremendous enthusiasm he has, and what he has been able to achieve on the limited budget available to him.

Reference was made to the ocean survey ships which are phasing out. The "Dampier" is coming out and in 1965–66 three new survey ships came into operation, the "Hecla", the "Hecuba" and the "Hecate". H.M.S. "Protector", which has done sterling service around the Cape, is coming back on its last journey and will be replaced by "Anita Dam", which is now "Endurance". We are not limiting our research to the cause of oceanography. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said. The suggestion she has made is one which I have studied. I will write to her about it. As she rightly said, this is a field where there is enormous expertise. This is something which is rather precious which we should like to keep for ourselves.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

Before the Under-Secretary returns to London from the Falkland Islands—will he undertake to bring to the notice of the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary the other aspect of the problem which arises in connection with the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Foley

The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to put down a Question. I received the same kind of circular as that to which he referred and I have read it. Each of us can assess it at face value and determine what should be done. If the hon. and gallant Member wants to make representations about it, he knows how to do so.

On the question of oceanography, I stand to be corrected by those who served in my place years ago, but I believe there was a time when this resided exclusively with the Navy. Then there was the time when it became the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. I think one should say that oceanography is basically a matter for the Science Research Council. Although the Navy Department, through the Hydrographer, has a close liaison, the results of research undertaken by the Navy Department are made generally available for wider use by the Council. It is more the initiative of the Science Research Council than that of hydrographers in the Navy to take the lead in these matters. I am willing to see whether one can stimulate further efforts in co-ordination. I shall write to those who raised this matter.

The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) raised the question of the increase. I also was a little baffled. I have been advised that the explanation is that the subscription was put up in 1967–68, but this is a grant-in-aid under which we are not able to spend a penny more than is provided in the Estimates. In the next year's Estimates we provide, not only for next year's increase, but for the balance from this year. In, addition, the subscription is higher in sterling terms because of devaluation.

I believe that I have answered all the questions that have been raised.

Dr. Bennett

What about the "Dreadnought"?

Mr. Foley

I dealt with the question of the "Dreadnought". I said that in the refit there would clearly be teething troubles and we have learned a great deal from it. This has been used in the "Valiant" class and even further in the improved "Valiant" class. I have no ground for believing that this is in any way a cause for harming the programme of further development in the hunter killers.

Dr. Bennett

I apologise to the Under-Secretary. I was out of the Chamber when he started his speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £34,042,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expenses 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 1969.