HC Deb 12 March 1968 vol 760 cc1259-65

Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £12,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

I wish to detain the House for a few moments in connection with this Vote dealing with miscellaneous payments, and I shall refer particularly to the welfare services.

Obviously such naval establishments as Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham have existed for a considerable time and, over the years, there has been an opportunity to build up various welfare and recreational facilities there. A very different state of affairs exists in the new Faslane base in my constituency. It is completely new. I will not say that my constituents wanted it, but it is there. It has been built very rapidly, and the numbers coming into it have grown equally rapidly.

The new base naturally has provided many problems for the local authorities and inhabitants of the area. I should like to think that the Navy would help in the provision of the necessary recreational and welfare facilities because, while the main object is to have an efficient working base, it is true to say that the numbers of naval personnel coming into the area bring certain problems to the district.

My hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the local authority in the town of Helensburgh and the Dunbartonshire County Council have co-operated fully in the provision of water, housing and all the other facilities essential for the creation of the base. But I should like to know what has happened about the provision of recreational facilities for the many naval personnel who are now there.

Before it was decided to put the Faslane base for nuclear submarines in Gareloch, we already had the Third Submarine Squadron. The Church of Scotland was extremely helpful in pro- viding a hostel in Helensburgh to give personnel on leave and visiting Helens-burgh somewhere to go. Clearly, however, the limited facilities at the hostel are not capable of dealing with the problems of the greatly enlarged base.

A new factor which does not apply at existing naval establishments is that we are to have four Polaris submarines. Each of them will have two separate crews. While one crew is on station, the second crew which has been away for a considerable time will be stationed at Gareloch, or Helensburgh, or with their families in the area.

There is some special need in the new circumstances concerning naval personnel. The Committee which has been formed in Helensburgh, which is chaired by the Lord Lieutenant of the county and has many important people serving on it, is hoping to provide a suitable building where naval personnel can meet and where their families will find accommodation if they visit them. I feel that this is something outwith the scone of public contribution. Other hon. Members representing naval ports know that their facilities have grown up over the years, but this establishment has come to this area suddenly and these provisions are necessary.

We all appreciate that naval personnel can be well behaved, but it is essential that we have some facilities in the area—not merely on the base—where they can enjoy decent relaxation. We have problems already, but it should not be left to the local authorities or to this committee to find the money for the necessary facilities. This local committee is anxious to help and assist. It has a very ambitious scheme, but it cannot be carried into effect unless the committee Bets financial assistance from the Government.

I make this plea because of the special circumstances in the creation of this base so quickly. It is right and proper that this responsibility should be borne by the Government.

Another point I wish to touch upon concerns the conveyance of personnel. Gareloch Head cannot have sufficient housing accommodation for all the personnel, and the Admiralty has rightly decided that there should be various housing estates in different parts of the country. This will enable personnel from the base to mix with the other sections of the community. However, this also involves expense in the conveyance of these personnel from those areas to the base. Unfortunately, the road from Helens-burgh to the base, the A814, is very narrow and dangerous. The local authorities are anxious that something should be done about it. With the increase in the number of school children who have to come to Helensburgh for their secondary education, there have already been some accidents. It would be a tragedy if, because of the likely increase in traffic on this road, more serious accidents should take place. I hope and trust that in the discussions which are taking place with the local authorities regarding improvements on this road, my hon. Friend will bring pressure to bear. I have a feeling, having some experience in these matters, that I have a sympathetic listener and perhaps my voice should be reaching other corridors in another department. No doubt the Treasury will make the decision at the end of the day, but I assure my hon. Friend, irrespective of his sympathy, that I intend to press for assistance for the local authorities and this committee who are anxious to help and assist the Navy in the area concerned.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I wish to refer briefly to Subhead H concerning the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts to clear up one point. At first sight, this item seems easy to understand—a slight increase to £1.6 million. However, what I find difficult is the statement at the beginning of the Grey Paper on page 1: First, in 1968–69, for the first time since 1949–50 the cost of armed forces housing will be met entirely from voted monies … As I understood the old system, the money was voted for married quarters overseas, but married quarters at home were met under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts. Does that statement mean that it is now to be met from the voted moneys? If so, where in the Votes is the money to build the married quarters, because it is well known that with more personnel at home more married quarters will be required.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell

I wish to refer to item E. I have had long correspondence on the question of canteen prices at the Royal Elizabeth Yard in West Lothian resulting in an interview with my hon. Friend's predecessor and subsequent correspondence with my hon. Friend. Canteen prices at some of the yards have gone up unnecessarily quickly. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could set more of an example in restraining canteen prices. I think that this is a fair point to make.

Concerning item H, it seems that the Government are asking for more cooperation from certain local authorities. Some local authorities are very good, but certain local authorities could do far more for returning Servicemen either on demobilisation or when they are posted.

Finally, is the Ministry of Defence giving serious thought to the problems that will arise in South Queensferry should the Port Edgar base close down? There would be a good deal of surplus housing in that event. Will there be early discussion with the local authority in this situation?

Another question upon which I should like some comment concerns correspondence with Mr. John Finnigan and others representing the Royal Elizabeth Yard.

7.38 p.m.

Dr. Bennett

I have one local point under Vote 8 G(1), Naval Aviation. In the light of the phasing out in the near future of carriers, the problem of the utilisation of Lee-on-Solent, which has always been the headquarters of the Fleet Air Arm, obviously arises, and it is now reaching a somewhat controversial degree of discussion within the locality.

What is to be done and how? This has so far been on a shared basis with civilian maintenance and some civilian work. Can the Under-Secretary tell me anything that is decided about the future for sharing or other disposal of parts of this base? In any case, what is the long-term proposition?

7.40 p.m.

Miss Quennell

I should like to refer to the Royal United Service Institution, which is mentioned in Chapter III, on page 23, of the Grey Paper. I assume that the appropriate Vote under which to mention this is Vote 8 J(3).

The point that I wish to raise concerns the establishment and development of this Institution. The Grey Paper says on page 23: The need has long been felt for an independent national institute, which would examine defence and overseas problems from a U.K. standpoint. Encouragement and support have been given to plans for developing the Royal United Service Institution … If an institution of this nature is to be at all valuable, its board of governors, or similar managers, must be sufficiently independent at times to be able to advance views which are contrary to those popularly held in the Department. Secondly, their terms of reference must be sufficiently wide to enable them to do so. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Institution will retain a degree of independence, and can he give us some more information about its governors and its work?

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Foley

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised the question of Faslane and the implications of it for the community in the area. I should, first, say how appreciative the Navy is of the way in which the local authority, the churches, and the voluntary bodies there have given a welcome to those who, through no choice of their own, have found themselves in the area. I am referring to the thousands of people, both uniformed and civilian, who work there in support of the Faslane base and the activities in connection with the Polaris and conventional submarine training programmes.

Difficulties have arisen for people in the area, but, having visited it, I must say that I greatly appreciate the understanding which has been shown, and the willingness to help the Navy in terms of getting land, in terms of house building, and so on. There are, however, many problems which remain to be resolved, and one of these rests with the Navy. We are not quite sure whether, in respect of married quarters, we want a community on its own, whether we want the naval community to be part of something much larger, whether we want to provide the amenities, facilities, and services ourselves, or whether we should assume that these will be provided by the local authority, either the town, the burgh, or the country. I think that in this respect we have to recognise that unless we are careful we may make a big mistake. I believe that we have to do much more to weld the links between the civilian and uniformed personnel and the local authority. We all believe that people must belong to a wider community, but this does not absolve us from our responsibilities.

In the area there are facilities for ratings, petty officers, chief petty officers, and officers, as well as accommodation for them. There are also considerable estates for both military and civilian families. This places a great strain on local services. This is one reason why I believe that, by having a relationship with the local authority, we can start to identify problems before they grow and get thrown up in one's face. They can be tackled in their infancy.

The new community for the Navy, which will shortly be opened, will be of enormous help. Sports facilities, an indoor sports arena, and other facilities are already there for those on and off duty, but there remains to be provided the whole range of welfare services which are necessary. To this end we will be appointing a full-time community officer, a number of wardens to each estate, who will live on the estates to help maintain the premises, a W.R.N.S. welfare officer, and a qualified social welfare worker. They will comprise the team to effect liaison with the local authorities to help develop the wider community. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West about the road. I have travelled on it many times. I undertake to see what help we can give.

My hon. Friend made a special plea for the hostel at Helensburgh. This matter is being considered within my Department. As yet, no firm decision has been taken, but I assure my hon. Friend that we understand what this means to the people who are trying to make it a success.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) talked about collaboration with the local authorities. He will be aware, as everyone is, that it is like the curate's egg, good in parts. Some are good, and others are not so good. It may be that our public relations are not as good as they should be, or that we have not paid enough attention to detail in dealing with the local authorities, or perhaps even, that we have been dealing with the wrong person. I think that in he light of experience we can improve our public relations, because it is of vital importance that those coming back are assisted to settle into a new community without any great difficulty.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Elizabeth Yard in connection with the question of rundown. I assure him that there will be discussions about this matter. This will be phased, and we can consider the use by other people of facilities which the Navy might relinquish. In this context I can tell the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) that Lee-on-Solent comes into this category. A review is taking place about the future requirements of the Fleet Air Arm, both in the period up to the phase-out of the fixed-wing, and after. We will be considering what might be relinquished, whether the Royal Air Force should take it over, whether there is a further Service use for it, and, following that, whether any further use can be made of the base. This is part of the exercise which must go on, and I regret that at this moment I cannot say much more about it.

The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) referred to the Royal United Service Institution. I do not know its terms of reference, nor the members of its board of management. I take note of what she said, and I shall write to her. If there is some anxiety about this, I shall be happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Lady to see what can be done to give the Institution the degree of independence and objectivity that it should have.

I am not aware of the problem of canteen prices, but, if my hon. Friend would like to furnish me with details, I shall consider them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £12,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.