HC Deb 04 August 1976 vol 916 cc1837-65

9.32

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

Though it is always a pleasure to discuss hydrography, I cannot honestly say, sincerely grateful though I am for the opportunity to do so, that it is pleasant again to have to record my real anxiety about the capability of the Hydrographic Service adequately to fulfil what many believe to be its vital contemporary tasks. I use the word "many" advisedly, for, as the Minister will know, a substantial number of hon. Members have shown their interest in this subject—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), Fareham (Dr. Bennett), Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Louth (Mr. Brotherton).

I suppose it is inevitable that as the years go by one acquires certain disillusions about public life. One of mine, which I regret, is the view I now firmly hold that good things do not happen automatically. Too often they have to be shouted for or insisted upon. If they are not, they tend not to occur. This, I believe, is just such a case.

I should record my several interests in in this subject. The first is as a user which began as a young man in the Navy during the war when in 1944 I became the navigator of a motor torpedo boat. My interest then shifted to being a sailor of a more amateur sort, and as Admiral of the House of Commons Yacht Club perhaps I may recall in particular my pride at the competence of the service which the Hydrographer and his highly qualified and most capable staff render to both the commercial world and to the growing number of those who seek recreation on the sea.

I then have a constituency interest in that the Hydrographic Department was moved in part to Taunton many years ago. When Lord Orr-Ewing was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, after he had kindly consulted me, it was decided to close what remained of the London end of that branch of the service. Apart from ships at sea and other establishments—for example, at Hertmonceaux—the whole hydrographic service is happily established in the county town of Taunton in my constituency.

We are a maritime nation, and every citizen must have an interest in ensuring that navigation on the high seas is accurate in the interests of our commerce, bearing in mind the huge number of ships arriving at and leaving our ports daily, and must have an interest in the identification of local hazards for the avoidance of difficulty and danger and thus in nautical safety.

As a citizen, I am also naturally interested in the remarkable foreign exchange earnings of nearly £3 million last year derived from the work of the service in the sale of charts and other publications.

One is also bound to have a substantial interest in seeing that United Kingdom waters are properly charted. It is obvious that the prospects for offshore oil exploration are likely to transform the economy of this country. If we are to be successful in that enterprise, it is a condition precedent that there should be proper and accurate charting of our waters.

The Hydrographic Service might appear to be a parochial matter, but I argue the case for an enhanced hydrographic capability in the widest national sense and interest.

If it is disappointing to have to call in question the competence of Governments—I make no party point, because all Governments have shown a dereliction of duty in this regard—in developing the service to match the modern needs of the United Kingdom. However, there is at least one important compensation: the appointment of the Minister who is to reply to this debate.

I apologise for not being able to give the Minister notice of the questions I wish to ask but I was required to be in my constituency today, necessitating a round trip of over 300 miles. However, perhaps I may take this first public opportunity to congratulate him on being appointed to his great office and say that I am one of a number of hon. Members who have every faith and confidence in his ability and good sense. I hope he will be able to give the subject which I am raising his closest attention and that in his time in this post we shall be able to clear away the log jam of past indecision and prevarication.

The increasing difficulty of the Hydrographer in meeting his commitments has been strongly emphasised in the reports of successive Hydrographers for several years. I had the pleasure of knowing them all well. They were all brilliant servants of this country.

There has been mounting criticism. It has taken many forms. At one time there was a distinguished correspondence inThe Times. There was also a report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and particularly by its Sea-Bed Engineering Sub-Committee.

There was an outcry at the apparent indifference of officialdom and its political command, and this led to the establishment of a Hydrographic Study Group on an interdepartmental basis in July 1974. I should say that it did its work tolerably rapidly. Its report was completed in March 1975, and after some pressure it was published in August 1975. It is timely that I should be raising the matter tonight because publication was precisely 12 months ago. Yet still, apparently, there is no decision by the Government on the recommendations of the report. I may be wrong, and if I am no doubt the Minister will be good enough to tell me. Perhaps I am being polite in saying that there has been a mere 12 months' delay. If we go back to the time when the report was first available, the delay is a longer period—namely, 17 months.

It was one of the Minister's hon. Friends who suggested that there was a squalid row between Departments in regard to major matters. I do not know whether that is so, I merely say that that is one opinion that has been voiced. It is an opinion that is fairly widely held.

I understand that the work of the Hydrographic Study Group is being kept under review at working level by a Hydrographic Strategic Review Body, comprising representatives of interested Departments and bodies. If that is so, on the face of it, it is satisfactory in some ways, although I must admit to being somewhat cynical about the work of committees. I remember with great pleasure a remark by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), with which I profoundly agreed. The right hon. Gentleman commented that the trouble with committees was that on the whole they wrote minutes and took years. One wonders—I hope that this is not the case—whether the establishment of the review body is a device for further postponing a decision. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to reassure the House on that ground.

No information has so far been published about the work of that body. Therefore, there are certain questions that automatically follow. For instance, I should like the Minister to tell us when decisions will be made about the Hydrographic Study Group's report. I should like it very much if he could give us up-to-date information about the Hydrographic Strategic Review Body.

I apologise to the Minister for not giving him notice of these questions. If he is not able to answer them now, perhaps he will find other ways of doing so—for example, by correspondence.

Time goes by while essential work apparently waits to be done. Certain practical questions arise. Decisions are one thing, but people have to do the work thereafter.

I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the staff at Taunton. Have extra staff been recruited to deal with the extra work that is involved, or will they be? Have extra staff been recruited as yet for the survey fleet? Have the additional ships that were recommended been ordered? What has happened? What has been done? What practical steps have been taken?

Anxiety at the apparent lack of progress is the more real as it appears from such published material as is available—for example, the debate on the Royal Navy in the House on 12th May 1956, as reported in theOfficial Report at column 550 and following, and the report of the Hydrographer for 1975, which was published as recently as June 1976—that the hydrographic service is managing to do more with less money. I think I am right in saying that the figure will be £11.9 million this year in comparison with £14.6 million in 1973–74. However, it has managed to do more only by adopting what seem to be remarkably extreme measures—for instance, as is evidenced in the report of the Hydrographer, by keeping all his ships at sea and working his crews about 100 hours a week. That may well be meritorious. It may well be in accordance with the tradition of the Navy, which is well accustomed to hard work and which sets a fine example of devotion to duty. Obviously, however, it is not a situation that can continue indefinitely.

One realises that the Minister has indeed a most difficult task. The climate of opinion is one in which economic stringency is regarded as being a healthy norm. That is not a view to which I personally subscribe, but there it is; it has to be at present. Obviously the Minister, has, for what it is worth, my complete understanding and sympathy at a time of this sort. I am sure that he has the understanding and sympathy of the whole House. One understands, too—to be plain about it—that there is a strong emotional argument in this country, and more particularly in the House perhaps, over what our defence needs should or should not be. These matters make very great difficulty for the Minister at this time.

However, I believe that the Minister is entitled to say to his senior colleagues and to the Cabinet two things. The first is this There is work for the hydrographic service to do in the national interest which is crucial to the whole economic future of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it must be right that this work should be given the highest priority, and so important is it and so urgent that, if new funds cannot be allocated, economies must be made elsewhere to allow it to be accomplished. The second thing that the Minister is entitled to say is that this would be, if the matter were put quite plainly to them, the view of the majority of hon. Members.

I propose to attempt to justify those statements, as I believe I easily can. I have said something about offshore oil already. I do not need to stress to a sophisticated audience such as this the significance of offshore oil to the United Kingdom economy. The Continental Shelf programme in particular, like other parts of the offshore remit of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Institute of Geological Sciences, requires close collaboration with the Hydrographer. It seems to me—I thought I ought to say it plainly as a view—that the two together should be aiming at producing offshore charts and geological maps comparable with what we have on land, developed, after all, since William Smith published his epoch-making Geological Map of England in 1815. Though it is 161 years old, one might almost say that that is still light years ahead of anything we have at sea.

It is true that detailed geographical data are now available for the oldfield areas that are currently being exploited, but all the same, as I am sure the Minister knows, there is little general geophysical or hydrographic data available for most of our Continental Shelf of about 180,000 square miles—it is no trivial task, but this is our back yard—let alone our forthcoming exclusive economic zone, the EEZ, or the EE-Zee for those who prefer to speak in an American rather than an English idiom. That, without Rockall, is about 254,000 square miles. This means, therefore, in that particular matter, to which I shall return shortly, that our negotiators are largely in the dark when bargaining with the French and Irish about the Western Approaches.

I should like to give two specific examples of the sort of thing I have in mind. I never know, Mr. Speaker, quite what is in order and what is not in terms of demonstrations. However, the Minister will be familiar with the chart in the Hydrographer's report which I have in my hand. I dare say that you, Mr. Speaker, can see the darker blue zones around the United Kingdom on the chart. These are the few zones in our home waters—our back yard—which have been surveyed to modern standards. The white and light blue disclose a discreditable state of affairs. These are the areas which have not been surveyed to modern standards. We do not know what the situation is—to repeat the phrase—in our own back yard.

To be more particular, I refer to Admiralty Chart No. 294. Here is a scene which shows the demarcation line between the British and Norwegian zones, the Norwegian on the right to the east and the British to the left on the west. What does one see? There is a mass of soundings and other information marked in the Norwegian area and very little in our own. In other words, where we are right up against the boundaries between our own limits and those of our friendly neighbouring nations, they have better information than we have.

I would quote a third example. I have a small representation of the approaches to the significant port of Milford Haven. One-twelfth of the area round about was surveyed as recently as 1947, and eleven-twelfths was surveyed at times beginning as long ago as 1838. The majority of that area was surveyed in those times. I find it extraordinary that we simply do not know the reality about our own back yard. These three examples show, if further proof is needed, how behind we are.

All the time, there are extraordinary incidents when suddenly one comes across some new feature below the waters which had not been noticed before. In the old days, when ships had a small draught it might not have mattered too much. But today, with bulk carriers and VLCC's—very large cargo carriers—and crude oil carriers, the draft of ships is immense and it matters greatly. The recently-found pinnacles off Holyhead, for example, go to indicate the dearth of important, if not crucial, detailed knowledge.

Paper No. 8, called "The Strategy for Research and Development", was published in July 1976 by the Offshore Energy Technology Board. I know that the Minister will be familiar with it. It shows that the funding of the Continental Shelf programme is now largely in the hands of the Department of Energy through its Offshore Energy Technology Board. It is responsible for 68 per cent., and other bodies, including the Department of Industry, are responsible for the remainder. But there is uncertainty about whether the funds are sufficient to give this programme the required level of priority. Everywhere one looks there is uncertainty.

One may well think that it is an appalling indictment of authority in the United Kingdom that large areas of the sea, in the immediate vicinity of this island, are under-surveyed or not surveyed at all by modern methods. But the situation is even worse than I have described. As a nation we are now involved in the UNCLOS. I shall explain what that is in just a moment. Its latest session started last Monday, and it is, in effect, the Law of the Sea conference. It is likely to give us responsibility for a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, which means that we shall need to know all about this area of the sea and the sea bed which stretches out beyond Rockall.

If the Hydrographer is to discharge those responsibilities, he needs to get his part of the work under way now. If he does not get his work under way now, we shall not have the necessary knowledge to safeguard our interests properly. It is remarkable that at least three-quarters of our Continental Shelf has never been properly charted, and I suspect that a lot of the rest was done only with lead and line a long time ago.

Perhaps that is enough about home waters. The situation throughout the world is even more astonishing. Only 2 per cent. of the ocean has been charted at all, and we shall very soon want to know far more about the deep ocean, again as an outcome of the Law of the Sea conference, and probably within two or three years.

I should emphasise that this is not a matter of mere altruism or eccentric enthusiasm on the part of people such as myself. It is important to recognise that surveys overseas are essential for our own merchant fleet if our ships are to carry cargoes safely into and out of foreign ports, and it is essential also not only for our own trade but for the major world carriers. The work done by our British Hydrographic Department is of immense importance to world shipping, which, after all, is largely controlled from London. It is in our vital national interest to ensure that charts are kept up to date and that hazards are found and plotted promptly for all the world's ships. Accidents and losses, after all, affect our balance of payments, and can affect it very severely.

I shall not bore the House with figures, but one has only to contemplate what could happen to a 250,000-ton or 350,000-ton cargo carrier or bulk oil carrier to see at once the dimensions of the matter under discussion. The nationality of ships is not the prime consideration, since marine insurance and cargo insurance as well as shipbroking are largely London-based, and, I am happy to say, earn us much by way of foreign exchange—or invisible earnings, as the phrase goes.

There is another aspect of the matter in which, I hope, the Minister will find an opportunity to interest himself. It seems to me that we should encourage overseas countries to undertake much more of the essential survey work themselves or, alternatively, to contribute funds for that purpose. I should have suggested that there was an important contribution to be made here through aid funds, and it has been somewhat disquieting—I do not know whether the Minister has had opportunity to note this—that the Ministry of Overseas Development says that there is no demand from developing countries.

I do not believe that. There certainly is a demand for ordnance surveys on land, and there should be for coastal and offshore surveys in many areas. Some countries—the West Indies is one obvious example—are too small to undertake the work themselves, except perhaps on a communal basis or through a regional grouping, but in two cases—that is, Nigeria and Malaysia, old friends of this country—we persuaded them to build their own ships, and those ships have been built in this country.

The ships have not yet come into service, and, presumably, our Hydrographer will be expected to help with the training of those who will man them and the setting up of their own hydrographic offices. I very much hope that he will do that, and I hope also that the House will consider that it would be of benefit to this country if he did.

I do not understand why the Ministry of Overseas Development appears to be dragging its feet on anything to do with overseas hydrographic surveys. Bodies such as the International Chamber of Shipping have stated that the most urgent and important need at present is for the Red Sea first to allow VLCCs to reach the Suez terminal of the Mediterranean pipeline, and later to use the canal, which is to be deepened from 38 ft. to 53 ft. by January 1979, and later to 67 ft., which is really only a short time ahead.

Egypt does not have the capability and it wants the work done, but the Ministry of Overseas Development is reluctant to fund it. I should have thought that we could assist and encourage work there and work in many other countries, and I am sure that it would be profitable and valuable to us.

What worries me as one paints the picture of the immense amount of work to be done both at home and overseas in areas where we are trading and areas which are crucial to the world's shipping and to our own great interest is that it seems that there will now be no possibility of the ships which the Hydrographic Study Group recommended should be built to get the work done being built in time to meet the projected programme.

That is not all. It is not only a matter of new ships. The five inshore survey ships are getting old, as I had the occasion to see for myself the other day, and will need replacement shortly even on the reduced programme. I hope that the Minister may be able to say, either tonight or at some other convenient time, something on that subject. After all, it would be a great help to the shipbuilding industry if those orders could be placed.

In the short time since you, Mr. Speaker, announced the order for debates on this Bill, I have received a letter from the Executive Chairman of Brooke Marine which would interest the Minister and which I will send to him. He says: We at Brooke Marine have had another successful year, working almost throughout the world to bring in further work by negotiations or tender, but as we stand, unless we obtain further orders in the near future, there will be heavy redundancies at Lowestoft. As Chairman and Chief Executive my final endeavours are concentrated on ensuring as far as possible that Brookes join 'British Shipbuilders' still as one of the most efficient and profitable yards in the industry, both for the sake of all the loyal and hardworking personnel who have made the Company what it is today and also to minimise and if possible prevent any adverse effect on Lowestoft and district relating in the first place to the many local outside business and sub-contractors who have to a varying extent been dependent on Brookes. He goes on about what Brookes does and how it built survey ships for the Navy and for Nigeria.

He says that the company has tried to get information as to whether or not it will get further orders but has not been successful, and he writes: The response was negative, principally because of the cut in the Defence Estimates (why survey ships should be lumped with fighting ships, I do not know). The question might be asked: When are the Government going to place orders for the four additional coastal survey vessels recommended in paragraph 163(5) of the 1975 Report of the Hydrographic Study Group? I will send the Minister that letter.

I quote that letter because I want the Minister to understand what this uncertainty, which is not his fault or responsibility, means in practical terms to good people who are trying to do their duty in the national interest and with no thought of politics, whatever their feelings may be.

The Ministry of Defence alone cannot meet the cost of modern hydrography, Hydrography is now a commercial as well as a defence matter, as I hope everything I have said has illustrated. It should be as much the concern of every other Department of Government as it is of the Navy. So I am not arguing for empire-building in the Civil Service. Indeed, any extra staff recruited at Taunton at a time when the Army is pressing to leave that town, will be productive staff and their cost will be recovered out of earnings on chart sales and the like. The embargo on Civil Service recruitment should not apply to them.

I feel, and have argued in the past, that what we want to try to establish is a different method of financing for the future which would insulate the Hydrographer from defence cuts. If we do not do that, the first cuts will affect him as things get tighter on more vital defence interests and major defence capabilities, especially ships and aircraft. Of course this is ludicrous.

Therefore, perhaps an alternative might be something on the lines of the way in which the RAF approaches the Meteorological Office—that is to say, a separate parliamentary Vote for hydrography, administered, of course, by the Ministry of Defence. If we do not have something like that, it seems that any further defence cuts will make the Hydrographer extremely vulnerable, even if he might find some funds, as presumably he is doing at the moment, from within the overall MOD funds to keep the existing ships going until the Departments which should make up their minds are bludgeoned by parliamentary and other pressures into doing so. I ask the Government to say whether extra funds have been released so far. I hope that it will be possible to get from the Minister, without delay, a clear statement of future policy.

In my experience, morale both at sea and on land in the hydrographic service is high, but indecision and vacillation must inevitably have a debilitating effect. Departments should face up to their individual responsibilities.

I give a final example of how ludicrous the situation currently is in practical terms. About a fortnight ago two aeroplanes were lost on the Humber. Six ships are currently searching an area about five miles square trying to find them. But there is so much clutter on the sea bed—unknown wrecks of 100 years ago or more—that it is possible, some would say likely, that the planes will never be found. If we had a proper background survey of the area, all existing wrecks or obstructions could be eliminated since they would appear on the chart, and the search ships could concentrate on new anomalies and save an enormous amount of time in checking with divers and grabs. It is not comfortable to dive at these depths.

The ships have been searching for about one and a half weeks, and they are to stay for another three weeks, at a very high cost to the Ministry of Defence, whereas a detailed background survey done at a normal rate of working would have greatly reduced the cost of finding the planes, assuming that they are found.

That is one small example. I could give many others. Not only do we have a highly experienced capability in terms of men but, as I have said, we are fortunate to have an outstanding Hydrographer and an outstanding naval and civilian contingent. We also have a tradition of excellence.

We are on the fringe of further most exciting technical achievements, such as the hydrosearch, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. That is a sector-spanning narrow beam sonar produced by Marconi under a quasi-Government contract. I mention it because it is worth while to bear in mind that there is a significant commercial spin-off from an efficient and developing naval hydrographic service.

I summarise my views thus. The hydrographic task in and around the waters of this country and in the world where we have responsibility and opportunity is substantial and immediate. There is, alas, total uncertainty as to the Government's intentions. It is surely deplorable at a time when we wish our country to be commercially successful that there appears to be inadequate support for commercial activities of various kinds—technological, shipping interests, the potential offshore exploration. I have referred to oil, but the sea is a treasure house which in our lifetime will be exploited to the prodigious benefit of this country and others, if we take the opportunity.

It is deplorable, too, that there should be real dangers of shipwreck and pollution—the "Torrey Canyon" is well within recent memory—because of the lack of proper charting of our waters. It is deplorable, too, that we are in a weaker position than we should be as a nation to negotiate internationally.

We need a new national commitment and determination, and I wish the Minister every success in achieving it. As the Government's duty to undertake this major task is so obvious and so certain, I am sure that I can offer him the unqualified support of both sides of the House and a majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Minister will certainly deserve the gratitude of our nation if he is able to assume that task and to discharge it successfully.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who commands the respect of the House on many subjects, not least that of the hydrographic service. I was greatly delighted by the latter part of his speech and by the felicitations that he extended to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Government; I think that the Government deserve some criticism, though I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently recognised that other Governments have been very lackadaisical in the matter of hydro-graphic services. This is a matter for great regret. The hydrographic service is one of the most important in the Defence Department, but for a number of years it has been neglected. For a number of years we have not been fair to the personnel involved, in that we have not allowed the service to grow as it should to meet modern requirements.

Many parts of the sea have not been charted. It will probably be a couple of centuries before all parts of the sea will be charted. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulty of finding two aircraft lost in the Humber. This underlines the difficulty of finding a plane or a ship that is lost in an uncharted area of the sea.

I did not realise the importance of this subject until I read about it. I am now firmly of the opinion that all Governments must give it much greater priority. I do not think that Defence Ministers are aware of the need for more funds to be placed at the disposal of the hydro-graphic service. On the other hand, it is not fair to expect the Defence Department to make an increased allocation of funds at a time of defence cuts.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, other Departments are involved. The sea routes that have been charted are of great help to the development of trade, industry and energy, the latter two more directly than the former. It is difficult to understand why fewer ships are required for this important task. The Hydro-graphic Study Group, which reported in 1975, recommended that the survey fleet should be increased by four or seven. What has been done about that? The Study Group considered that that increase was needed if the hydrographic department was to carry out with efficency and speed required maritime surveys.

There are dangers to ships on the seas, and even our Continental Shelf has been surveyed to the extent of only 24 per cent. or 26 per cent. Last year two enormous pieces of rock were discovered in the Celtic Sea. The tips of those rocks were about 30 feet below the surface. They could have caused great damage to large ships with a deep draught. I wonder how long they had been there. As there are earthquakes on land, I expect there is turmoil on the sea bed. I believe that those rocks had been there for a long time, but they were discovered only last year. They could have caused grave damage if they had been close to sea routes on which large tankers travel. The charting of too many of our routes is obsolete. As ships become larger, routes that were safe become no longer safe. Something must be done about those routes. The danger to our large ships must be impressed upon the Government. We must not take risks.

Some of our large tankers cost huge sums of money. The right hon. Member for Taunton must have read my notes, because he has covered the same ground that I intended to cover. A 10,000-ton ship costs about £1 million; therefore, a 250,000-ton vessel would cost £25 million. If two tankers worth £50 million or £60 million each were lost, the additional money for which we are asking over the next seven years would be saved.

One also has to take into account the cost of spilled oil, which can amount to enormous sums if the spillage occurs in inland waters. There is also always the danger of loss of life. I cannot understand why any Government should be so parsimonious about such an important service. On many occasions tributes have been paid to the personnel for the excellent work that they do in charting sea routes so that ships can go on their way in safety. We praise them, but are not generous enough to make sure that they have the means to carry out their duties responsibly.

The hydrographic service has also earned our commendation for the amount of work it has done in the North Sea. In that difficult area it has charted routes so that oil platforms can be towed safely, thus making an important contribution to the success of the North Sea oil projects. In spite of that useful work, carried out day by day under great difficulties, there is some doubt in the minds of the crew about their future. Everyone in the service is fully aware of the great amount of surveying that must still be done. One cannot foresee a time when it will be on top of its work.

The Government must realise that it takes time to train such personnel. The Government cannot allow them to lose faith in their work, so that they leave the service, and then expect to have the required personnel if at some time we apply common sense and start to increase the amount of money granted to the service. There should be some encouragement to the crews. They should be assured that the service will not be run down.

There is a great deal of evidence that the service must be improved. Around our shores are many uncharted wrecks. Although their number is insignificant compared with the number in the sea as a whole, they are dangerous to our coastal shipping. The Government must accept full responsibility for safety in our coastal waters, which is of prime importance. The same principle must apply to the Continental Shelf.

We are obliged to see that, wherever possible, our hydrographic service is on offer to the poor, undeveloped nations, but the nations belonging to OPEC, which can well afford it, should be made to pay for the work that we do on their behalf.

The rôle of the Royal Navy in hydro-graphy is probably the envy of the world. Its work is very beneficial to several Departments, directly and indirectly, so the defence budget should not have to carry almost all the financial cost. Obviously, the work in the North Sea has proved beneficial to the Department of Energy and other Departmentts, but the Department of Energy pays far too little. The future of the service is much too important to allow Departments to become involved in squabbles over who shall pay for this or that.

What is the amount required by the service? Figures are being thrown about of between £50 million and £90 million as additional payments over the next seven years. The figure of £30 million is given in the study report, but the amount has increased because of inflation. It is a small price for the benefits that can be derived from sea routes being brough up to modern standards. A few wrecks could easily cost a great deal more, withtout taking into account the possible loss of life.

The Government must take reasonable and responsible action in the very near future. A sufficient sum should be allocated to the defence budget for no other purpose than to bring up to date the work of our hydrographic service.

This subject is so serious that we ought to spend at least half a day discussing it at some time when the House is not nearing the end of a Session. I do not believe that any defence cuts should be made which would affect the amount of money spent for hydrographic purposes. If my hon. Friend, or the Secretary of State for Defence, requires any help by way of pressure from the Back Benches to ensure that a separate fund is set up under the control of the Defence Department for hydrographic purposes, I am certain that both sides of the House will provide that pressure. We must make certain that the maritime services in our seas and coastal waters, on the Continental Shelf and throughout the sea routes of the world are brought up to the modern standards necessary to ensure that our ships can sail in safety.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

I intervene briefly in this debate tonight wearing a Royal Navy tie. I do not speak as a party politician when I say that I hope the Government will assure the House that they will continue to spend money that is necessary to maintain the hydrographic service so that we remain the most important hydrographic nation in the world.

I say that we are the most important hydrographic nation in the world because for the past 250 years our survey ships have sailed across all the oceans of the world. We have produced the charts which people like myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) used when we sailed the seas. It is important that we continue to provide that service to the mariners of the world.

At the moment, the way in which money is being taken from the service means that the Russians will become the producers of the world's charts. If that is so, they will be able to dictate what goes on at sea. The Law of the Sea Conference is about to report and may recommend a 200-mile limit. If the Russians provide our charts, they will be in a position to dictate to the mariners of the world.

I ask the Minister, who, like me, is a sailor, to make sure that we spend as much money as is necessary to enable us to continue to provide the hydrographic services that we have provided for the past 200 years. It is as simple as that. If the British Government, irrespective of party, refuse to spend the few million pounds necessary to provide these services, we shall have failed our mariners. That would indeed be a disgraceful thing.

10.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy)

The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)—I am grateful to him for his typically generous references to me—has again raised a matter of great national importance. I know that the House will agree with what he, my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) have said about the tremendous value of the work of the hydrographic service of the Royal Navy. I know that the House will acknowledge the skill and urgency with which the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted the importance of the hydro-graphic service as a subject for debate. He must feel it an honour that the Hydrographer's organisation is located in his constituency, just as I feel it an honour to be the Minister responsible for the service. It forms an esteemed and integral part of the Royal Navy.

The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that the issue he has raised is more than a matter of parochial interest, important though that is in itself. He has raised issues, moreover, which go beyond the interests of the Royal Navy—indeed, beyond the interests of the Ministry of Defence. For the function of the hydrographic service is a national function—indeed, an international function. The House will acknowledge that the contribution which successive Hydrographers of the Navy and their staffs have made over the years to the safety of world shipping is inestimable.

The right lion. Member raised the question of staff. A complementing review of the number of staff needed at Taunton has been completed. A decision on the findings will be taken shortly.

What I hope to do tonight in replying to this debate is to look a little more closely at the work of the hydrographic service in both the defence and civilian fields. In doing so, I shall remind the House of the historical context in which the Hydrographer carries out his traditional tasks. I shall also remind the House of the recommendations relating to hydrography made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Offshore Engineering in 1974, and I shall remind hon. Members too of the work of the Hydrographic Study Group which sat between 1974 and 1975. The right hon. Member commented freely on the work of those groups and invited me to respond.

The reports of those bodies drew attention, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, to the value of the contribution of the hydrographic service to the country. But also, like the right hon. Gentleman, they drew attention to the problem that confronts the hydrographic department at a time when public expenditure is under the most severe pressure, when the Navy has already withdrawn from many of its traditional areas of deployment, and when the needs of the civil sector, both merchant shipping and the offshore industry, have never grown at a faster pace.

I shall be quite frank with the House. I shall not attempt to disguise the fact that although an expansion of the hydro-graphic fleet is desirable, in the present economic circumstances it is likely to be as much as the Government can do to maintain a fleet of the present size.

I fully share the views that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed previously and again today on both sides of the House, about the gravity of this problem. It is very serious and is not very tractable. But we are working on it. We are looking for a solution which will ensure that the needs of the Royal Navy and the needs of the civil sector are met equitably, effectively and efficiently within the resources available. It is not merely a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

But lest the House should form the impression that we are neglecting the needs of the hydrographic service at a time when it is more needed than ever, I shall explain how we are making continuing efforts to maintain the traditional high standards that the nation has enjoyed from the Hydrographer and to that end are doing all we can to improve the quality of his material resources. Yet even here we cannot do all that we would wish. Where the hydrographic service is concerned, there can never be room for complacency.

Let us for a moment look back over the century and a half for which the Hydrographer of the Navy has been the national authority responsible for hydro-graphic surveys and nautical chartings. Let us see how the rôle of the Hydrographer has remained unaltered but how outside circumstances have transformed the conditions in which and the purposes for which that rôle has to be fulfilled.

Many right hon. and hon. Members, I know, will already be aware of the historical foundations of the hydro-graphic service and of the changes in trends which have led to this debate today. Some of these have already been aired tonight, but I think it would be helpful to a full understanding of the difficulty of the issues involved if I summarise them now.

The first Hydrographer of the Navy, Alexander Dalrymple, was appointed under George III in 1795. He was charged by the Admiralty Board of the time with the provision of charts for His Majesty's Fleet which was then suffering considerable losses because of inadequate knowledge of our own seas and of the routes to our overseas possessions. In the ensuing years of exploration the need for surveys and charts grew along with our interests in naval power and trade.

Since in those days trade followed the flag, Hydrographers of the day were able to provide, first charts, and then series of charts and finally a world-wide coverage of charts, which matched the needs not only of our men-of-war but of our trading fleets. Because our interests were eventually so widespread, British charts further served the larger international needs of burgeoning sea trade. Hence the Admiralty chart series, with its overall coverage incorporating an unrivalled survey basis and its rigidly high standards, emerged pre-eminent and with a reputation for quality which has happily lasted through the years and is as high as it ever was.

In the last century the acquired knowledge of the seas' depths and limits inspired and encouraged exploration of a new dimension of endeavour in founding oceanography. Hon. Members will be aware of the Royal Navy's contributions in the early days of this science and of the Hydrographer's significant effort since in the fields of oceanography and geophysics. It is a matter for regret, therefore, that the Hydrographer is no longer able to devote resources to this field.

It is important to note that until relatively recently the needs of Navy and trade, and to a lesser extent science itself, were met by the same hydrography. Ships' draughts, whatever their purpose, varied little for many years until the dramatic increases in size and tonnage which we have witnessed since the Second World War in tankers and, more recently, in bulk carriers. So sudden was this change of trend that the Hydrographer had to concentrate his first priorities in shoal water areas of shipping routes—the approaches to our own islands, for example, and the extremely busy Malacca Straits.

We therefore find that over the past 180 years or so the Hydrographer has become not only the Navy's Hydrographer, but, and very properly, the nation's Hydrographer. It is he who is called upon to meet new requirements and priorities in the needs of merchant shipping. To meet these requirements, increasing proportions of the base survey work have been for trade rather than for defence, and this at a time when defence funds have been contracted and the Navy's sphere of activity geographically speaking has been diminishing rather than expanding.

With the sudden increase in sea-bed exploitation over the past decade, the Hydrographer has accepted an important new challenge. He has initiated work by the ships of the hydrographic fleet for the new requirements of the offshore industry. Surveys have been undertaken both for exploration and specifically for towing out the giant concrete structures used for subsequent exploitation of the seabed. But, as we all agree and have heard endorsed here today, much more needs to be done. Good sea maps are just as much a base necessity of organised national activity in present circumstances as are land maps. I do not need to spell out to the House how their importance is likely to be re-emphasised as a result of the Law of the Sea conference. We must look to the time when the topography of an exclusive economic zone is as available to those who want to know as is, for example, the topography of the Quantocks, the Vale of Taunton and South Yorkshire.

It was an awareness of the new responsibilities and the new challenges inherent in them that the Hydrographer of the Navy was having to meet that led to the recent renewal of public and parliamentary interest in the future of the hydrographic fleet. A mismatch between role and resources was suspected. In 1974, in the course of its consideration of offshore engineering, the Select Committee on Science and Technology recommended that the hydrographic survey fleet should be expanded. The Committee recommended that provision should be made for a substantial increase of ships and equipment for the hydro-graphic survey of the Continental Shelf and urged that the customer-contractor principle be utilised to fund the Hydrographer mainly from civil expenditure. The Committee's report was published in November 1974.

On 17th July 1974, my predecessor announced the setting up of a special study group to assess the future civil hydrographic requirement. This group reported in March 1975 and its work embraced the future national needs for hydrography and the identification of resources to meet those needs. The group consisted of representatives of all Government Departments with an interest in hydrography, as well as representatives of shipping and commercial organisations. The recommendations of the group have met with a great deal of support from Parliament, the Press and the public.

The growing need for hydrographic surveying in support of the offshore energy industry and merchant shipping is indeed widely accepted. To meet the growing need, the Hydrographic Study Group estimated that the present fleet would have to be expanded from its strength of 13 survey ships to 20 ships. This was recognised by the firm Brooke Marine to which the right hon. Member for Taunton referred. I was interested in what he said and shall be glad to see any correspondence that he feels able to hand over.

But the identification of these new needs took place at a time when the Government's defence review was pointing towards a reduction in the world-wide deployment of the Royal Navy and with it a reduction in the defence need for hydrographic surveying. The logic of this scenario pointed in the opposite direction to the recommendations of the Select Committee and of the study group. In defence terms, it would have been right to have reduced the size of the hydro-graphic fleet to that which was necessary for purely defence requirements.

We were therefore faced with a contradiction. For defence purposes alone, a need was identified for only 10 of the fleet of 13 ships; for national purposes, as the study group pointed out, we needed a fleet of 20. And all the time the underlying economic constraints were such that the only new public expenditure projects which the Government could afford were those of the highest and most acute and immediate priority.

In that difficult situation the Government's consideration of the recommendations of the Hydrographic Study Group regarding the future size of the hydro-graphic fleet and the source of its funding have been based on the premise that we should concentrate on maintaining the fleet at its present size and finding the money to run it on a new financial basis which was both sound and fair and, in particular, which did not involve a subsidy to civil activities from defence funds.

Let me make it quite clear that we fully recognise and support the aim of an expanded hydrographic fleet, but we have had to put this aim on one side, at least until the national economy has been regenerated to the point where we can afford it.

But let us not even underestimate the difficulties of simply maintaining the hydrographic fleet at its present size. The role and standing of the fleet, as I have said and as the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have acknowledged tonight, is renowned throughout the world. It is renowned as a part of the Royal Navy and as a service funded by the defence budget. I must say quite openly that the defence budget has been reduced to the point where it simply cannot be used as a source of subsidy for civilian purposes. There is simply no fat at all. It may be that that was what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he suggested that perhaps a new method of funding was now required.

In the past, when the Navy had a world-wide rôle, it made sense for the Hydrographer's work on behalf of merchant shipping to be regarded as a civil bonus. Nowadays his work on behalf of the civilian sector is becoming increasingly extra to defence work, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to demand that the defence budget should meet the cost.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is similar to what the Select Committee on Expenditure said about the policing work that is done by the Royal Navy on oil rig patrols and by the British Army of the Rhine in education and health services? The Select Committee argued that such work should not be a charge on the defence budget because it distorts it. Is that not similar to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is saying?

Mr. Duffy

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Nowadays the Hydrographer's work on behalf of the civilian sector is becoming increasingly extra to defence work. It is neither fair nor reasonable to demand that the defence budget should meet the cost. This is not the only cost that the defence budget is now being asked to bear. Hon. Members are beginning to see and find from their own specialist and highly expert studies that there is what amounts to an imposition. But the Ministry of Defence is not the only Department whose budget is under pressure, and answers which might seem simple in theory are not so simple in practice.

Nobody finds it exactly easy these days to take on new financial commitments. It is, therefore, taking us some while to evolve new arrangements to safeguard the future of the hydrographic fleet, and with it the safe future of merchant shipping and the efficient exploitation of the sea bed. It is economic stringency which has faced us with this problem, and it is economic stringency which makes the answer so difficult. In the longer term, when the economy regains its buoyancy, I hope that it will be a relatively straightforward matter to find an answer. But this is a problem which will not wait.

In my view, it is particulary urgent because the 200 and more officers and men of the hydrographic service who have inherited the proud reputation of their predecessors are understandably concerned about their future. The Government are aware of the aspirations of the service to carry out its demanding and hard job, often involving long and repeated seagoing separations from families, in the service of the Royal Navy and of the nation as a whole. I know that the House holds the service in high esteem. We must not let it down.

At the moment, however, all that I can tell the service and all that I can tell the House—I now take up another question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman—is that we acknowledge the need to maintain the fleet, and we in the Ministry of Defence have agreed to continue to fund it at its present strength until April next year. By that time the longer-term funding arrangements should be resolved.

The Hydrographic Study Group made other recommendations besides those referring to the future size of the fleet and the way in which it should be funded, and I am glad to be able to report that progress has been made on some of these. Most notably, the strategic review body proposed by the study group has been set up to improve co-ordination between all the Government Departments and statutory bodies. This held its first meeting last May to discuss possible future programming requirements. I have to admit to the House, however, that until we have settled the funding issue there is a limit to the contribution that the review body can make in this area. Furthermore, liaison officers have been appointed, as recommended by the study group, to act as focal points in Government Departments and statutory bodies for receiving information and co-ordinating with the Hydrographer.

I hope that that information will go some way towards meeting the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can give him some information about the two planes that were lost in the North Sea, about which he asked. I am glad to be able to tell him that one of the planes has, in fact, been found by one of our hydrographic ships.

Not surprisingly, the hydrographic service continues to maintain the high quality of its work and is continually striving to improve its performance in response to changing needs in order to ensure that navigation around our shores remains safe. New developments include the introduction of specialised maps and publications, and the development of new sophisticated sonar scanning equipment which will enhance the fleet's surveying capabilities.

In particular, a new series of 11 North Sea offshore charts have been produced covering the area from Flamborough Head to 100 miles north of the Shetlands. Their enhanced scale—about three miles to an inch—enables not only portrayal of the available bathymetric data but also clear indication of offshore installations and their associated pipelines and buoy-age. I hope that this will go some way towards redressing the imbalance that the right hon. Gentleman brought out so impressively in his display during his speech. The new series of charts also shows agreed national Continental Shelf boundaries.

Furthermore, the Hydrographer has only this week published a new handbook which gives the mariner guidance on the new internationally-agreed system of buoy characteristics and placings which will be implemented by Trinity House in the spring of 1977. There is an obvious need for the navigator to be well informed of the scheme before it happens, involving as it does some 500 buoy changes in the Channel area alone. These changes will, incidentally, represent an additional load on the staff at Taunton.

On the equipment side, the prototype of a new sonar device will be fitted into HMS "Bulldog" for sea trials currently scheduled for May 1977. The equipment has been developed and funded by the Department of Industry on behalf of the Department of Trade from an original design of the Ministry of Defence. Its deployment will for the first time enable accurate positioning and safe depth determinations of all sea-bed obstructions out to a range of 300 metres on either side of the survey vessel. This should offer enormous savings of time over existing survey methods, and enable the much more efficient location of the many wrecks and marine obstructions that lie on the seabed around our shores.

On a previous occasion the House has been told there are about 14,000 known wrecks around the United Kingdom, and we need to know as much about them as we can and to pass the information on to our mariners and fishermen—and, indeed, to all other sea users. I know how interested the right hon. Gentleman is in the recreational use of the sea, and I know of the enduring interest of the hon. Member for Louth.

We can never do enough surveying around our shores. The answers that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and I gave to the Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 7th July give some idea of the extent of outstanding work on the Continental Shelf.

I am sorry for having spoken at such length and I am grateful to the House for having listened to me with such attention as I have set out the changing requirements that the nation has placed on the hydrographic service and the problems that the changes bring, not only for the Ministry of Defence but also for the Department of Trade and the Department of Energy. As I promised, I have been quite frank with the House on the difficult situation that confronts us at a time of severe public expenditure restraint.

In doing so, I hope that I have assured the House of the seriousness with which the Government regard the need for a continuing and thriving hydrographic service and of our determination to secure the future of the service in a way which will enable it to fulfil its rôle in the years ahead with the same distinction as it has fulfilled its rôle in the past. I have also tried to show that we are giving the Hydrographer of the Navy all the support we can to enable him to exploit advances in underwater technology so that his standards of service, already so high, can be improved further.

I shall gladly write to the right hon. Gentleman on any matters that I have not been able to cover tonight. I assure him of my intention to pay an early visit to Taunton. I shall also convey his views on the potential of overseas hydrography surveys to the Ministry of Overseas Development.

The message that I must leave with the House tonight, however, is that we have as yet some way to go before our objectives can be met, and there is no room for any complacency on the part of anyone who has a serious concern for the well-being of British shipping, both civil and naval, and for the efficient and expeditious exploitation of our vital offshore resources. We have not got the right answers yet, but we must get them soon. I thank hon. Gentlemen again for giving me this opportunity to put my views on record.