HL Deb 21 January 1958 vol 207 cc63-70

6.4 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to move, That Part I of the Report of Sir Barclay Nihill's Committee on the Organisation for handling the Admiralty's requirements in matériel, be laid on the Table. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am moving this Motion in my name formally, but I will say at once that I do not intend to be long and I do not intend to press it, because during the Recess I have had conversations with the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty; but in view of the importance of the announcement which he made on December 19 I felt it essential to ask him one or two questions. First of all, it seems to me that we ought to know whether all matériel, including those things now to be handed to the immediate superintendence of the Fourth Sea Lord, are to remain subject to the Controller. I see that the Fourth Sea Lord is to get the additional title of "Vice Controller" added to his existing title.

In view of the great discussions that go on and the concern in the public mind in Dockyard areas as to the future of the Dockyards, especially in view of the economies which are being effected in the size and cost of the Fleet, and bearing in mind that our Dockyard towns are perhaps among the best permanent recruiting centres for the Regular service of the Royal Navy, I should like to know whether any change of policy is contemplated by this new method. I notice that the Controller is apparently to remain responsible for the provision of new construction only and it seems to follow that the new superintendent of this work, the Fourth Sea Lord, will have charge of all repairs. Will he be in charge of repairs which are contracted out as well as repairs done in Dockyards? What will his work cover? It is rather important to know.

Thirdly, because of the anxiety which many of us have about the future of Dockyards, can the First Lord tell us whether, in regard to the control still in the hands of the Controller over new construction, he will have a full say, in the new circumstances, as to what new construction is done in Dockyards as well as by private contract? Of late years I have noticed a tendency to revert very largely from new construction in Dockyards to new construction by contract. I do not necessarily want to know tonight, but perhaps the noble Earl will tell us at some time what proportion of the work of Dockyards is in relation to new construction as compared with refitting and repair. I believe that that is a fundamental matter.

Fourthly, I wish to say, with regard to this Motion, that I looked up the precedents, and I understand that even the Clerk of the Parliaments thinks I might be on a rather thin course of action in having such a Motion on the Paper. Nevertheless, when one considers the importance of this matter in connection with the defence of the Realm, one feels that the Report must, though internally produced, be considered a State Paper; and that, after all, is coming back to the original declaration of Mr. Speaker in the nineties, quoted by the present Speaker on December 11 last. A great deal depends on whether the Minister regards the contents of such a Report as confidential; and if the contents of a Report such as this, of a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Barclay Robert Nihill, is absolutely confidential, I should be rather surprised. Whilst I do not want to interfere unduly with Ministerial right (I will not say privilege) to decide on what is best to be published and what is perhaps inconvenient or not right to be published, I feel that where we are dealing with such a grave matter as the future of the Dockyards as a whole, as well as the efficiency of the Fleet, then, unless the contents of a Re-part are confidential, they ought to be supplied to Parliament. I beg to move.

Moved, That Part I of the Report of Sir Barclay Nihill's Committee on the Organisation for handling the Admiralty's requirements in matériel, be laid on the Table.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

6.9 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has had a very considerable experience of the Admiralty. I believe it is his proud boast that he has been First Lord of the Admiralty longer than any man in history. Is that not correct?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I have been First Lord of the Admiralty longer than any commoner. In the days when they could make something out of it the Peers were often there.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Perhaps the noble Viscount will learn how to do that now. It is, I think, quite natural that he should be interested in the work of the Nihill Committee, to which I made reference last month. But perhaps I might just take up his last point first: that is, the necessity of laying a document to which reference is made in debate. I think it is quite clear that there is no obligation to lay a Report, under the accepted Rules of either House, just because reference is made to that Report; indeed, there are quite clear precedents to the contrary. But, if I may say so, I think even on grounds of common sense it would not be desirable to make that an obligation, because all that would happen would be that Ministers would not refer to the Reports at all. I feel that it would be rather foolish to try to impose a rule of that character. May I, to clear up this position, refer to what the Speaker said only on December 11 last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 579 (No. 27), col. 1274] in reference, not to this but to another subject and I understand that the Rules of this House are exactly the same, or are regarded as the same, on this subject: For the House to be able to demand that documents should be laid upon the Table, three conditions must be fulfilled. In the first place, the Minister must have quoted from the document it is not sufficient that he should have referred to it or even to have summarised or paraphrased it in part or in whole. I have not done that. It is not really necessary for me to refer to the other points to which reference was made.

But, in the second place, there are quite a number of precedents—and I will take one obvious one, the Eastham Report. That was a confidential document intended for the eyes of the Board of Admiralty, and no part of that Report was made public at all. I think that that position was fully accepted by the Opposition at that time. I could also mention the Middleton Report on the Naval Electrical Branch, and the Mansergh Report on the Naval Officer Structure. The reason why should be reluctant to do this is that this is information which has been given confidentially about internal organisation of the Admiralty, and for that reason is not the sort of document that is suitable for public discussion. If the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is prepared to accept that, I am very happy to give him as much information as I can in regard to what is proposed. I recognise his interest in this matter, and certainly it is important. Again, I ask him, however, to appreciate that I merely reported decisions as made. This process is going on, and in the course of the next month I shall probably be informing the House on other parts of the field covered by the Nihill Committee. I am merely starting with a slight elaboration on points on which we have reached decision to take action.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Committee for the work they have done. The Committee were appointed by my predecessor, Lord Cilcennin, to examine the production organisation at headquarters and in the Royal Dockyards, and I should like to thank the chairman. Sir Barclay Nihill, Colonel Eustace Smith and Mr. W. W. Watt, who were the non-Admiralty members on the Committee, for the trouble they have taken in examining very complex problems.

Basically, the headquarters problem can, I think, be stated in this way. Over a number of years the Admiralty had shown its interest in new technical and scientific problems by setting up new departments manned by personnel with specialised knowledge to deal with a particular subject, and in this way new departments had introduced new techniques while the older departments have remained. This gave rise to two problems. First, departments were specialising in certain subjects and techniques rather than dealing objectively with broad functions; and secondly, a large number of departments were reporting directly to the Controller, who, almost alone, had to draw all these specialised interests together to make a workable end-product. It was, of course, the old problem of, on the one hand, the specialists, and. on the other, a well-run ship with all its specialised equipment trying to work together happily and smoothly.

The first part of the Report deals only with the question of organisation. The second part deals with the question of manning, and that part has not yet been completed. The Dockyard organisation has also been brought under review, and as soon as decisions are reached on this aspect I will endeavour to let the House know—probably at about the time of the Navy Estimates debate in this House or the other.

On the organisational side at headquarters, some eighteen different departments, which have previously reported direct to the Controller, have been drawn together in four main groups, each under a Director General. The first is the Director General of Naval Construction. He will have under him divisions responsible for design and production of ships, propelling machinery and electrical installations. The second will be the Director General of Weapons and Radio. His department will comprise divisions responsible for design and production and weapons, radar and communications equipment. Thirdly, there is the department of the Director General of Air Matériel, which will include responsibility for weapons and equipment of aircraft, including their maintenance and repair. Finally, there will be a Director General of Dockyards and Fleet Maintenance, who will be responsible for the Dockyard division and Fleet Maintenance division. Each of these two divisions will, of course, have its own Director.

The first three of these Directors General will come directly under the Controller; the Director General of Dockyard and Fleet Maintenance will come under the Fourth Sea Lord, who will assume responsibility for the superintendence of the Dockyards and the maintenance of the Fleet on behalf of the Controller. The noble Viscount wanted me to be quite clear on this point. This leaves the Controller responsible for design and production of the ships and their equipment, including, of course, their weapons and aircraft. But the Fourth Sea Lord will be responsible for operating the Dockyards as such. It will be, of course, for the Controller to decide, for instance, if a ship is to be built in one of the Royal Dockyards. When that decision has been made and designs fed into it, it will be for the Fourth Sea Lord to see that that work is carried out. In the same way, he will be responsible for fleet maintenance as a whole.

The noble Viscount asked about contract work. It is very unusual for normal maintenance work to be carried out by contract; most of the contract work is new construction, and this would come under the Controller. The purpose of this change is to relieve the Controller of the very heavy burden which falls on him at the present time and enable him to concentrate on the really important task of design and development. That is the central task which the Controller has to do, and he will be given enormous relief by these changes. It is very largely with this object in view that the Director Generals have been appointed, who will accept responsibility and be able to relieve the Controller. This system has the advantage of improving co-ordination of the specialised divisions, and will also enable a decision to be made without particular reference to the Controller at all points. One of the results which will flow in due course will be to abolish the Deputy Controller and Vice-Controller, who is now in charge at Bath. I should like also to emphasise that these changes which I am announcing now are concerned with Headquarters and not the Dockyards. So far as the future of the Dockyards is concerned, what I am saying now has no bearing whatever.

I am aware that these changes will take a little time to put fully into operation, but am sure that reforms of this nature are long overdue. It should enable work to be conducted more quickly, should define responsibility more clearly and should enable specialists to work more easily with other branches so that the end product is better suited for the purposes for which it is intended. I very much hope that by the time the Navy Estimates came to be discussed I shall be able to give a fuller picture of further decisions on these lines. I have sought to answer the noble Viscount's question and I hope I have met the major points in so far as decisions have been reached at the present time.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am much obliged for the answer which the noble Earl, the First Lord, has made on what I have said to-day. There is only one other point. When the noble Earl comes to deal with the Navy Estimates, it would be useful if he could give the House information about whether comparisons have been made by the Nihill Committee between the methods and results in the Dockyards and those in outside industry. If there are any main contentions on that point one way or the other, the House might be informed.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that the Nihill Committee have taken into account such comparisons.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.