HL Deb 31 January 1967 vol 279 cc892-909

2.56 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 17th January. The effect of this Order is to absorb the Ministry of Aviation with the Ministry of Technology. As such, it has its place in the Government's efforts to promote advanced technology and new processes into British industry.

Since the Ministry of Technology was set up in December, 1964, to assist in the economic and technological development of industry, it has become responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority, the National Research Development Corporation and the industrial side of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. When set up, it was made the sponsoring Department for the machine tools, electronics, telecommunications and computer industries. It has since acquired responsibility for the mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering industries, and for the ship building industry. With the transfer of the functions of the Ministry of Aviation, the Ministry of Technology will become the sponsoring Department for the aircraft industry. It will also assume responsibility for the Ministry's research, development and procurement work on aircraft, guided weapons and electronic equipment.

The draft Order is made under Section 1 of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act 1946, and is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in accordance with Section 3 of that Act. This section provides that no Order in Council for the dissolution of a Government Department may be made unless copies of the draft have been laid before Parliament and each House has presented an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Order be made.

It might be helpful if I were to say a few words about the history and origin of the Ministry of Aviation. It has its origins in the formation of the Ministry of Supply in 1939 and the Ministry of Aircraft Production in 1940. Though its functions have been modified quite radically since then—especially in regard to its extensive temporary powers in war time—it has continued to be charged with procurement responsibilities in the defence field, most recently in connection with aircraft, guided weapons and electronic equipment. The title of the Ministry was altered to Ministry of Aviation in 1959, when civil aviation functions were transferred from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. When I say "civil aviation functions" these were not in fact all civil aviation functions, but those particularly concerned with the operation of airlines and civil aircraft.

A decision about the future of the Ministry of Aviation has involved a careful study of a number of important issues. One point for decision was whether ministerial responsibility for the aircraft industry should be associated with responsibility for the management of the airlines, customers of that industry, or whether it should be handled ministerially together with the rest of the engineering industry of which it is an important part. The Prime Minister announced on June 16 last year that the Government had decided that responsibility for the aircraft industry should pass in due course to the Ministry of Technology, and that civil aviation functions should be transferred to the Board of Trade. Civil aviation functions were subsequently transferred to the Board by the Transfer of Functions (Civil Aviation) Order 1966 (which is Statutory Instrument No. 1966/741) (as amended by Statutory Instrument 1966/1015), but the Ministry of Aviation retained functions in connection with the designing, development and production of civil aircraft and equipment for promoting safety and efficiency in the use of aircraft.

There was the further point that a greater part of the research and development resources controlled by the Ministry of Aviation were deployed in the military field. The Government's aim is to see that the benefits of defence research and development are more effectively exploited in the civil field and this can be more easily achieved if there are no departmental boundaries to cross. The issue here—and this was a particularly difficult one; a s I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will agree—was to discover whether the greater part of the research and development work of the Ministry of Aviation could be transferred to the Ministry of Technology whilst transferring the Ministry's military procurement responsibilities to the Ministry of Defence. This matter was studied with great care and in very much detail. The study led the Prime Minister to decide that the functions of the Ministry of Aviation formed such a closely related group that they should not be divided. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the House on November 21 last year that the Prime Minister had decided that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation were to be transferred to the Ministry of Technology as a whole.

It is recognised that the close ties between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Aviation in the management of military projects should be maintained, and, in fact, improved. The machinery for military procurement in the Ministry of Aviation will not be dismantled on its transfer to the Ministry of Technology. Indeed, the Minister of State in that Ministry who will, in effect, succeed the Minister of Aviation will have special responsibilities for defence procurement functions of the Ministry and will be the normal link with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Defence (Equipment). A provision enabling the appointment of a Minister of State is contained in Article 3(2) of the draft Order.

As a result of the reorganisation proposed in the draft Order, it will be possible for the Government to consider the economic and technological development of the engineering industry as a whole. It will also mean that a greater part of the Government-financed research establishments and research and development in industry is brought together in or under one Department. This will improve the services which the Government can provide to firms in civil industry as there will be greater opportunities for technological "fall-out", if I dare use that phrase again, from defence research and the initiation of research for purely civil application. And it will be achieved without detriment to the machinery for research, development and procurement of aircraft and associated equipment. This is a difficult area for decision, but I am satisfied that the solution which is now proposed and which is being put into effect will best meet the differing and, at times, conflicting needs and so add substantially to the national advantage.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the loyal support which the members of the staff of the Ministry of Aviation have given to succeeding Ministers over the years, and as a former Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force myself, I would pay my own tribute to the staff of a Ministry which was frequently under criticism and which had a difficult job to do in serving more than one master. Despite the immense technical complexities and the advanced realms in which they operated, they brought devotion, ability, skill and, indeed, a sense of co-operation of which I was deeply conscious. I am sure that in the Ministry of Technology, with its wider responsibilities, they will find full scope for their abilities. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 17th January.—(Lord Shackleton.)

3.8 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the Ministry of Aviation passes from the scene; and after eleven years of fairly close contact with that Ministry as a member of the Board of British European Airways I should like to pay my tribute to the civil servants in the Ministry for their unfailing courtesy and helpfulness on all occasions. I should like to think that this Order will bring about a position which means farewell to delay and indecision, so far as the operations of civil aviation are concerned; but the Order is part of the machinery of Government and subject to amendment and alterations which I fear may be giving opportunities for further delays.

It is right that your Lordships should be aware of the urgency of the decisions now awaited, many of which have been outstanding for too long and the lack of which affects aversely British civil aviation, at home and overseas. I wonder whether B.E.A. can now say farewell to delays on decisions required from the Government before a new fleet can be ordered; decisions dealing with planning of the numbers and types of aircraft required. I rather doubt it, because under this new procedure the Chairman of B.E.A. is in no position at all to go to the Minister of Technology. All the Chairman of B.E.A. can do is to go to the President of the Board of Trade, who in turn will go to the Minister of Technology and convey what the B.E.A. want or their particular viewpoint on some problem. The Minister will then come back to the Board of Trade who will, in due course, come back to B.E.A. All this, it seems to me, gives serious grounds for further prolonging these decisions of which I spoke just now. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reminded us, the Air Corporations are now administered by the Board of Trade; but to me it seems wrong that there is no direct access for the Chairman of B.E.A. to the Minister of Technology in regard to equipment which the Ministry of Technology will now be responsible for sanctioning.

My Lords, can we say farewell to other issues on which an urgent decision is required? There is the noise issue. I am not saying what the decision should be, but there must be a decision if operations for the future are to be planned; and the Ministry of Technology has a position in respect of that, just the same as the Board of Trade has. Can we say farewell to delay over a third airport for London, about which a decision is long overdue? The Ministry of Technology has a position there in the same way as the Board of Trade has. Can we say farewell to the inordinate delays over the new buildings at London Airport?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will allow me to interrupt him, I would say that I am afraid that I shall not be able to answer these questions under this Order. I should not wish to restrain the noble Lord from making these points, but he will appreciate that they do not arise in any way at all under the Order.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I think that these points do arise under this Order because the Ministry of Technology, which is to supersede the Ministry of Aviation, has indeed a position in respect of each one of the points that I am making.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, in that case I shall be interested to know from the noble Lord the points which link London's third airport with the Ministry of Technology and which would transfer functions from the Ministry of Aviation, as they now exist, to the Ministry of Technology.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the Ministry of Technology has a positionas regards the technical aspect of noise and the loss of power consequent upon the enforcement of certain noise restrictions. Undoubtedly the Ministry has a strong technical position there. As regards London Airport undoubtedly the Board of Trade will have to consult the Ministry of Technology about various technical aspects of take-off, landing and climbing for new aircraft. I admit that in respect of buildings the argument is a bit thin, but I believe that in practice the Ministry of Technology would be consulted by the Board of Trade because the Board of Trade would wish to know how big the hangars would have to be for the aircraft which the Ministry of Technology is going to sanction.

I think one could make the same point regarding the delay over the Turn house Airport runway. Undoubtedly, the Ministry of Technology will be asked, "What are these new aircraft you are designing and what design are you going to sanction? And what are these new aircraft going to require?" I believe that on all these matters, about which decisions are outstanding, the Ministry of Technology has a position, and the Board of Trade would not go forward without consulting that Ministry. I think the Government have created a dichotomy with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology. We who have been concerned with civil aviation will watch critically. After 11 years with the Corporation (and having known the Government, under pressure from many directions on many occasions, to make decisions which could not be extracted from them) I confess that I shall watch critically and, I regret to say, fearfully.

3.15 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I agree in one respect with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye: I think it is going to be a bad day for civil aviation. No doubt there will be advantages from the change, as there nearly always are from changes such as this. I suppose that there will be advantages regarding procurement and supply of Service aircraft. But so far as the posture of civil aviation is concerned, I believe that we shall see a decline. I do not think that you can divide the functions of the Ministry of Aviation between two Ministries which have a large number of problems to deal with, most of them having nothing whatever to do with aviation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has probably had a longer experience than anybody in this House in civil aviation, is quite right, although he was rather put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the noise problem.

I was struck by a statement made recently by the Chairman of B.E.A. Writing in the B.E.A. Journal, he pointed out that it was impossible for B.E.A. to order the new aircraft that were required until they had technical advice or instruction from the Government on the noise factor. That was the point which, rightly in my opinion, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was trying to make. The Chairman does not know and the Board of B.E.A. do not know what aircraft they can order for ten or twelve years ahead, which is the sort of time factor we have to contemplate, because the Government have not told them what the noise capability, or restriction, is to be. This is a matter which the Ministry should look at in conjunction with the Board of Trade. It is very definitely a matter for the Ministry of Technology. It is a technological issue which then becomes a commercial issue. B.E.A. says, "Get on with the technical issue and make your decision so that we on the commercial side may apply it".

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am a little alarmed by the difference in view about the relevance of certain topics between the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for both of whom I entertain the highest respect. But assuming for the purposes of argument that what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said is relevant, I wish to say most emphatically that the question of noise and the question of the siting of a third London airport are certainly not matters only for the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology. If the public is to be protected at all in its most vital interests, it is necessary to pay the greatest attention, I should have thought, to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; and, also, I should have thought (though I seldom speak on that topic) to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Since noise has been mentioned, I hope that, in this respect at any rate, the Government will show themselves to have regard to civilised standards. The noise over London at present is quite intolerable. London suffers noise from the air which is not suffered by any other capital city in the world, and, far from increasing that noise, it ought to be the task of the Government to end that nuisance.

3.18 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the full and careful explanation of this Order which he gave to us. I should like to echo the tributes which he and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye paid to the Ministry of Aviation and its staff. In my short period as a Defence Minister I received much kindness and much help at their hands, and if some of what I say may seem critical of the Ministry of Aviation, it is not a criticism of the people in the Ministry but of the system.

I know that the Special Orders Committee were probably using a time-honoured formula when they said that this Order did not raise any important questions of policy or principle. It seems to me, from this brief discussion that we have had this afternoon, that in fact it does raise most important questions of policy and principle, some of them relevant and some possibly less relevant. In any event, this Order does touch on the leading edge of our leading technological industry, and therefore, of course, what it does by this transfer of functions between Department and Department may in its effect be very crucial. I must express some doubts not only about what is being done but also about the manner in which it is being done.

I would recall to your Lordships that these changes were announced in the broad last June by the Prime Minister. He then said that they would become effective in the autumn. I assume that the Government had then taken some decisions on the broad scheme, but clearly they had no idea how this was to be done practically. This is reflected in two ways: first, the delay which has taken place. Now, when the detailed scheme is about to be implemented, it is not early autumn but mid-winter. Secondly, this lack of prior and careful thought invited a monumental squabble in Whitehall. The noise of that squabble was fairly audible, and the fall-out has been visible both in the Press and in Parliament. I think that was because the full and careful examination of the details of this issue, to which the noble Lord alluded, was not given before the decision was announced but afterwards. This seems to me to be putting the cart very much before the horse.

My second objection to how this is being done is the lack of prior consultation with the industry. Your Lordships will recall that one of the themes running through the Plowden Report on the aircraft industry was the need for bringing the Government and industry closer together and for attaining a closer degree of confidence between this important industry and the Government. I understand that when the Prime Minister's decision was announced in June, there had been no prior consultation with the industry; and there was none until a fortnight thereafter. And I do not think that it is any secret that sections of the industry have serious reservations about the scheme that is now before the House.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, could the noble Earl tell the House to which industry he is referring?

EARL JELLICOE

To the aircraft industry, and in particular to the careful scheme produced by the Society of Aerospace Companies, which I think runs counter to the scheme embodied in this Order. I personally share some of the reservations which have been expressed. If it was decided to break up the Ministry of Aviation—and I am not saying that it was either right or wrong—then I should have thought that there was a strong case for putting defence procurement under the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for alluding at some length to this in his exposition, but I should like to remind your Lordships that in paragraph 501, the Plowden Report says: The main purpose of any change in the arrangements"— that is, for the future of the Ministry of Aviation— would be to foster a more direct relationship on military aircraft procurement between the Service Departments and the industry'. That followed a statement in paragraph 499, no doubt familiar to the noble Lord, which states: In evidence before the Committee the most serious criticisms of the Ministry came from Air Force Department witnesses". The reasons why I feel that procurement should have gone to the Ministry of Defence are fourfold. First, in my experience as a Service Minister I was always up happy about the cushion interposed by the Ministry of Aviation between the producer and consumer. I very much share, so far as military procurement is concerned, the sort of doubts my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has expressed about the procurement of civil aircraft. I think that there is a great deal to be said for a direct and, if necessary, a somewhat abrasive relationship between the producer and consumer in this field. It brings a smell of the front line into the factories, and perhaps a little more technology into the Services.

Secondly, I would remind your Lordships that other countries not dissimilarly placed seem to manage their affairs in this field without the interposition of a great bureaucracy between the military consumer and the producer. The Americans do it; so do our immediate neighbours, France; and they seem to manage, if anything, rather better than we do. Of course, I should not feel this if we did not now have an integrated Defence Ministry. I should be the first to concede that in the old days, when every Service Department was more or less a law unto itself, this was a different matter. Your Lordships will recall that before the last war the Royal Air Force and the Air Ministry were responsible for procurement for the Fleet Air Arm. I do not think that most people in the Fleet Air Arm were happy with that situation. It has been said that that was one of the reasons why we entered the last war with less than adequate Naval aircraft. I am not saying whether that was right or wrong, but it has been a strongly held view. But now that we have a fully integrated Ministry of Defence and a Minister specifically responsible for equipment matters, I think this completely changes the situation.

My fourth reason for feeling that there is a strong case for bringing military aircraft procurement under the new integrated Ministry of Defence is the question of close collaboration in all this with Europe. That involves major issues of defence policy and also different issues of staff requirements. These are matters which I think should fall squarely on the Ministry of Defence, on the Minister responsible for supply and, of course, on the Secretary of State for Defence himself. To some extent the Government have recognised this. In his statement on November 21, the Prime Minister said: The detailed arrangements will ensure also that the Secretary of State for Defence will continue to take the lead in all business with other countries on defence projects. That situation would, in my view, have been better faced, with the responsibilities clearer and more clean-cut, if the responsibiliy for military aircraft procurement had been placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Defence.

I do not wish to be dogmatic about this matter. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it is by no means an easy question. I recognise the force of the arguments which he put. I recognise the difficulty of separating research and development and procurement in this field. I recognise that there may be some advantage in the transfer of technology to the Ministry of Technology in that the fall-out might benefit the other areas of technology for which he is responsible. I also recognise that the solution which I have been favouring, at least in argument, involves difficulties between the civil and military fields. But if the case is held to be overwhelming, then I should have thought that there was a case for not abolishing the Ministry at all in the first place.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, there is a real danger that this fledgling Ministry of Technology will be swamped by taking on board this vast bird of the Ministry of Aviation. If it is best to keep all these functions together, then I should have thought that there was a case for not establishing the new Ministry of Technology but for keeping the Ministry of Aviation and grafting on to it the new functions which the Ministry of Technology has assumed. However, if there had to be a break-up, then I personally have real doubts about the new arrangement, because I feel that procurement should have gone to the Ministry of Defence, and because I share some of the doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. If there was going to be a break-up, I doubt whether it was really sensible to hive off the civil aviation functions of the old Ministry of Aviation on to the Board of Trade.

I will not labour these arguments, which have been fully ventilated this afternoon. A lot of Ministries have been mentioned which have direct interests at stake—for example, the Board of Trade, Housing and Local Government, and Agriculture by my noble friend Lord Conesford—and I would produce a new candidate in Transport. I personally should have thought that there was a strong case, if the Civil Aviation functions were going to be detached, for putting them, not with the Board of Trade, but with Transport. To take one example, I find it difficult to understand how you are going effectively to plan the site for the third London airport without taking closely into account the whole complex of rail and road communications in the London region.

I have spoken for rather a long time on this Order, but I make no apology for this, because it does touch on a vital segment of our industrial life. I should like, in conclusion, to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, two questions—and I apologise in that I have not given him prior notice of one of them. My first question is whether the noble Lord can tell us what savings, if any, in Civil Service manpower the new arrangements will permit. My second question relates to space. As the noble Lord knows, the Ministry of Aviation had certain specific responsibilities in this sphere. I should like to pay tribute to the late Minister of Aviation, Mr. Mulley, for the way he discharged those responsibilities. Can the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, say whether those functions have gone to Technology? I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether advantage has been taken of these new inter-governmental inter-departmental changes to ensure that in future there is a real ministerial authority centred on one Minister for our policy in space matters. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to give a positive answer to that question.

To sum up, I should like to reiterate that I have some real doubts as to what has been done. I want to repeat that I have some real criticism of how it has been done. But, that said, your Lordships will be relieved that I am not going to suggest that you should do other than assent to this Order.

3.33 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, your Lordships have taken the opportunity on this relatively narrow Order to stage what was rapidly growing into a major debate on the machinery of Government, and I must confess that if I had been in Opposition I, too, should have taken such advantage. But, equally, I should not necessarily have expected the Minister replying for the Government to answer all the points. None the less such interesting points have been raised and this is an issue of such importance, that I will, with your Lordships' permission, at least express my personal views on some of the matters that have been covered. This is in a sense an off-the-cuff reply to a debate on the machinery of government.

First of all, I do not think—and I say this with the deepest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—that it is appropriate to go quite so far on some of the aspects relating to civil aviation as he did. There are in existence two Civil Aviation Orders which, although not liable to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, could have been prayed against, and were in fact prayed against in another place. This would have been an opportunity to discuss certain of the issues.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, may I say that I cannot quite remember the dates, but I think I was "old-sealed-lips" at the time. I think I was shut out from speaking when I was still a member of the Board.

LORD SHACKLETON

I sympathise with the noble Lord in that he has missed his opportunity. But that opportunity was not denied to the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford, or to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, like my noble friend, I cannot precisely recall the date, but I think I was in Tokyo at the time.

LORD SHACKLETON

As the noble Earl knows, that is no possible justification to your Lordships' House. Therefore, I should prefer not to go into those matters, bearing in mind, also, that it was the previous Government which took civil aviation' away from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. However, that is not to suggest in any way that the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raised, and, indeed, this passionate subject of noise referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, are not of the greatest importance.

I accept that the object of any reorganisation must be to achieve greater efficiency and quicker and more relevant decision making. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, with regard to the Minister of Technology and his particular relations with the heads of the national airlines, that, whether or not there is formal access, I cannot conceive that there will not be informal access. Strictly speaking, although I, as Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force, was not contractually or functionally in relationship with the heads of the aircraft manufacturing companies, I saw them whenever they wished to see me, and, more often, when I wished to see them; and I see no reason why in any system of government any Minister should stand on the protocol of formal access with people carrying the responsibilities which the chairmen of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have.

It could be argued—and I throw this out lightly, not as a statement of policy—that in this matter the President of the Board of Trade will be wholly on their side, whereas the Minister of Aviation suffered from permanent schizophrenia, in that he had to serve both the aircraft industry and the civil airlines, whose interests were not always the same. It could be argued that we have now moved to a position of opposed interests. But this does not necessarily suggest that the airlines will be worse served. Indeed, I should hope that in the light of experience the new arrangements will be better than those in the past.

The last thing I should wish to do is to criticise either those who carried out policy in the past or, indeed, previous Governments who sought to make it in what is an exceedingly difficult field. We all learn by experience, and whatever arrangements are made in the way of formal government machinery, there is no substitute for the hard facts of life and the understanding of them and of the limitations and difficulties in this highly complex subject of weapon, aircraft and electronic procurement.

I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on frequent occasions. quietly or otherwise, on the subject of noise, and I do not propose to do other than say that the problem of decision in relation to noise and its effect on the policy of aircraft ordering—and this applies particularly in relation to supersonic aircraft—is one of the most difficult with which any Government has been confronted. I can assure noble Lords that it is receiving great attention from the Government and from our advisers, and if there is delay in achieving an answer it is a result of the fact that there are no easy answers to this particular problem.

I should now like to turn to the interesting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Here his experience and mine are slightly similar, except that he would argue that the Royal Navy suffered in the past from the machinations of the Air Ministry and the Royal Air Force, which ensured, through incompetence or malice, that the Navy failed to get the aircraft they needed during the war. I must say, speaking as a former member of the Royal Air Force, that one was conscious at the time that the Air Force had—shall I say?—grave remarks to make about some of the aircraft the Royal Navy had. One of the most difficult issues that can confront Government is the organisation of government and of the machinery of government. I think it is, I will not use the word a "travesty"(because I think it is probably over-simplifying to suggest that there was a great squabble in Whitehall over this matter) but natural that where interests of great importance were at stake, those who had strong views should put them forward. It is also natural that anyone who has an area of responsibility will believe that if only he can extend that area further he will get better service than if he has to rely on an agency or an allied service; and I myself, like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, have been very prone to these emotions.

In arriving at this decision the Government gave the matter the most exhaustive examination. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested that there was no consultation with industry before the decision was taken. I would suggest to him that the decision to which I referred on June 16, while establishing that responsibility would go to the Ministry of Technology, did not finally settle where responsibility in the matter of procurement would lie. On this matter industry was consulted very fully and differing views were expressed. I am well aware of the views of the S.B.A.C. and of the force with which they argued them, and under the hat I then wore I had considerable sympathy with them. But there was very great difficulty in deciding how to settle this problem.

There was a choice before the Government of leaving the Ministry of Aviation as it stood—and there were, of course, very powerful arguments in favour of doing so and powerful arguments against—and of splitting it up, giving part to the Board of Trade, part to the Ministry of Defence, and part, perhaps, to the Ministry of Technology. The actual decisions in relation to responsibility for procurement were taken only after a most thorough examination, in which inevitably one came to a conclusion, as previous Governments have done, that it was essential to keep this function in one particular package. In other words, in order to maintain that phrase which is so familiar to those in this field, namely, the seamless road from research right through to production, it was necessary to keep the old Ministry of Aviation responsibilities in this field in one particular package.

At the same time, it was the powerful aim of the Government to spread the very great advantages that could come from research in the defence field; and let us face the fact that a very high proportion of our national scientific brains are involved in defence research. It is very much the aim of the Government that the great skills that rested in such bodies as the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern and the Royal Aircraft Establishment should operate also to fertilise industry. Therefore it was decided to take that part of the Ministry of Aviation, shorn of its direct responsibilities in the operation of civil aviation, and put it under the Ministry of Technology, but in a form that would enable it directly to meet and serve the needs of defence.

There has been considerable criticism in the past of the service the Ministry of Aviation has given; and anyone who has been a Defence Minister has, as always, been conscious of defects. But any Minister is conscious of defects of certain of his departmental colleagues, and not least, of course, as the noble Earl will agree, of the attitude of Chief Secretaries to the Treasury and others who say "No". However, the Ministry of Aviation, involved with their responsibilities, confronted with decision-making in a peculiarly difficult field, in which the Government—either past or present Governments—have not always been as successful, have none the less served the country well. I believe that closeness of relationship and of understanding based on experience, some of it bitter, has led to very real improvements in this field, which it is my belief will continue in the future.

The noble Earl complained, I think, that in this respect the Government were not giving full effect to the Plowden Report. There are other aspects of the Plowden Report which the Government have not carried out. They have not carried out the Plowden Report's recommendation to set up a single, unified aircraft industry with a Government majority holding. Indeed, their announcement, which I am sure is much more acceptable to your Lordships' House, is that there should be a minority holding. But the Government, by and large, have had to give full consideration to these matters, and most of the Plowden recommendations have been carried out.

I hope that, with the new arrangement, we shall carry forward the virtues of the past system and achieve even greater benefits to the community than we should have done under the old system. I do not think that this area—namely, the organisation of the machinery of government—is one in which it is ever possible to be certain that one has achieved the right solution. But I do think that the logic of the arguments which have led to the Government's taking this decision is convincing, and I believe that in going ahead with this proposal we have made an arrangement which will continue to serve the Ministry of Defence effectively; and the Ministry of Defence, through its own organisation, through the setting up of a Minister of Defence, Equipment, with a stronger effect across the board, will be better able to co-operate with the Ministry of Technology than in the past.

If there have been mistakes in the past they have certainly not all been in one quarter, and I hope, therefore, that the reorganisation and strengthening of the Ministry of Defence, with the transfer of these particular functions to the Ministry of Technology, will fulfil the very fair prospect that there will be wider benefits from the enormous national investment in the field of defence, research and development. I am glad that your Lordships will agree to this Order, and I am grateful for the interesting points that have been raised. I can only apologise because, in answering for the Government in this way, I may have missed certain of the interesting arguments put forward.

On Question, Motion agreed to: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.