House Of Commons
Wednesday 9th July 1975
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
Dundee Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Dundee Port Authority Order Confirmation Bill
Orders for consideration read.
To be considered tomorrow.
Oral Answers To Questions
Scotland
Grant-Aided Schools
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to alleviate hardship following the closure and reorganisation of grant-aided schools; and if he will make a statement.
17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an up-to-date statement on the outcome of his negotiations with the grant-aided schools in Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland.
Before I answer, I should inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is heavily engaged today in Scotland with the State visit of the King of Sweden. I am sure that the House will appreciate why he is not here.
The answer to the Questions is as follows. In the light of the discussions which have taken place between the Depart- ment and representatives of the grant-aided schools, my right hon. Friend has decided that grant to the schools that elect not to join the public system will be phased out over six years beginning in 1976–77. Amending regulations for this purpose will be laid before the House in due course. Discussions between the schools and the education authorities concerned are now in hand and the schools will shortly be asked to make known their intentions for the future. For schools not joining the public sector, a six-year phase-out of grant should give protection to existing pupils at least until they have completed their primary or secondary courses. As before, it will be open to the managers of the schools to use the grant to alleviate any serious financial hardship.It is helpful that the Under-Secretary has given us some idea of the phasing out of the grants to these schools. Is he aware, however, that many parents are deeply concerned about the shortage of school places for their children due to the reorganisation? Will he tell the House why, in these serious times of financial stringency, schools such as John Watson's in my constituency have been put out of business and closed down as a direct result of the Government's policy?
What happens to children who are unable to continue in the grant-aided schools is of concern to all of us. Discussions of a detailed nature on how many children will come into the public sector and the amount of resources that are needed are taking place at local level. In times of financial stress there is no justification for continuing a selective system of education which is subsidised from State funds.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that the general phasing out of the grant will take place over at least a six-year period in order to give plenty of opportunity to the children at these schools to stay on and complete their education?
I thought I made it perfectly clear in my original answer that the grant was to be phased out over a six-year period beginning 1976–77.
Does the Minister appreciate that his answer is very close to a motion tabled a few months ago by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)? Does he appreciate that we expect to hear the Conservative benches congratulate him on what he has just said?
I shall be surprised if anything that the Government do receives the congratulations of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
Does the Minister agree that what he has announced has nothing at all to do with what we propose, namely, the maintaining of the real value of grants? Does he agree that what he proposes will involve enormous hardship to the parents concerned because of inflation eroding these grants? Will he also agree that the acute financial problems facing local authorities are a reason for abandoning his plans, bearing in mind that to transfer a substantial number of children to the public sector will not only disrupt the life of those children and their education but will put a further burden on the ratepayers of the cities concerned?
The hon. Gentleman is always very quick to leap to the defence of people who expect educational privilege at public expense.—[Interruption.] Yes, we shall be saving money. However, it is not being done for that reason. It is an educational policy that we are pursuing to get much better education in Scotland. We believe that this policy will work and we see no reason why there should be immense financial hardship because it is within the resources of the schools to take care of it themselves.
Assembly
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress his Department has made in its work on the Scottish Assembly.
My Department, in conjunction with the Cabinet Office Constitution Unit, is urgently pressing ahead with its consideration of the many complex issues involved in establishing the Scottish Assembly. As was announced last month, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on devolution in the autumn.
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that it is his intention to press ahead with the publication of the Assembly Bill as soon as the White Paper is published? Will he further confirm that he will have no truck with the absurd delays and prevarications suggested this week by members of the Conservative Party?
I confirm the first point. It will be the Government's intention, as soon as possible after publication of the White Paper, to press ahead with publication of the Assembly Bill. In relation to the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman I expressed some surprise during the weekend. I thought that the road to Dundee, in which town the Conservative Party Conference was held, had nothing on the road to Damascus when it came to conversions, but I understand that the position has again been reversed.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great and growing concern in Scotland, especially in the light of local government reorganisation, about the huge extra financial burdens and huge extra bureaucracy which some concepts of a Scottish Assembly could impose? Is he aware of the fears in Scotland that Scotland might become the most over-rated, over-taxed and over-governed country in the world?
The hon. Member really surprises me—although I ought not to be surprised. The hon. Member, representing as he does the Conservative Party, ought not to assume that the views of the Conservative Party represent the views of the people a Scotland. That is where the great mistake is being made.
Economic Policy
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy.
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for further industrial development in Scotland to counter rising unemployment.
27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy, with particular reference to oil-related industry.
While the current level of unemployment in Scotland must be a matter for concern, the Government's vigorous regional development policies and the new jobs created as a result of North Sea oil continue to make the Scottish situation more resilient to today's wider difficulties than the rest of Britain or many other industrial nations.
We shall continue to take initiatives of special benefit to Scotland. As my right hon. Friend announced on 30th June—[Vol. 894, c. 326]—a further 200,000 sq. ft. of advance factory space is to be provided, while our decision to set up the Scottish Development Agency will be a major factor in creating new investment and employment.Does the Minister agree that the outlook for school leavers is very bleak at present? Can he give any idea whatsoever of his estimate of the figure which unemployment will reach during 1976?
No. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that it has been the practice of successive Governments not to make forecasts of unemployment. On the first point, I recognise that this is a serious problem and we are doing a number of things, through the Training Services Agency and in other ways, to encourage employers to take on school leavers when the summer holidays start.
Does the Minister accept that in view of the mounting level of unemployment it would be extremely valuable if the Government were to insist that oil companies and oil-related companies bought at least 50 per cent. of their goods from firms domiciled in Scotland?
We have already gone a very long way towards that. The proportion of oil-related equipment which is bought in the United Kingdom—and, of course, most of that is bought in Scotland—has risen in the last year quite substantially. However, I agree that there is a lot more to be done in this field. That is why we have moved the Offshore Supplies Office to Glasgow and why we strengthened it to get more of these jobs for Scotland.
While being heartened by the Minister's last remark, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is the greatest worry about the future of oil-related industries in Scotland, so much so that there is a delegation from the north of Scotland in the House at this moment to discuss this very matter with hon. Members? In my constituency there is a module building site at which, if no further orders are forthcoming in the near future, there will be substantial redundancies. Will the Minister be prepared to speak to his colleagues in the Department of Energy to try to ensure that there is more work related to the United Kingdom in our oil-related industries than there is at present?
On the latter point, I have already done that. As I have said, we are very anxious to get the maximum amount of oil-related work for Scotland, and particularly from West-Central Scotland to provide a better regional balance within Scotland. On the first point, I have already arranged to meet the delegation tomorrow.
Electricity Reconnections (Payment)
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has made of the consequences for needy consumers of the practice of the electricity authority in demanding advance payments, because of belated payment of accounts, before reconnecting the electricity supply; and if he will make a statement.
Following a study in 1972–73 by my Department together with the gas and electricity boards, the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Department of Health and Social Security, a memorandum of guidance on dealing with fuel debts was circulated to their respective local officials with the object of increasing co-operation between them in dealing with bad debt cases. The electricity boards have a statutory right to demand security deposits.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have nothing but appreciation for the electricity board officials in my constituency in their effort to recover arrears from defaulting consumers? However, is it necessary to ask, for example, for the payment of a debt and a quarter's advance payment, in the region of £40, from persons who are sick or are unemployed? That is not a very suitable solution. Has my right hon. Friend considered the installation of burglar-proof meters, so that we know that consumers will pay before they have electricity supplies?
In appropriate cases prepayment meters can be installed. There is a distinction to be drawn here between the had payer, who is a bad payer simply as that, and people who have fallen into arrears for perfectly legitimate reasons of illness and so on. In the latter cases, of course, an approach to the social work department can normally provide some kind of solution to this problem. That is what the earlier consultations I have mentioned were meant to provide. However, I am very willing, with new local authorities having come into operation, to remind local authorities now, in view of my hon. Friend's Question, of the necessity to get the kind of local co-operation which will deal with legitimate cases of people falling into arrear through no real fault of their own.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of his reply will be warmly welcomed? Many of us feel that in the light of local government reorganisation there is a need to update the advice. The new social work authority in the Border area has already expressed concern to me about the practice of the electricity board in regard to demanding large deposits and in declining part payment of debts, which seems a sensible thing to accept and something that it ought to be doing.
I shall certainly look into the latter point. However, the real answer is to have proper local consultation and co-operation. It will not solve all the problems but it will help considerably. Bad debts are a serious problem for the electricity boards. In so far as they arise through people just not being willing to face responsibilities even when they can, they fall on other consumers.
Does the Minister accept that there are many people on low incomes, particularly old people, who find it extremely difficult to run their electricity supplies with account meters? Why are the electricity boards set so strongly against some form of prepayment meters, perhaps with the use of tokens instead of coins?
As I say, in appropriate cases prepayment meters can be installed, but they have security problems. The South of Scotland Electricity Board is hoping soon to introduce two-monthly rather than quarterly bills, and perhaps monthly billing. There are various schemes, such as buying stamps and so on, which help consumers to save up, as it were, and not be faced with a bill all at once. A lot of work has been done on this problem, but it is a serious one for people on low incomes at a time of inflation.
While agreeing with the Minister's distinction between bad debtors and those who fall into arrear through no fault of their own and cannot pay their bills, may I ask whether he accepts that there is no justification for the boards demanding advance payments from the latter category, irrespective of whether the person concerned has thought of approaching or been able to approach his social work department?
If there are cases in which an electricity board has been unreasonable in demanding this deposit—which the boards are entitled to demand—I would hope to hear about them. I think that in most cases the social work department can help to clear up the matter.
Forth Road Bridge
5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there was an increase or decrease in the number of cars using the Forth Road Bridge in March 1975 as compared with March 1974.
The number of cars and commercial vehicles under 30 cwt, which are counted as a single category, rose from 536,000 in March 1974 to 589,000 in March 1975.
Those figures are to some extent a little more encouraging than those indicated some weeks ago. Is the Minister aware, however, that on the Severn Bridge, where the toll charge for a car is 12p, one can purchase a book of 50 tickets with a 10 per cent. reduction and on the Tamar Bridge, where the toll charge is 10p for a car, one can purchase a book of 20 tickets at half price? Therefore, as a first step towards the abolition of toll charges, will my right hon. Friend encourage the Forth Road Bridge authority to introduce some concessions of either 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. for regular users purchasing books of 40 tickets, which are available at present, which would produce an increase in local traffic and thus help local commuters between Fife and Edinburgh?
I think that any proposals of that sort would have to come from the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board in the first instance. If the board were to put such proposals to me, I would consider them.
Does the Minister agree that if season tickets or concessionary tickets for regular users were allowed, the other traffic would be able to make the crossing more quickly? I happen to know that a distinguished visitor who was going to Fife last weekend was held up for a long time before crossing the bridge.
I dare say that it would speed up the traffic, but it would also reduce the revenue and that must be taken into account.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition of tolls on road bridges may have an adverse effect on the Government's energy-saving measures, as the tolls might well discourage the use of bridges by cars and lead to the use of additional petrol? Will he get rid of tolls on bridges, as I think the Labour Government said they would do in 1964?
I have already made clear on previous occasions that I see no prospect at the moment of abolishing tolls altogether. The fact is that even with the tolls it is less expensive to use the bridges than to go the long way round.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why at vast expense the number of tolls has been increased by six and the number of people mantling them has remained the same, so that a majority of the tolls are normally shut, apparently regardless of the volume of traffic such as it to be found at the Royal Highland Show at Ingleston?
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this question with me before. I think the answer was that it was his Government who did it. However, if we are responsible in any way, I shall look into the matter.
Rate Support Grant
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the regional councils concerning the distribution formula for rate support grant; and if he will make a statement.
For the 1975–76 settlement the usual consultations took place through the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Working Party. It has never been the practice to consult local authorities individually.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Dumfries and Galloway have lost over £2 million in rate support grant on account of the new distribution formula, which has pushed up the rates so that there has been a 150 per cent. increase? Will he say why rates in Scotland have not been cushioned in the same way as they were cushioned in England last year? Is it not time to take action, bearing in mind the anger of the ratepayers?
It is true that the new distribution formula has meant that the Dumfries and Galloway region has had a comparative reduction in the rate support grant. That was a deliberate action because it was felt by the working party that Dumfries and Galloway had done rather well in the past. Even with these changes, the level of rates in the hon. Gentleman's area is still substantially less than in Scotland as a whole.
National Front Meeting (Glasgow)
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will call for a report on complaints about the conduct of the police at the National Front meeting in Glasgow on 24th May; and if he will make a statement.
I have studied carefully the report on the incident of 24th May which I received on 29th May from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde. The investigation of the complaints that have been made is, under present arrangements, a matter for the chief constable, subject to reference to the procurator fiscal in relation to those that involve criminal charges.
I recognise that in general the great majority of the police on the great majority of occasions provide a first-class public service and that they do so very often in difficult circumstances, but does my hon. Friend realise that on this occasion allegations of police misconduct were supported by many responsible members of the public and the Press? Would it not be fairer to the public, to the complainants and to the police if complaints of this nature were made the subject of a public inquiry instead of putting the police in the rather invidious position of having to act as judge and jury in cases of complaint against themselves?
I think that we should keep this matter in proper perspective. The approaches to my Department from the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred total only 19. The House will appreciate that there are many charges still pending and that these matters will be dealt with in the courts in the full view of public opinion.
As regards the position of investigation into complaints against the police, the House will appreciate that in England and Wales my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is at present conducting discussions with the police authorities. We have an undertaking with the police representatives in Scotland that if we move in that direction we shall consult them on the matter of complaints against the police. There is to an extent an independent element in the Scottish investigation in that in any prosecutions that arise the procurator fiscal is the deciding factor.Is the Minister aware that one of those who took part in this disgraceful affair was a former Conservative candidate, and that the Conservative Party has done nothing to disown him?
When I look at the SNP bench, I note that former Conservative candidates find themselves in the strangest places.
Is it not the primary duty of the police to protect people? Did they not do so very successfully on this occasion? Is it not a fact that the majority of people in Glasgow and the surrounding district are grateful for the way in which the police behaved on this difficult occasion?
I do not want to be seen to be taking sides in the matter in view of the fact that court proceedings are pending, but the appreciation of the people of Glasgow, and the people of Scotland as a whole, as regards the way in which our police in Scotland go about their duties in preserving law and order must be placed on record. We have a duty to uphold that situation.
Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because so many people accept that the police have been extremely good in the handling of public demonstrations in Glasgow—and many of the people who would admit that would be the demonstrators who were involved on the occasion in question—that something appears to have gone so wrong on this occasion, and that it would be in the interests of the police if there were to be a public inquiry?
The Chief Constable of Strathclyde appointed the deputy chief constable of another police force to investigate the complaints that were made. These matters will be discussed in public when the trials that are pending come before the courts, probably in September.
In view of the charges that are pending and in view of the disgraceful and uncalled-for sniping at the police today, will the Minister give us the simple figures and statistics, bearing in mind the allegations of police brutality? How many of the police received hospital and medical treatment after the event and how many of the demonstrators received such treatment? Does not the Minister think that it would help to give a proper indication of what happened if he would give us these figures which he knows and which are available?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should get over-excited about this matter. There is no indication in any of the questions that have been asked from either side of the House that allegations are being made against the police. As regards the hon. Gentleman's point about statistics, I could not answer that question without notice. It is not fair to ask such detailed questions without giving a Minister notice of the statistics that are required. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall write to him and give him the statistics if they are available.
Bearing in mind the colossal job that the Glasgow police undertake and what they did on this particular Saturday night, does my hon. Friend understand that as a Glasgow Member I resent the fact that policemen who are normally on duty in my constituent were tied up at Kingston Hall in taking care of 13 members of the National Front?
It has to be said that the use of police manpower is a matter for the chief constable and that the way in which he deploys his force is entirely up to him. Deployment should not be the subject of Government direction or intervention.
Trustees' Accounts
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that trustees' accounts of charge and discharge, statements of intromissions and other documents prepared by or for trustees in Scotland are more elaborate than those required to be kept by or for trustees in England and Wales; and whether he will take steps to simplify and cheapen the Scottish system of keeping trustees' accounts.
I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present arrangements.
Is the Minister aware that, although the Scottish legal system has many advantages over the English legal system, the English system makes it easier and much cheaper for trusts to be administered? I speak with experience as a trustee on each side of the border.
Yes, I accept that matters such as the accounts and the affairs of trustees are made much more elaborate under the Scottish legal system. However, we are not aware of any particular difficulties. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any particular case in mind and if he cares to write to me, I shall consider the matter and help him all I can.
The Borders
10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Borders.
My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
That answer will be received with regret by my constituents, who were hoping to have an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about the savage increases in rates in the Borders area and to hear his explanation.
Of course, there have been increases in rates in the Borders and elsewhere, but some of the increases are a direct result of evening up the situation in one area compared with another. In some border areas the rate poundage was only 20p or 30p in the pound. In those circumstances I would have been astonished if there had not been a substantial increase in rates this year.
Will the Minister accept that there are serious problems in the textile industry on the borders of South-West Scotland? Is he aware that many representations have been made to the Secretary of State for Trade about the use of Scottish names for overseas goods imported into the United Kingdom? This is an increasing problem and we are gravely concerned about the situation.
Representations to that effect have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and I have seen reports of that meeting. We in the Scottish Office obviously take an interest in the matter, and I shall pursue the point.
Housing Developments (School Facilities)
11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the estimated number of new houses which would have to be built in a catchment area where the existing primary school is full before a new school is built.
The number of new school places required as a result of new housing development varies according to circumstances and is affected, for example, both by geographical location and by the type of housing.
That is a somewhat disappointing reply. Is not the Minister aware that one housing development is being refused on the ground that no school places are available and that unless a new school is built in the area progress will come to a standstill? Is not this a highly unsatisfactory position?
There are indicators of planning provision for schools. In the first instance it is a matter for local authorities when drawing up plans for an area with housing schemes, whether public or private, to put up for discussion subjects such as school provision. If the right hon. Lady has a problem in her constituency which she would like to raise with me, I shall be glad to discuss the matter or to correspond with her about it.
Dundee
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the industrial estates in Dundee.
20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for increasing employment prospects in Dundee.
I visited Dundee on 23rd June, when I had wide-ranging discussions on the unemployment situation with deputations from the district council and other local organisations. On 30th June, in answer to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), my right hon. Friend was pleased to announce the allocation of a 20,000 sq. ft. advance factory for Dundee.—[Vol. 894, c. 326.]
I am grateful for that information most of which is already known to me and to others. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that in the period since his visit to Dundee there have been continuing redundancies and the threatened redundancies at NCR have now taken place? Will he now state when the proposed Civil Service jobs within the estimated figure of 80 to 100 will be announced in detail and when they will take effect in the form of employment? Is he also aware that the helpful suggestion by the Government to deal with redundancies represents a drop in the ocean compared with the loss of industrial jobs affecting the constituency?
I do not disagree with the proposition that the comparatively small number of Civil Service jobs falls far short of any solution to Dundee's problem. I have never pretended that it provided a solution. I hope that details will be announced within the next week or two and that jobs will be taken to Dundee as rapidly as possible thereafter. The situation in Dundee is worrying and a good deal of it is reflected in the general state of the economy. That is why I had to make clear in Dundee, as I do now, that the answer to the problem is to improve the general health of the economy. That is what the Government are attempting to do.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is necessary above all else is to grant special area status to Dundee to allow it to compete on equal terms with other areas throughout the country in order to attract sufficient jobs to replace the large number of jobs which are being lost in the city of Dundee?
I have already said that I shall pursue that proposal. I am bound to say that given the comparatively small margin between special development area incentives and ordinary development area incentives, which dates from the Industry Act 1972, I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion would make a substantial difference to the situation. I shall pursue the point.
Educational Deprivation Areas
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake a survey to determine which of the areas of multiple deprivation, as defined in the Department of Environment report "Census Indicators of Urban Deprivation" are also areas of educational deprivation, taking into account such factors as staffing shortages, part-time education and temporary accommodation.
I do not propose to undertake a survey for this purpose. I keep a close watch on the problems of staff shortages, part-time education and temporary accommodaion and am aware of the areas in which they occur.
Does the Minister agree, however, that there is an urgent need to define areas of educational deprivation since recent reports have shown that there is a close correlation between environmental deprivation and educational deprivation? Such a survey would readily identify those areas and point to remedial action which could be taken by the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that in face of existing evidence the Government's cut-back in expenditure on the school building programme and in other educational spheres shows up in a very bad light indeed?
I accept that there is a relationship between urban deprivation and educational deprivation, but the hon. Lady misunderstands the problem if she thinks that we do not know the areas of educational deprivation or have no understanding of them. There is no instant remedy for the problems in those areas, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. The Government are still spending more on education in the current financial year than has been spent in previous years. We shall do all we can to see that what money is available is used to remedy deprivation.
Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the areas that is well known for educational deprivation is North Forgewood, Motherwell? Will he consider in such areas making money available for special proposals to improve relations between schools and local communities, which is often a source of difficulty?
That is an interesting suggestion, but we must accept that there are dangerous teacher shortages in areas of educational deprivation. It is a problem which has bedevilled the Scottish education system for a decade. Every effort has been made to try to get teachers to go to areas where there is a shortage of staff. The additional sum of £1¼ million made available by the Government to attract teachers into areas suffering staff shortages is still available, as is other money, if the teachers will get down to negotiating a system of incentive payments to help transfer teachers to those areas.
Does the Minister realise that all Conservative Members wish to dissociate themselves from the disgraceful suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) last week that the Labour Party wish to keep poverty and deprivation in West-Central Scotland? Will he say what response the Government intend to make to requests by local authorities in West-Central Scotland for help to be given in those deprived areas?
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should repeat the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East. It is not worth repeating.
In regard to special measures, we are in the process of allocating financial resources to areas of greatest need. This means that some areas will not be able to expand as fast as they would have liked to expand in order to ensure that areas which are experiencing difficulties will obtain the means to carry out a determined attack on educational deprivation.Fishing Industry
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry.
I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply on 11th June, and mine on 18th June to the hon. Member.—[Vol. 893, c. 187–8 Vol. 893, c. 442.]
Although the fishing industry is grateful for the attitude shown by the Minister, may I ask whether he is aware that the situation in the industry is becoming desperate? Does he appreciate that the average prices were down by 10 per cent. on last year, that costs are still rising and that 25 per cent. of the STF is now tied up or has been switched to oil activities? Will he say something about the extension of the subsidy? Will he persuade the Department to pay out as soon as possible the subsidy to smaller owners, who are experiencing severe cash flow problems?
I assure the hon. Member that there will be no delay in the actual payment. Obviously we shall have to wait until the end of July before the claims can be paid. Against the background of the general state of the industry and the economic situation, we are urgently studying applications from the industry. As my hon. Friend said on 30th June, we hope to make an announcement about this as soon as possible. We also look with some degree of, perhaps, hope to the recent decision on producers' associations. That may make some marginal but perhaps helpful contribution to the prices that might be expected in the various fish markets.
In the overall context of the fishing industry, is my hon. Friend still receiving complaints about illegal trawling in the waters of the Clyde and off the West Coast of Scotland? Is he satisfied that the transfer of the fishery protection vessel "Jura" to oil-protection duties in the North Sea will not cause a further deterioration in the situation off the West Coast of Scotland?
I have not received any recent representations about the Clyde. However, I point out that the fishery protection vessel, which will be performing other duties, was never intended for use in the Clyde. Therefore, there is no change in or limitation upon the existing facilities in the Fishery Protection Service.
Has the Minister given further thought to the introduction of a scrapping subsidy, which would enable the sections of the fishing industry which want to get out to do so without too much loss of income?
Strange as it may seem, I am always willing to give further thought to anything that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) says. [Interruption.] That is possibly because he does not come up with many good ideas. However, it is far too soon to talk about a scrapping subsidy when there is a long-term future for the industry. I do not think that the use of such exaggerated phrases is helpful when we must sit down and look at the possibilities for the future of the industry.
Rates (Rural Areas)
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of regionalisation on the domestic rates in rural areas in Scotland.
The effect of regionalisation generally is to reduce disparities in rate poundages between one area and another.
Does the Minister appreciate that in many towns and villages in rural Scotland, such as Cried in my constituency, the increase in the rates after regionalisation was between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent.? Is he aware that these are areas which have practically no public services? Does he appreciate that the Socialist concept that we should, in his own words, even everything out merely punishes those who have the smallest income and the fewest services and distributes an equal share of the misery?
This position arose from the Conservative Government's Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I am not sure whether that was a Socialist concept. Last year Crieff had a rate as low as 59p in the pound and Kinross County had a rate of only 38p in the pound. Naturally, with regionalisation some of these areas are bearing disproportionate increases. All of this was anticipated and, indeed, inevitable in local government reorganisation. It was the Government of the hon. and learned Gentlemen's party who introduced this.
Will my right hon. Friend at least show some sympathy to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and do something to alleviate the level of rates for those living in castles?
I should think that they are probably already derated.
Does the Minister agree that when a similar emergency arose last year in England and Wales at the time of local government reorganisation, the Government introduced a special scheme to help ratepayers suffering increases of over 20 per cent.? Because it was an English emergency, only a small part of the cash came to Scotland. Why has the Minister failed the ratepayers in Dumfries and elsewhere who are facing savage rises? Why will he not fight and obtain a similar scheme for them this year?
I have already explained this in the Scottish Grand Committee last week. Even after the introduction of the scheme, which applied to Scotland as well as England, the increase in rates for the domestic ratepayer in England was 17 per cent. compared with 14·9 per cent. in Scotland. The rate support grant settlement this year in Scotland, which was unprecedentedly high—the gap between Scotland and England has again been widened to 8½ per cent.—was meant to produce for Scotland the same overall rate increase as in England, namely 25 per cent. In those circumstances I have made it clear that it is not the Government's intention to introduce any further relief. I have said this to the local authorities and they have accepted it.
Does the Minister appreciate the incredible hypocrisy of the Conservative Party in raising this question when they were guilty of the heinous shameful crime of overturning the Wheatley Report and placing Argyll in the Strathclyde Region?
The hypocrisy of the Conservative Party never astonishes or surprises me.
is not the Minister's reply a typical example of double talk? Does it not mean that the rates have gone up? Can he tell us whether the reorganisation of local government—producing, as it has done, increased rates—means that when the government of the country is reorganised and an assembly is set up the taxpayer will find that he has to pay additional taxes?
Of course rates have gone up. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the Scottish Grand Committee last week, he would have heard the matter debated at great length. I see that he is indicating that he did attend. He was unnaturally quiet if he did so.
School Leaving Date
16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to announce his decision on the representations made to him on the question of allowing pupils to leave school on their sixteenth birthday in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
The review of school leaving date arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced on 14th January is not confined to the question of allowing pupils to leave school on their sixteenth birthday. The implications of different courses of action suggested to me are at present under consideration.
Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education stated on 24th June and confirmed yesterday that it is the Government's intention to introduce a mini-Education Bill in the autumn which will include a clause to allow pupils to leave school on their sixteenth birthday? Will my hon. Friend confirm that this policy will apply to Scotland?
I am aware of my right hon. Friend's decision about a mini Education Bill. I understand that the summer leaving date will be brought forward to Easter. This does not affect the question of allowing children to leave school on their sixteenth birthday. The policy of bringing forward the summer leaving date does not apply to Scotland because we are having a much more fundamental review. A number of different options have been canvassed. We shall study those options and come to a conclusion as soon as possible.
Is the Minister aware that there is great disappointment that consideration of allowing pupils to leave school on their sixteenth birthday was not completed in time for the summer holidays, when a large number of pupils will be affected? Is he aware that parents in my constituency have pointed out to me that if they register their sons and daughters with relatives on the other side of the border for a week in June, some of these children can leave school because of the discrepancy over the autumn starting date between the two areas? Is it not time this nonsense was ended?
It does not only apply if people register their children on the other side of the border. If children are registered in schools in different education authorities, there are different dates. The position in Scotland is different from that in England. At present the local authorities also set the leaving date. There is a lot of controversy about whether children should be allowed to leave at 16. When I say 16 I mean their sixteenth birthday. Among the things that have been suggested is that there should be more than two leaving dates to spread the anomalies. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that the anomalies existed when the school leaving age was 15. The fact that it is 16 has made it no worse, except, of course, that some children want to leave early because it is the school leaving age.
Is the Minister aware that an anomaly arose in my constituency last year? A constituent of mine informed me that his son's birthday fell the day after the school recommenced. The boy had a job but could not take it because his birthday was one day late. Why should people have to wait? Why cannot we say that when someone is 16 years of age and if he has a job he can go ahead and take it?
Because we believe that there is educational advantage in rounding off children's education. There will always be anomalies with a fixed leaving age whether it is 15 years of age or 16. There is a tendency to get this matter out of perspective. It leads to the suggestion that the school leaving age should be lowered to 15, because children can get a job at 15. If we reduce it to 15 we shall have the same anomalies and people will ask "Why bother with the school leaving age at all?" There are very great educational advantages in children staying at school. To solve the problem by saying "Let them leave whenever they can" would simply not be facing up to the realities of the situation.
List D Schools
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the waiting time for admission to senior, intermediate and junior List D schools; how many pupils are on the waiting lists for each category; and what are his plans for extending the service.
The period is usually between two and five months for senior and intermediate schools and from one to three months for junior schools. On the waiting lists at 22nd June were 207 children for senior schools, 156 for intermediate schools and 93 for junior schools. Extension schemes due to be completed this autumn at existing schools will provide 69 additional places.
Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for that reply, which gives some indication of the seriousness of the problem? Will he seek to introduce into the service a system of flexible intermediate treatment centres to receive youngsters whose sole crime is playing truant? Is he aware that social work panels send these children to approved schools, which cannot always take them because others are committed there for more serious misdemeanours? Is he further aware that these children continue to play truant and eventually qualify for these approved schools by committing a misdemeanour? Is it not possible to set up these centres quickly?
I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the desirability of intermediate treatment centres. I have had discussions with a number of local authorities, managers of List D schools and directors of social work about this. I believe that there is now a much greater awareness of the desirability of operating these centres. As my hon. Friend will know, Springboig St. John is at present making an application to the Department in this connection. I commend those who have brought forward this imaginative proposal.
Does the Under-Secretary agree that the figures he has given underestimate the problem because there are many cases when social work panels have not referred children to these schools because they know that they are full and that there is a waiting list? Would he not agree that the work of the social work panels is being substantially undermined in view of the acute shortage of places in List D schools?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can state with such certainty that panels are refusing to put people on the waiting list for List D schools because of the difficulty in getting a place. What we have done is to make a thorough review of the waiting list situation. The present list of 456 has been reduced to that figure from the figure of 726 at which it stood in March. It was discovered that a number of applications had been left on the list when other measures had been taken. We now have a true list. There is, of course, pressure on the List D school system, but I do not accept that we are anywhere near breakdown point or that the situation is anything like as serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Does the Minister admit that, despite the improvement in the figures, the severe shortage of accommodation must be undermining the whole system of the juvenile panels and that the system is coming under attack from members of the public, whereas the real problem is the shortage of facilities available to the panels to which the children can be sent when circumstances so demand?
It is a question of where the circumstances so demand. It is quite wrong to assume that the only treatment desirable or needed for a youngster in trouble is placement in a List D school. If we take a youngster for a limited period out of the community in which he lives and then send him back into that environment, he has to face the difficulties of readjustment. If we can deal with youngsters in trouble by giving intermediate treatment, which means trying to find a solution within the environment and the community from which they come, that is a far better solution. I accept, however, that there are children for whom a List D school place is the only answer. We are increasing the number of places, but I do not think we can say that List D school places are the only answer to the problems of juvenile delinquency.
Law Reform
34.
asked the Lord Advocate if he will draw up a comprehensive programme for law reform for presentation to the Scottish Assembly.
There would seem little point in drawing up a detailed programme of work until the precise extent of the Scottish Assembly's responsibility is determined and its constitution agreed. The Government, however, remain alert to any opportunity that offers for the introduction of law reform measures, whether by this or any other means.
Does the Lord Advocate accept that there will be some disappointment over that answer because there has been a clamant need for parlia- mentary time to debate Scots law reform over the past few years? Is he aware that there is a good deal of discontent in the country and in the legal profession because of these delays? Will he further accept that failure to find time has resulted in an inability to get the Divorce Law Reform (Scotland) Bill through the House? Does he agree that a Scottish Assembly will provide the opportunity to deal with law reform in a more general way and also give us time to deal with the much-needed reform of the registration of title system?
There can be little doubt that a reasonable devolution arrangement should give greater time for Scottish law reform. This would be generally welcomed in Scotland. I would have thought that the people of Scotland understand very well that if we are to have a proper and workable system of devolution which will be stable and lasting and of benefit to them, we do not want to go chasing after detailed programmes in advance, seeking to do for the Assembly what it ought to do for itself.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any suggestion for reforming Scots law coming from the Scottish National Party is a gross impertinence since it was the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) who first prevented the Divorce Law Reform (Scotland) Bill from making progress in this House? Will the Lord Advocate facilitate the passage of a similar Bill which is likely to arrive in this House from another place this week?
My hon. Friend is right to say that obstruction by individual Members has prevented further progress in this area.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm the principle that law reform will become a matter for the Scottish Asesmbly?
I cannot confirm any such principle at the moment. Obviously, at present all aspects of future legislation with which the Scottish Assembly may deal are under consideration. The Government hope to publish a White Paper in the autumn setting out their proposals. The hon. Member can take it that this matter has been of concern to me and other members of the Government and that its importance will not be overlooked. There is a certain sense in which it is obvious that the setting up of a Scottish Assembly will give greater time for Scottish law reform proceedings.
Rape
35.
asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the law of rape in Scotland and the penalties applicable to those convicted of rape.
Yes. My deputes who have prosecuted such cases recently do not report any problems.
The maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. No such penalty has been imposed this year. The penalties imposed range from four years' imprisonment to 10 years' imprisonment. One accused was committed to the State Hospital in terms of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 and in another case the accused was sentenced to two years' probation. Clearly the judges discriminate according to the circumstances of each particular case.In view of the appalling difficulties which the English appear to have in dealing with this comparatively simple crime and the great ease with which, as the Minister has told us, we in Scotland deal with it, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could fit into his busy portfolio a word with the Attorney-General to advise the English how to administer justice with regard to rape without these difficulties, so that the people of Scotland can be spared having to pay their taxes to meet the cost of absurd inquiries before Mrs. Justice Heilbron or whoever is to conduct such an inquiry?
The hon. and learned Member's observation will no doubt be read by the Attorney-General. If it is necessary to make any further representations to him, I shall be happy to do so. I certainly agree that in this area the law of Scotland appears to have a point of view which is understood by the people and is of a commonsense nature. I believe that this area of the law, among others, is not assisted by artificiality and over-elaboration.
When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tighten up the law of rape, particularly as it affects the rape of Scotland's oil? Does he not agree—
Order. I do not think that that point arises out of this Question.
Does the Lord Advocate agree that the independence of our judiciary has to be maintained at all costs? Can he gives the House an assurance that if any controversy arises in Scotland similar to that which arose south of the border with regard to sentencing for rape or any other crime, he will strongly resist any suggestion to interfere with the security of tenure of members of the judiciary which may come from Members of Parliament or other individuals who happen to disagree with the sentence imposed?
I agree that the independence of the judiciary is a basic constitutional principle of the greatest importance which must be upheld if we are to continue to be a constitutional democracy. On the other hand, it is also a facet of constitutional democracy that just criticism should be made by the public when they are outraged.
Violent Death (Pre-Trial Investigation)
36.
asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the Scottish system of pre-trial investigation of the cause of violent death.
Yes, Sir.
May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his first satisfactory answer today? May I also suggest that he should have a meeting with the Lord Chancellor and impress upon him the fact that we have a satisfactory system in Scotland which does not involve the public allocation of blame upon persons yet to be charged with an offience?
I think that I can again answer "Yes" to that question.
Statutory Instruments
Ordered,
That the draft Assistance for House Purchase and Improvement (Increase of Subsidy) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]
Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 (Amendment)
3.33 p.m.
I beg to move,
The purpose of the Bill is to permit people under the age of 21 but over the age of 18 to stand for Parliament and, if fortunate enough to be elected, to represent those who have seen fit to elect them. The Act is now some 300 years old, it does not reflect the current state of the law in other respects, nor the feelings of the vast majority of people, nor, indeed, the views of the majority of the Speaker's Conference which recommended that the law be changed in this respect. A person who is 18 has now nearly all the rights and responsibilities of any other adult. He may make contracts, he may engage in business, he may be called up for military service and fight and be killed in the service of his country, he may vote, and he may sit on juries. He has full responsibilities, but he may not stand for election to this House. Where a person takes a full part in the life of the country in which he pays his taxes, works, and is treated as an adult in almost every other respect, it is totally illogical, wrong and out of date that he should be prevented from serving in this House if he is elected thereto. If this very modest Bill were passed—producing, as it would, a one-sentence amendment to an Act which is printed in such a form that one can scarcely read it—it would not have any disastrous effect. People at the age of 21 have the right to sit in this House, but I see about me very few Members who come within striking distance of that age. We have very few who are under 30. There is possibly only one who is under 25. There is one hon. Member on the Liberal benches who was under 25 when elected but is now ageing, along with his party. Now that there is a right to sit at 21, we are now starting to get people at 25, and more often at 30. If the age is reduced to 18, people will then be able to join in the parliamentary battle at that age, but it does not mean that they will be elected to this House, or that they will find any party likely to put them forward as a candidate for any seat which could be regarded as safe in anyone's wildest dreams. What is likely to happen is that there will be a greater involvement of younger people. There will be some who will be adopted to fight seats, and there is a possibility that some day one or two, or possibly three, might be elected, which would hardly produce catastrophe for the House. It would certainly introduce an element of youth, and perhaps we could do with that. Even if this Bill were to succeed in getting through the House in this Session, or a future Bill in a future Session, it would, in effect, do nothing more than what was proposed as a result of the Speaker's Conference. That conference was announced in August 1972, it began work in March 1973, and it reported in July 1973, by the vast majority of 10 to eight, that the minimum age of candidature for parliamentary elections should be lowered from 21 years to 18 years. That recommendation was buried along with that Parliament, and has returned to the archives, along with the incredible Act of 1695 which I am having the temerity to seek to amend. I believe it is right that young people of 18 should have the entitlement to sit in this House if they are elected, and that it is wrong that they should be prevented from so doing.That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Anthony Steen.
Parliamentary Elections Act 1695
Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
Orders Of The Day
Supply
[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]— considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Miss Margaret Jackson.]
Royal Navy
3.37 p.m.
We come to the fourth and last, for the moment, of our debates following the introduction of the Government's White Paper some months ago. This is the last of the three Service debates. We have already covered the Army and the Air Force, and in those debates the Opposition produced strong criticisms of the cuts which the Government have proposed. Today the House is being asked to approve the Navy Estimates, as a result of the White Paper, which the Opposition can only ask the House to look at with very great disapproval indeed.
These Estimates, in the face of the facts and figures spelled out so clearly in the White Paper, propose to cut by one-seventh the strength of the frigates and the mine counter-measure vessels, by a quarter the conventional submarines, and by a staggering one-third the fleet support vessels. The Opposition resist these cuts, and I propose to spell out as briefly as I can why we do so. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate. I cannot attempt myself to cover the whole field and the many interesting things shown in the Navy Estimates, but I want to concentrate on where I believe the real threat lies to the future defence of this country. The cuts proposed for the Navy are by a long way the most damaging in the White Paper, and they are being proposed in the face of every piece of evidence that has been produced and spelled out in the White Paper, everything that has been produced by naval and military opinion since, and by all our NATO allies without exception. They contain in them the most clear and specific warnings to this country. The history of military affairs has been scattered with warnings right through the centuries—warnings heeded and warnings unheeded. We need not look back any further than the memories of our fathers of the warnings which were given before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and of the copious warnings given to Stalin in 1941 that he was likely to face an attack from the Germans, to which he totally refused to pay attention. If some more up-to-date evidence is required, there was a television programme a few weeks ago, in which Lord Chalfont took part, and in that programme if was shown rather graphically that the Israel Government now clearly recognise, as their Prime Minister has said, that in 1973 they, too, had the clearest warnings of the attack that was coming and failed to take note of them. It would be easy for the House of Commons and this country to ignore the warnings before us now, but if these warnings are ignored it will not be the fault of this Opposition. We wish to spell this out as clearly as we can. It seems to me that it would be fair to approach this debate against the Government's own background. The Government have said that it is our top priority in defence to make our proper contribution to NATO. I accept that entirely for this argument, and I propose to demonstrate and, I hope, prove to the House that it is on the Government's own chosen ground that the proposals to cut the Royal Navy fall so far short of what the Government themselves say is necessary. I do not suggest that we should go back to some pre-war or Imperial rôle. I do not suggest that we can any longer expect the Royal Navy to police the seas of the world, and I hope that we shall hear none of that from Government supporters, because that is not what I am suggesting. When we consider what we need in naval defence, whether it is NATO or the United Kingdom, we have to give some account of the nature of the conflict that we might be called upon to face. In this, there is always uncertainty. No war is ever like the previous war. No enemy lets us know before hand what means he will employ to attack us. Therefore, in any sensible scheme an allowance to cope with the unexpected is essential. It could be that a future conflict—which is a horrifying thought in any event —took the form of a very short and sharp exchange of the most terrifying weapons available. We hope and pray that that will never happen, and obviously we shall do all that we can to avoid it. But that is the sort of conflict which could happen. However, we cannot rely on that, and that alone, being the only military problem that we have to face. We have to allow for the fact that many potential enemies may shrink from such a conflict, as we should ourselves. Therefore, we have to provide for a lesser level of interference or attack upon us. We have to provide for some element of reply to a normal conventional attack, possibly on a small scale, but possibly on a larger scale more difficult to cope with. Although I am glad that the Government have carried on our Polaris submarine force and our co-operation with the Americans in providing that deterrent, that is not and cannot be the main and only leg upon which our defence rests. Therefore, we have to address ourselves to the problems that this country would face if we had a conflict which was longer than a few hours or a few days. It seems to me to stand out clearly that, here, it is the maritime side of our defences which are not only important from the point of view of Britain but are the most natural and useful contribution that we can make to the NATO Alliance, which is the only forum in which we can hope to defend ourselves against any major attack. If nothing else, is clear that we in this country depend every bit as much today as we ever did in the past on the keeping open of our sea routes which our trading ships use and over which the raw materials which keep us going are brought in. In any conflict, even on a small scale, which lasted more than a few weeks or even possibly a few days, we should have to allow for the fact that we needed forces to keep open our sea routes. Some people say that this is now out of date. They imply that no longer do we depend, as in the past, on sea routes being kept open. But I ask anyone who says that to produce evidence to suggest that we are less dependent today on our sea routes than in the past. Is there any evidence that we are less reliant on shipping for bringing in our imports and taking out our exports? Do we rely less today than we did in the past on raw materials? Of course not. We rely on them as much as we did in the past. Every 24 hours, there are 120 oceangoing ships arriving at North-West European ports with vital materials. They bring into North-Western Europe a staggering 700 million tons annually of vital supplies of one sort or another. Two-thirds of that is oil, which itself provides more than half the energy of North-Western Europe, and there is no country in Western Europe at present which has more than two to three months of stockpiles of oil, and for practical and tactical reasons it is very difficult to envisage this being raised by any substantial amount by means of increased storage capacity. In case this is thought fanciful, we saw in 1973 what happened to the economy and to the jobs of people in this country when vital supplies of oil were interrupted. Within two to three weeks of the interruption, there was rationing of oil for industry, and factories had to think of methods of going on short time to deal with the shortages which arose. It is fanciful to imagine that we can ignore these facts and provide defence arrangements which do not allow for the adequate defence of our sea routes. It is not only in matters such as oil. There are vital supplies of metals, iron ore, foodstuffs, timber and all sorts of other commodities without which our economy would fall by the wayside. What is more, it is not only a question of trade, because in any possible international tension where NATO might be preparing to do battle with an aggressor, we have to remember that the whole NATO strategy is based upon the principle that, within the last few days or weeks when tension is building up, there is a massive reinforcement of the forces at present in Central Europe from this country and from across the Atlantic. Here again, the need for sea routes is clear and vital. What is the threat to this which is posed today? It is all in the White Paper. The Secretary of State has spelt it out in all its clear detail in the White Paper. For those who do not wish to know the details, there is a chart or plan on page 6 of the White Paper to show the disparity. Perhaps I can make it clearer by concentrating for a moment on the naval side alone. The new factor in the last five years is that the Russian Navy, from being a comparatively small and inward-looking naval force able to look after Russian interests, has become a powerful, aggressive, ocean-going, outward-looking force. It is a large and powerful force. It has very modern equipment, weapons and ships, and it is scattering itself all over the world. If we are in doubt about that, we have only to see the bases which the Russians are building in all the oceans to ensure that if they go forth from the normal waters round their homeland, they have supplies to keep them going. It is this powerful new element, clearly designed for aggressive intent against anyone—we do not know with any clarity against whom—which NATO cannot ignore. I could go into some detail about many of the sea routes with which we have to deal. I cannot do that because of the time available. But I must mention the longer-distance routes outside our home waters. We still depend massively upon oil imported from the Middle East. There is no sense in pretending that that is not so. At the moment and at every moment there are 200 tankers at sea in the Indian Ocean bringing oil from the Middle East to Western Europe. In the face of that, the blindness of the Government in disregarding and breaking the Simonstown Agreement without taking the trouble to make alternative arrangements for this vital trade route seems incredible. If I had been in the shoes of the Secretary of State at this stage, I should never have done anything like that. But we have to face the fact the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have done it and that there is no going back on it. We cannot recreate an agreement broken in this way. Therefore, it is all the more essential that the British Government should now take a lead in persuading our NATO allies to take a positive view of planning and of taking notice of the vital interests of NATO in keeping open these sea routes south of the Tropic of Cancer. I hope that the Government will take a lead in trying to get their NATO allies to take this step. The southern flank of NATO is causing much concern to our allies, yet the Government have announced the withdrawal of our permanent naval force from the Mediterranean. I hope that the Secretary of State will understand that it is not the physical presence of particular ships that is so important; it is the political importance of a British naval presence which makes it so much easier for our allies, who provide the main body of the naval force there and always will provide it. The Secretary of State has said, under pressure from our NATO allies, that he will arrange for British ships to take part in exercises in the Mediterranean. I hope that he will do that and that the navy will play a full and enthusiastic part in any further exercises there. But it is the northern flank of NATO which is by far the most important from our point of view and it is here that the disparity is greatest. We have all read or heard of the submarine battles in the last war that nearly succeeded in bringing our economy and our defence effort to a halt. At the height of the Germans' submarine power, they had a maximum of 200 submarines to deploy against us and we had 400 anti-submarine escort vessels to deal with the threat. We know how near we came to failing to counter that threat. It is agreed by all naval experts that even today a superiority of six to one between anti-submarine vessels and submarines is necessary to be sure of being able to cope with any threat. The Soviet submarine fleet, which is by far the largest the world has ever known, totals more than 385—excluding those fitted with inter-continental ballistic missiles. Let us suppose that only half of them—and that is quite a supposition—were pitted against us and the northern flank of NATO. What anti-submarine vessels do we have in NATO to deal with that? There are 58 in the United Kingdom, 24 in the Netherlands, perhaps half the French fleet, which would total 21, seven from Norway and two from Denmark—a total of 112 anti-submarine vessels to deal with, at a conservative estimate, 200 submarines. Against that background and military opinion that a superiority of six to one is needed to cope with a submarine threat, any Government ought to think hard about allowing such a situation to continue. I have not even mentioned the fact that the whole North Sea area has assumed a new importance because, in a year or two, we shall be largely dependent on it for half our supplies of oil. I do not have the time to talk about the drastic reduction of about half in our amphibious force, disapproval of which has been clearly stated by our NATO allies, and also no time to talk about the effects on our construction yards of the cuts in the naval building programme which must follow the severe reduction in the number of our ships at sea. I hope that these facts, and the rapid survey which I have carried out of the disparity between the forces at our command and the forces likely to be put against us in the vital business of keeping open our sea routes, will be enough to make any Government think twice. I hope that the Government will agree that the military case which I have made is reasonable. They may then ask where the money is to come from to avoid these cuts. It is not a question, even under this Government, of no money being available. The Government wish to spend it on other things and they must defend their actions in so doing. It is a question of priorities. The Community Land Bill, which is going through Parliament, is expected to cost between £300 million and £400 million in its first year of operation. Does the Secretary of State think that that Bill is more important than having a Navy which can keep open our sea routes? That is the question which he must answer. The White Paper states that the savings in 1975–76 will be about £300 million. Contrast that with the proposal to spend £300 million or £400 million on a Bill that at least half the country, probably more, does not even want. In the following year, savings are expected to be about £270 million. We are spending £530 million a year on food subsidies. Is it more important to spend this amount on food subsidies than to have an adequate Navy to keep open our trade routes? I would find it very strange if the Secretary of State made a statement that it was. It is not a question whether the Government have the money. The Government do have the money, but they are spending it fast on many other things. The Navy Estimates are the result of a review by the Government which took more than a year. It is not a question of it being a rush job or of the Government not having time properly to carry out the review. These Estimates are the product of all the careful assessments of which the Government are capable. It is an assessment which the Opposition considers to be fatally misconceived. The White Paper proves that the threat facing NATO is strong and increasing every week. It emphasises that Britain's main rôle in defence is our contribution to NATO and that our defence must be seen as part of the defence of Western Europe by NATO. The White Paper flies in the face of its own logic and responds to this situation by announcing major cuts in our naval contribution. All this has been condemned in polite but devastating terms by all our NATO allies, by virtually all expert military opinion and by a vast majority of Press and public opinion. The ink was not even dry on the White Paper when the Government without rhyme or reason, coolly announced further cuts of £110 million. We still do not know the precise details of these cuts. It would be easy for the Opposition in the face of the truly dreadful economic mess into which the Government have plunged us to let these Estimates pass as an inevitable result of an incompetent Socialist Government that is running out of money, but we cannot ignore what every one of our allies in Western Europe recognises. Unless NATO and its member nations wake up to the threat that is now so glaringly obvious, we may lose our ability to defend our nation from a slow death by the strangulation of the nation's trade. This is a question of priorities. We Conservatives put our national defence at a much higher priority than does the Labour Party. It is appropriate to leave that old protagonist of mine, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), to put his finger, as he so often does, right on the spot. He said last month,Perhaps the best answer to this can be given in the words of Somerset Maugham when he said"It is my view and the view of most people that the health service is as important to the defence of this country as is the Army, the Navy or the Air Force."—[Official Report, 17th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1249.]
I therefore ask my hon. Friends this evening to vote against these estimates in which the Government are weakening the vital defence of this country."When a nation values anything more than freedom it will lose its freedom—and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose them too."
4.2 p.m.
It is always a pleasure to follow a speech by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) because, in spite of the illogicalities and imperfections in his case, nobody could question his sincerity and his commitment to the nation's wellbeing. We may differ deeply on how we can best serve that well-being, but his sincerity is not in doubt. I shall develop my answers to the points he has made in the course of my speech, but I must make a couple of observations before his words disappear into the ether.
I begin by accusing the hon. Member of being guilty of that old game of the Opposition—humbug. I have listened carefully to the suggestions which he has made for cuts in public expenditure, and even if I were to accept that his suggestions were candidates for cuts—which I do not—the total of the sums he mentioned was only £930 million at the outside. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has gone on record as saying that the nation's difficulties can be solved only if we make cuts in public expenditure at the level of £4,500 million. The Government would like to know, and have never been told by the Opposition, precisely how the gap between the £930 million and the £4,500 million would be bridged. In substantiating my claim of humbug it is worth pointing out that the Conservatives were still in office in 1973 shortly before the General Election and faced economic difficulties which were not so severe as those confronting the country when the full pressure of the oil crisis was upon us. Even so, they initiated cuts of £291 million at 1974 prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman really asking us to believe that the Conservatives, if they had been returned to office, would not, confronted with the kind of crisis we had to face of maintaining essential oil supplies, have continued in defence terms along the road of cuts that they had already begun?Surely the Under-Secretary will agree that the previous Government provided three and a half years of stability in defence expenditure which was of great value to the forces. There is a great difference between a cut at the end of three and a half years and drastic cuts such as the Government are making.
The Minister's mathematics are not all that good in adding up the figures I gave. I believe he is confusing totals with yearly totals, and I hope that when he reads Hansard he will look more carefuly at the suggestions I have made.I am delighted that we are going to have a debate about mathematics. The hon. Member has still failed to tell us how he will meet the sums stipulated by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. His intervention has only served to underline my observations about humbug.
I have one other general observation to make. It is extraordinary that the Opposition, who are committed to the principle of the membership of NATO and a defence strategy within the context of NATO, still talk about our problems as though we would be operating on our own. The whole point of the Government's defence policy is that there must be a sensible division of responsibility within the NATO alliance. The hon. Member underlined the issue of the southern flank and the Mediterranean. It is interesting that since we have announced our new policy towards the southern flank and the Mediterranean, the Italians have come forward with the most substantial expansion for years in their contribution to the maritime strategies of the NATO alliance. This makes the point about how we cannot be expected in our financial situation to carry the burden of the whole alliance and how other allies must be prepared to do their fair share. The indications are that when we make a stand they are willing to take a fair share of the burden, and they have already begun to do so. In view of what the hon. Member for Ayr said, it seems wise briefly to remind the House of our principal reductions in the Royal Navy following the defence review. There will be a reduction in our amphibious forces involving premature disposal of HMS "Bulwark" and her helicopter squadron, and 41 Commando of the Royal Marines will be phased out as we prepare to leave Malta at the end of the present agreement in 1979. We shall not be proceeding with the construction of two new purpose-built commando ships. As a result of the decision no longer to earmark ships for assignment to NATO in the Mediterranean in war and to withdraw our forces stationed in Singapore, there will be reductions in the planned numbers of destroyers, frigates and mine counter measure vessels. These reductions will involve premature disposal of some existing ships. The number of conventional submarines will also be reduced because of our decision to specialise increasingly in nuclear-powered vessels. There will be a consequential slimming in afloat support. We plan the premature disposal of three Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers and five other vessels. There will also be deletions from certain planned future orders. The House will remember that the defence review set a target of reduced manpower strength in the Navy amounting to some 5,000. The defence White Paper published in March stated that the consequent redundancies amongst the United Kingdom Royal Naval and Royal Marine personnel would be fewer than 1,000 officers and men. Total strength would be reduced from 79,000 to 74,000. Since then we have undertaken a thorough analysis of the Navy's manpower requirements up to 1979 and of the most appropriate means of achieving the target for reduction. I am pleased to be able to say that redundancies are now expected to be even smaller than originally predicted. By cutting back on entries and by reductions in the extensions of service, estimates based on current plans are that it will not be necessary to make any junior officers or United Kingdom ratings of other ranks redundant. As far as more senior officers are concerned, a small redundancy programme will be necessary, probably involving fewer than 50 officers of the rank of commander and above. In the first instance it is envisaged that some 12 officers will be made redundant by the end of 1977. All those in the specialisations and age bands involved will be approached on a personal basis to seek their attitude towards voluntary redundancy. Whenever possible, those selected for redundancy will be volunteers, but some non-volunteers may have to be included in the programme. All will receive the redundancy terms set out in the defence White Paper. I recognise that a number of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, even if the hon. Member for Ayr does not include himself in their number, are deeply anxious about the statistics which I have just underlined, but in their—in many cases—nostalgic preoccupations they should not overlook the very positive benefits derived from the defence review. It has given the Government, Parliament and the nation an opportunity to think through our British defence rôle, analysing what we can do and how best to do it. This was an exercise long overdue. We have had too many White Papers which have amounted to little more than an inventory of the inherited patchwork of capabilities and responsibilities, at best outlining certain limited adjustments. The reality is that we are no longer the centre of a great empire with all the consequent implications for defence and foreign policy of that position. Nor are we a dominating economic world Power in the sense in which we once were. As we all recognise—whatever our position on the recent referendum—our future will inevitably be far more orientated towards the Continent of Europe than in the past. We can no longer afford to police large areas of the world alone, as the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to observe. We have, therefore, to establish what are the fundamental priorities in defence terms and, having decided, determine to fulfil those priorities convincingly. In this context we believe that the only sane strategy for Britain lies within the overall NATO defence structure. Of course, it may be tempting to wish that we could still shepherd our merchant ships around the seas all over the world, but, in all honesty, this is just no longer a practical proposition, and the sooner we understand this the better. Nothing could be more foolish and irresponsible in defence terms than posturing in attitudes and situations which cannot be sustained. We would deceive nobody but ourselves.Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House and this country that for the first time in centuries this Government have altogether abrogated any attempt to be able to defend our overseas trade?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman's impatience on defence matters is well recognised in this House and is in many senses respected. If he can bear with me a little longer, I hope to deal in some depth with the kind of anxieties he has in his mind.
Having said this, nobody in my position could for one moment overlook the dramatic story since 1962 of rapidly growing Soviet maritime strength way beyond any level dictated by a purely defensive preoccupation. This story of Soviet naval expansion has been impressive in terms of both the quantity and the quality of its equipment. The fact that it is on average launching one new nuclear-powered submarine a month is a daunting prospect by any standard. The recent world-wide Russian naval exercise—OKEAN 75—held in April was the biggest in its naval history. The significance and scope of its deployments in that exercise are, indeed, a sobering matter for reflection. The Soviet Minister of Defence, Marshal Grechko, has himself summarised this growth in Russian naval capability as follows:Should the pressure ever be exerted, we shall have to concentrate on the most essential priorities, and the House should be in no doubt that it will be within the NATO area that our most basic interests lie. It is, therefore, to this area that we have primarily dedicated ourselves in defence terms. It is against this background that we should assess the future rôle of the Royal Navy. The defence review concluded that we should concentrate British effort in those areas where we could make the most significant contribution to collective defence. For the Navy this must mean the Eastern Atlantic, the Channel, the North Sea and our other home waters, as well as custodianship of Polaris as part of the NATO nuclear deterrent. It is not always completely understood that the maritime element is not a separate compartment of defence policy. On the contrary, it is part of the basic foundation—a cornerstone—of the whole of NATO's strategy. It has to be recognised that without the maritime task of keeping open the supply routes from the United States to Europe in any time of developing tension, the strategy on land would prove little more than a hollow facade. Furthermore, the maritime environment provides for any potential enemy an excellent opportunity to deploy political pressure without the same degree of risk of self-defeating escalation to a nuclear holocaust which would be present in any military confrontation on land. The House will forgive me if I turn to the thoughts of the architect of Soviet naval expansion, Admiral Gorshkov. He has said—again I quote:—"The Russian Navy has undergone a qualitative change and its rôle in the defence of the country has been changed. Its basis is nuclear submarines, naval missile-carrying and anti-submarine aircraft and various kinds of missile and anti-submarine surface ships. Our navy has left coastal waters and land-locked seas for the expanses of the world's oceans."
a navy"While representing a formidable force in war"
This quotation suggests to me that this lesson has not been lost on the Russians when one considers the vast and rapid expansion of the Russian Navy."has always been an instrument of policy of the imperialist states as an important support for diplomacy in peacetime, owing to its inherent qualities which permit it to a greater degree than other branches of the armed forces to exert pressure on potential enemies without the direct employment of weaponry."
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman more than is necessary, but is he about to add, after that spine-chilling quotation, that therefore we must reduce our own NATO naval contribution very substantially?
The hon. Gentleman is asking me to set a standard which he did not set himself by giving way, but he would do well to sit patiently, as we did to hear what he was endeavouring to say.
The credibility of NATO's policy of deterrence lies in the capability to deploy sufficient forces so as to meet and contain aggression at whatever level. It depends upon the concept of flexibility, generating uncertainty in the mind of potential aggressors about the precise manner in which the alliance would respond, and the precise timing and circumstances in which the alliance might escalate conflict to a higher level. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force play a vital part in this flexibility. In the Eastern Atlantic they provide the bulk of NATO's ready maritime forces, demonstrating to both the Warsaw Pact countries and our NATO allies alike that the Soviets could not count on a quick victory on land by isolating Europe from America in a time of tension or war. If the Warsaw Pact possessed an unchallenged capability—which it does not at present—to dominate the Atlantic and cut these vital lines of communication, the effect on allied confidence—even if no shots were ever fired—would be profound, as would be the effect on the Russians' calculation of the outcome of any act of aggression which they might be tempted to commit. When we came to office we discovered that the series of arbitrary cuts imposed by the Conservative Government on defence had inevitably created an atmosphere of uncertainty. Nowhere was this better illustrated than by the vast question-mark overhanging the future of naval aviation. I am delighted to see on the Conservative Front Bench the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who used to urge his own Government to overcome their timid indecisiveness about naval aviation. For years a decision had been anxiously awaited on the maritime Harrier. The House will have noticed that within days of announcing the final form of our defence review we were able to make a positive statement about the future of this versatile aircraft with the Fleet. This illustrates my point. What was needed above all was a thorough review of commitments and capabilities. This we have completed, and, as this example illustrates, we are now involved in the task of moulding a modern Navy matched to future and present needs as well as to available resources, a Navy well aware of the task expected of it. The shape of the Fleet will be that required to play the part which NATO expects of us in the forward sea areas of the Eastern Atlantic and Channel. Here the main threat is the formidable Soviet submarine force, which—in fairness, the hon. Member for Ayr said this—already outnumbers that of NATO by over two to one, and which is backed by a very powerful anti-surface ship missile capability residing in surface ships and aircraft, as well as in the submarines themselves. We have, therefore, decided to put our main emphasis on anti-submarine warfare and are going ahead with the anti-submarine cruiser programme. The effect of these ships will be maximised by our decision to develop the maritime Harrier. The air cover which these aircraft will provide—primarily in intercepting the reconnaissance and target-indicating aircraft on which the Soviet long-range missile forces depend—will enable these ships to operate further afield than would otherwise have been possible. We also plan to counter the Soviet missile threat by continuing the programme of new destroyers and frigates, including the Type 42 destroyer with the Sea Dart missile able to provide air defence cover for groups of ships, and the Type 22 frigate armed with the Sea Wolf anti-missile system and with Exocet. Our other main naval anti-submarine weapon system is the nuclear-powered submarine. We shall continue to give high priority to this programme, and we are planning to arm our submarines with a missile which will also give them a much more formidable anit-surface ship capability. We also must recognise the substantial mining threat. In this context we have placed the order for the first dual rôle hunter/sweeper/mine countermeasure vessel. In addition, we have in prospect new missiles and other weapons systems and we are studying whether hydrofoils and hovercraft have a place in our defence plans. At this point I should like to turn to the Royal Marines. The House does not need to be reminded of the profound impression which their proficiency and commitment have made upon me as their Service Minister. I make no apology for repeating what I have previously said in this House. They are in every sense an élite corps. We shall be retaining the Royal Marines brigade headquarters and 3 Commandos with their associated Wessex helicopters. All these are, of course, declared to NATO. One of the commando groups which I was able to see for myself in training in the Arctic Circle last winter is specially equipped for arctic warfare. They are constantly available for deployment to Northern Norway. The Royal Marines as a whole have undertaken other major duties during the past year, including their work in Northern Ireland and their service with the United Nations Forces in Cyprus. I was speaking of our fleet developments to meet our NATO tasks. But we also have our new important national priorities in the protection of our interests in the North Sea. With the greatly increased significance of the resources of the sea and the seabed—not least the prospect of self-sufficiency in oil supplies from the North Sea—the Navy, together with the Royal Air Force, clearly has a significant part to play on what has become known as offshore tapestry. In some ways closely related to this offshore tapestry responsibility is the work of the Royal Naval Hydrographic Service. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that in this sphere during its distinguished history it has set perhaps the highest standards in the world. This service is still of immense importance for the Navy, but it has increasing civilian significance as well, particularly in the context of the use of resources of the sea and seabed. As I have already reported to the House, a special hydrographic study group has completed its work. Its report is under careful consideration by the Government, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement before very long.Is the Department paying attention to the practical suggestions made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in this respect?
I assure my hon. Friend that we have always paid the closest attention to the observations of Select Committees. We find it constructive in the best sense and stimulating of more thought on how we can best do our job.
What must, however, in the meantime be appreciated is that, whatever civil contribution this Service makes, the defence budget on its new limited basis can cover only that part of the hydrographic task which is relevant to military priorities. So far I have been concentrating on the main responsibilities of the Navy, but there are, of course, still some wider commitments which have been spelt out in the defence review. For example, there is the Gibraltar guard ship, the contingent of Royal Marines in the Falkland Islands, and the small naval force at Hong Kong. In the case of the last, we are, as the House knows, considering, together with the Hong Kong administration, its appropriate future size. The United States Government are now in the process of steering through the legislation proceedings for their future in Diego Garcia, and a new formal agreement is to be signed in due course. The expanded facilities there will offer useful support for refuelling, re-supply and minor maintenance of British naval ships as well as those of the United States. However, we do not believe that this modest expansion, which, with the evidence of Russian military and naval developments in Somalia, is fully justified, will undermine the objective and the search for realistic arms limitation agreements. I emphasise that we share the desire of the littoral States for peace and stability in the Indian Ocean and we fully support the proposal by the Australian Government for mutual restraint by the United States and the Soviet Union. We, therefore, deeply regret that, despite our representations, the Russian Government have proceeded with their decision to build up a military presence at Berbera. As far as CENTO, SEATO and the Five-Power defence arrangements are concerned, we shall, of course, remain members and continue with our respective consultative commitments. As the House knows, after careful objective consideration, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence have explained that the disadvantages of continuing to subscribe to the Simonstown Agreement by far outweigh any positive advantages. The agreement has, therefore, been terminated, and we have no continuing special relationship with the South African navy. But the facilities at Simonstown will remain available to us—as they are to other navies—on a customer basis if we should ever need to use them. The termination of this agreement in no way prevents the Royal Navy operating in the Indian Ocean, where facilities in a number of other places are available. The Royal Navy will also benefit from the increased flexibility of deployment provided by the reopening of the Suez Canal. We hope that the first Royal Naval group consisting of five frigates and supporting Royal Fleet auxiliaries led by the destroyer HMS "Glamorgan" will pass through the canal next month on its way to the Indian Ocean and the Far East. The Royal Navy, with its special conditions of service involving such extended periods of time away at sea and consequent separation, has special welfare problems. I am, therefore, delighted to inform the House that we are making good progress with the establishment of the Naval Social Service envisaged in the Seebohm Report. The head of the service, Miss Baker, has already prepared her first report, which is being studied within the Department. Our first social work students are already undertaking courses in social administration at various centres of higher education, and I hope that it may prove possible to proceed to the appointment of regional heads of the service before the end of the year. A special tribute should be paid to the existing staff of the former Naval Welfare Services who are making an important contribution towards the success of the new service. We have also recognised the special housing problems for Service men, and have introduced improvements in our home purchase arrangements. As the House knows, the Department of the Environment has also recently issued a revised guidance circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the special problems which face Service men and their families in finding accommodation when they leave the Services. This is a welcme move, to which we hope local authorities all over the country will respond by recognising their collective responsibility towards those who have manned our national defence Services. The WRNS continues to make an indispensable contribution to the efficient work of the Navy. Its rôle and organisation have recently been thoroughly reviewed. It has been decided that it should in future be more closely integrated into the naval Service, so sharing both the greater opportunities and the fuller obligations of such Service. We are actively considering what new jobs it could undertake, and we shall lay before Parliament proposals to bring it and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service—with all its fine traditions—within the ambit of the Naval Discipline Act. I believe this to be a logical and timely step which will bring the WRNS into line with the women of the two other Services. We have also considered the future rôle and structure of the Volunteer Naval Reserves. The decisions which we have made about their future, which we are promulgating to the Fleet and the Reserves this afternoon, will involve reductions in ships and manpower but will ensure that they are tailored to meet their war-time task and are more integrated with the mainstream of the Royal Navy as a whole. The Reserves will continue to have a vital sea-going rôle primarily in the field of mine countermeasures warfare, and they will operate the new, more sophisticated mine counter-measures vessel which will be allocated to them in due course. There will also be changes in the command and control arrangements. We are convinced that these measures will result in a taut, effective structure for the Volunteer Reserves, providing a worth while and rewarding experience for all concerned. No fighting Service can be effective without efficient support, but cuts in the front line inevitably bring reductions in the demands upon the support organisation. Studies are, therefore, being undertaken into the future needs, including the management review of headquarters and rationalisation studies. All four naval dockyards are being retained and will continue to be fully committed. Their work, as always, remains indispensable to the deployment of the Fleet. It is intended that any future marginal capacity that may become available should be used to undertake work for United Kingdom warship builders, foreign Governments and appropriate civil customers. Always remembering the industrial and employment consideration elsewhere, we would also hope to take back into the yards work which in the past we have been forced to put out to contract. New machinery has been established at the headquarters in Bath for handling dockyard assistance to other Government Departments and outside industry. It is worth noting that the value of such repayment work in the current financial year is estimated at £5 million. The Royal Dockyard Policy Board has continued to give invaluable advice on the operation of the dockyards. We have recently taken a look at its terms of reference and have redefined these to bring it still closer into contact with the operation of the individual yards as well as the dockyard headquarters at Bath. During the past year the board has been joined by Lord Feather and John Garnett, Director of the Industrial Society. Richard O'Brien has also continued his highly valued service on the board. After several years of outstanding work on the board, Sir Henry Benson has left it, and I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep personal appreciation for the tremendous assistance which he has given. During the past year a great deal has been done to introduce new management and accounting procedures into the dockyards. Next year we shall be introducing a separate Vote for the yards, which will certainly assist in establishing clear accountability to Parliament and in providing an added stimulus to efficiency. The presentation of these accounts will allow for comparison of performance between individual yards. In the light of experience of the working of this Vote, it will in due course be decided whether or not to proceed to a trading fund. In the meantime, alongside these management changes a great deal of time and effort is being put into the improvement of industrial relations within the yards, in the Royal Naval supply and transport service and elsewhere. The recent industrial Civil Service pay settlement has obviously covered the civilian workers in many naval establish- ments. It has included the principle of equal pay for women and special arrangements for participation in efficiency bonus schemes by employees not currently covered by existing schemes. At Chatham dockyard we have initiated an experiment for a trial year of tidying up the complex structure of various incentive schemes and, we hope, improving efficiency and job satisfaction by the introduction of a new wages structure. If this proves successful it will be extended to all four dockyards. During the 16 months since I took over this ministerial post from my predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) who made a distinguished and important contribution as Minister—I am glad to see him in the House today—I have made it my business to see as much of the sharp end of our activities as possible. If one thing has impressed me more than any other in the visits I have been able to make, it is the calibre, professionalism and loyalty of the men and women, both Service and civilian, upon whom we count for the effective implementation of our naval policy. We should never be tempted in an age of, at times, almost literally incredible technology and sophistication to believe that this panoply of scientific achievement can somehow be a substitute for human qualities; it can never be better than the standards, motivation and application of the men and women behind it. I therefore pay the warmest possible tribute, in which I know hon. Members on all sides of the House will wish to join, to all the Service men and women of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, WRNS and nursing service, remembering, apart from their continuing regular service and vigilance, their part in operations like the evacuation of Cyprus last year, the courageous acts of heroism in search and rescue at sea, demanding patrols day after day, night after night in the streets and waters of Northern Ireland and the clearing of the Suez Canal. I should also like to put on record the Government's appreciation for the steadily reliable service given by the Naval and Marine Reserves. In the Navy Department we have traditionally a particularly large number of civilians in the essential support services, and again I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will wish to record their gratitude to the Royal Navy Supply and Transport Service in its 10th anniversary year, to the ships' companies of the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries with their outstandingly high level of competence, to the thousands of civilians in our naval dockyards, naval aircraft yards, other fleet establishments and, not least, all headquarters staff. This whole debate takes place against the backcloth of the grave economic difficulties with which the country is confronted. In these circumstances it would be absurd to dismiss the genuine anxieties about defence expenditure of a number of hon. Members on this side of the House. But I put two points to some of my hon. Friends with all the seriousness at my command. First, I always have had, and continue to have, great respect for the genuine pacifist position, but those of us who have forgone that position face an entirely different situation. We forgo the pacifist position because we believe there is a threat which we must meet. This means that we must not shirk the task of analysing exactly the character of that threat and of ensuring that, together with our allies, we are in a position to meet it. We cannot afford to spend more on defence than is absolutely essential, but, equally, it would be criminally wasteful of public resources to spend a great deal of national wealth on providing a defence system which was insufficient to meet the challenge. My second point is that, as our party has repeatedly made plain in its election manifestos, we see the NATO alliance as an instrument of détente as much as of defence. It is because I believe that we must achieve a greater level of understanding between East and West and because I believe that we cannot look our children in the face if we ever slacken in our commitment to achieving genuine disarmament that I believe fragmentation or disintegration within the alliance would at this juncture prove disastrous. The devastation which could be brought about in the holocaust of modern warfare is so horrific and grave that we must discipline ourselves into avoiding the temptations of negotiations by gesture. The road to a sane world will be hard, demanding the most painstaking and intellectually testing negotiations. We owe it to future generations that any agreements made will be unequivocal and guaranteed. This means that we must be able to negotiate in confidence within the framework of credible collective strength. The Navy stands ready to play its part within that essential framework.4.38 p.m.
The question posed in this debate is whether the judgment is right in the cuts now being made in the Royal Navy and to what extent they alter or weaken our defensive position.
A logical and cool assessment of the kind of threat which we face must take into account a number of factors. The first factor is obvious—the strength of a possible aggressor, his tactics and his strategy. As we heard this afternoon, the Russian navy has been vastly expanded. It is interesting to see the areas in which the expansion has taken place in the past five years. First, there has been an increase of 150 per cent. in its ballistic submarine fleet. There has been an increase of 35 per cent. in its nuclear powered submarine fleet. The number of Soviet frigates has gone up by 125 per cent., its amphibious vessels by 40 per cent. and its aircraft by 20 per cent. This is not a flag waving fleet. It is a fleet which means business. It is a fleet which tips the balance of power. The second factor which we must work into our assessment is the strength of the Western, or NATO, alliance. We should not underestimate our rôle in NATO, the importance of NATO to us and our importance to NATO. Our counsel and our decisions are a vitally important influence on the work and strength of NATO. We cannot afford to sit back, cut our forces and expect other countries in NATO not to take account of that and not to consider their position and whether they can afford to make the same cuts. We cannot forget that inflation has eaten into the budgets of our partners in NATO just as much as it has into ours. Alas, in our case it is somewhat worse. A third factor in our assessment has to be considered, namely, that of political changes on the international and European scene and, more especially, within NATO. If we take into account the upheaval and changes in Portugal, and the difficulties between Turkey and Greece, our job becomes all the more important in ensuring that we, with NATO, have sufficient forces to exclude a Russian presence from areas where we would face a great danger. In this respect I single out Portugal as one of our partners which is closest to us. We should find ourselves in a different position from that which we are in today if Portugal left NATO or changed its political allegiance. This all forms part of the inescapable assessment. It is extraordinary that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and, on the one hand, talk about the build-up and growth of Russian forces and the threat that that poses to this country and, on the other hand, talk about the cuts which are being made. It is humbug to talk in those terms. It is a hard fact that, however difficult our economic problems are, our priority must be to maintain the safety catch on the balance of military forces. The question that arises in today's debate is whether the cuts that are being made in the Navy take that balance to breaking point. I believe that we are at that breaking point. When we consider our strength it is important to examine the long-term effects of these cuts. For example, of the number of frigates that we have in service, 27 came into service between 1956 and 1963, 13 came into service between 1964 and 1970 and seven have come into service since 1970. Happily, there are three more Type 21s due in service this year. As can be deduced from these figures, the over riding majority of frigates in our Fleet are in the age bracket of 15 to 20 years. Of our 10 guided-missile destroyers, four are more than 12 years old but we have five under construction, which will help to reduce the ageing effect in the number of guided-missile destroyers. However, the situation that the review will bring about, due to the number of destroyers and frigates being reduced by nine in this 10-year period, becomes all the more serious if we take into account the age of the ships that we have at present. The Russians are building a new Navy. We are watching our Navy get older and more decrepit. In the unhappy possibility of a conventional war occurring, the important need is for us to detect that threat at the earliest opportunity. Our detection must be centred—and the Minister is in agreement with this—against a surprise submarine underwater attack. The emphasise should be on early detection and the quick kill, and then we must have the protection methods at our disposal. The Minister was extraordinarily wise to hold on to the building programme of HMS "Invincible" and to the through-deck cruiser programme. He was even wiser when he placed the order for the Maritime Harrier. This is a most remarkable aircraft and will be of the greatest benefit in enabling us to land on small through-deck cruisers in the future. The Harrier can take off from a small area of deck and also land on a similar size of deck and, therefore, we can use our depot and maintenance ships in the rearguard in order to keep the number of ships at our disposal above the maximum that the through-deck cruiser can accommodate. The rôle of repair and maintenance ships in the fleet's disposition, with which the through-deck cruiser presents us, is worthy of the deepest examination. In a period of inflation such as the present the aim is to get the best value for money. The obvious answer is standardisation. Much lip service is paid to standardisation. However, a great deal of work has to be done on it. It is important that this work is carried out. We spend nearly £500 million on research and development, and much of this could be offset if we agreed with some of our NATO partners on research and development programmes which we could jointly undertake. Of course, such joint programmes have been undertaken—for example, MRCA—but a great deal more has to be done in the near future. It is not the time to talk about standardisation without achieving concrete results. One of the cries in the Royal Navy is always about the burden of paperwork that falls on the officers and staff who man the ships. I hope that in the management review of the Ministry of Defence—which is being carried out in conjunction with the Civil Service and which is aimed at adjusting the size and shape of the departments—a serious effort will be made to cut out unnecessary paperwork within the Fleet where-ever possible. If the Minister has the figures available this afternoon, I hope that he will tell us the proportion of people working in the Ministry to the proportion of people in service in the Fleet. One of the best values that money can give as an insurance for our protection in the event of a conventional war is in the rôle which the Royal Naval Reserve can play. There is a note in the Defence Estimates on this subject and I should like to draw attention to the aim as defined in the review. It is to achieve a reserve which will provide trained volunteersI speak as one who has served in the Royal Naval Reserve. Only recently much to my dismay I had to give up that service. The attraction of the Royal Naval Reserve is to give those people who are members on opportunity of going to sea in the Fleet. The problem that I have found with the reserve in the past 10 years has been the change of emphasis towards keeping the reserves in their divisions in this country without an interchange of reserves going into the Fleet to see the latest ideas and ways in which the Fleet is operating. The possibility of reservists doing their training commitment within the Fleet is one of the attractions which draws people into the Royal Naval Reserve. This is an area which should be expanded. The figures have been reasonably consistent, but the costs of running the reserve are so small in relation to the men and women who will be available in time of war that the expenditure is well worth while. There are only 2,600 officers in the Royal Naval Reserve and 4,400 men. The ratio is wrong. There should be more men and fewer officers. I very much hope that the Minister will look at ways in which the Royal Naval Reserve can be made more attractive and also give it more publicity. In this current year only £14,000 is being provided for advertising the reserves. The important element is mine-sweeping, but I would extend that to watch, keeping administration and supply duties, and navigation, which can be undertaken within the Fleet. The argument has always been that the Navy is becoming a technological Navy and that the machinery is becoming too complicated for the reserves to be able to master in the short period of training which they have every year. But the simple fact is that many of the computers, machines and equipment now incorporated in our ships make the task of the watch-keeper of the gun-layer, or whoever it is, very much easier and simpler. Therefore, we can afford to have our reserves ready to go into the Fleet if a war situation arises."for manning and supporting minesweeping forces, for manning maritime headquarters and for linguists".
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a definite place for the Royal Naval Reserve to deploy its activities relative to the offshire oil rigs, where they could be particularly useful?
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I was coming to that point. Patrol vessels is the one area in which the RNR can be of immense value, and never more so than in the areas of the oil rigs.
People are very pleased to do this. They want to join and to have the opportunity of going to sea and doing a worthwhile job. That is the key. They must be given the chance of doing a worthwhile job. In all this debate the simple question comes down to whether we shall be up to the challenge when it may come. I believe that we shall look back on this period and say that we were blind to the obvious factors of the growth of the Russian Fleet and the declining strength of NATO that has begun in the cuts we are making. We shall have to come to the inevitable conclusion that this review lost us the peace for which we fought.4.53 p.m.
I start from a different standpoint to the majority of hon. Members present today because I start from the principle that I do not believe that the cuts are sufficient. I and many of my hon. Friends have made our position clear over a long period since we have been Members of this House. In this debate I do not want to go over that ground. I want to concentrate my brief remarks on one particular facet of the Defence Estimates, and that concerns the question of Polaris.
In his closing words my hon. Friend the Minister talked about Britain having a "credibility". I agree with him. We must have a credibility. That is why I want to put some questions to him about Polaris. The Defence White Paper is not particularly specific on the matter. Indeed, one could say that the references in the White Paper to Polaris are rather sketchy, to say the least. Considering that the White Paper says that PolarisI should have thought that Polaris would have rated more than a total of 28 lines in the whole defence review. It is true that the amount of money which is to be spent in 1975–76, according to the Estimates, to maintain Polaris is low—if one can call £58 million low. It is low in comparison with some other projects. However, it is certainly the most important single weapons system in the Armed Forces. That being so, I believe that we ought to have more information about it, and certainly at least some more justification of its value to British security. Considering that Polaris is far and away the best known weapons system to the general public, and considering that it has produced all sorts of emotions and demonstrations, I should have thought that the Government would have considered that this weapons system would have rated a great deal more explanation than it has. I hope that the Minister will forgive me, therefore, if I put a few questions to him. At Chapter I, paragraph 25(d), the White Paper says of Polaris"provides a unique European contribution to NATO's strategic nuclear capability out of all proportion to the small fraction of our defence budget which it costs to maintain",
That, I presume, means normal maintenance and a commitment to complete the long refit which is due next year, I believe, for the first submarine. But it could probably also mean work on the warhead. In the debate on 7th May the Secretary of State for Defence took great care not to rule out further nuclear tests. But these would be necessary only if there is work going ahead on the warheads, either to "MIRV" them or to miniaturise the present multiple re-entry vehicles. I can find no mention of such work in Chapter VII of the White Paper, which deals with research and development. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is any clear costing of research and development, and, if so, what it is and why it is not in the White Paper. In referring back to what the Secretary of State said about nuclear tests, perhaps I may say in passing that although he did not rule out the possibility that there may be another, which I would deplore, I only hope that there has been none in between—because it took Chapman Pincher to inform the country that we had had one which we might not have known about. However, that is a more general point. My second question relates to Chapter I of the White Paper, paragraph 25(d), which says categorically that"We shall maintain its effectiveness."
On the face of it, that should mean that "MIRVing" the Polaris missiles or buying Poseidon missiles and developing British MIRV warheads for them are options which the Secretary of State has totally ruled out. But I should like to hear from the Minister whether that is, in fact, so or whether the Government have a different concept or a different definition of the words "a new generation". I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government are against the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles— if one can get one's mouth around these long words—and I should like to hear his view about them. That same statement, saying"We do not intend to move to a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons."
means, if it means anything, that there will be no developments of a completely new strategic weapons system. The defence review covers a 10-year period, so this non-development commitment presumably goes for the same period. The original estimate of the life of a Polaris submarine was 20 to 25 years. Varying periods have been given, but it is roughly that. In other words, the earliest date necessary for replacement is 1986, and the latest is 1995. I take those dates from the Twelfth Report of the Expenditure Committee for 1972–73. On that basis the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee recommended that a decision on a replacement for Polaris would have to come by 1977 to allow for the eight to 12 years which apparently is necessary for the development of major new weapon systems. My third question is whether it is true that the Government have now revised their estimate of the life of the four submarines. If so, on what is that revision based? Have some improvements been made? If not, is the Secretary of State's Department proposing or planning improvements? If improvements have been made, when were they made, and why have we not been told about them? Most important, what is the cost? Those are the questions which I should like my hon. Friend to answer when he replies. I believe that the House is entitled to those answers. That is why I return to my original point. The references in the White Paper to Polaris are so skimpy as to cause suspicion in the minds of hon. Members and in the minds of the public. That lack of information, which I hope the Minister will remedy, gives rise to the view that perhaps the Government are wrong about Polaris or are consciously planning not to have a replacement. If the latter posssibility is correct, it seems that we shall do the opposite of what the Government seem to want to do and slip out of the membership of the nuclear club without taking advantage of having been a member of it in the first place. If that is what we are doing, either through having come to the wrong conclusions or through having conciously planned not to have replacements, in my opinion we are not being very clever. A decision to give up nuclear weapons could help to prevent nuclear proliferation or could aid the process of détente, to which the Minister has referred and in which he has said NATO plays a particular rôle. In his opening statement, the Minister, when speaking about general defence expenditure and the rôle of defence in the present-day world, may have been speaking to me or to certain of my hon. Friends. Let me make it clear that I am not a pacifist. I have never been a Pacifist. I happen to believe that Britain's possession of nuclear weapons, with all the understandable anxiety which arises from having possession of deadly weapons which are also possessed by other countries, and notably the Soviet Union, bearing in mind our geographical position and our size, sets us on a suicide course. If we did not have nuclear weapons not only would we be in a much safer position but we would be enabled to make a better contribution to the cause of world peace. I believe that there are many things in this world that are worth defending even by fighting for them. I do not happen to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons helps in that way. That is why I and some of my hon. Friends take a certain position."We do not intend to move to a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons"
My hon. Friend has said that one feature of the Polaris missile is the relative cheapness of maintaining it. I understand that my hon. Friend and certain of her hon. Friends are committed to substantial cuts in defence expenditure. That seems to be a totally different point.
I do not quite understand what my hon. Friend means. I said at the beginning of my remarks—in fact, I was quoting from the White Paper—that the Polaris missile is a relatively cheap missile. What I am trying to say is that relatively cheap it may be but inefficient it may also be, and, therefore, a waste of money. As regards the position which I and my hon. Friends take on cuts, our position on the size of the cuts does not rest merely with Polaris.
I return to my final point. I am not a pacifist and I do not take the pacifist's attitude. However, I would prefer out defences, if we have to have them, not to be based on a nuclear strategy, which I happen to believe makes us a target. When we talk about the grave economic situation in which we find ourselves, when we hear the Opposition begging for cuts in public expenditure and when we hear the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asking why we have to have defence expenditure reduced when we could be using the money which the Community Land Bill will cost and which subsidies already cost, I know well what is in the minds of Conservative Members—namely, cuts in education, social expenditure, housing and so on. That is expenditure for life but we are talking about expenditure for death. That is why I believe we should concentrate our cuts on the weapons of death rather than the expenditure for life.5.7 p.m.
I think that it would be inappropriate for me to intervene between the questions that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has asked and the answers that she will no doubt receive from the Minister. All I would say is that we must realise that in the world in which we are living proliferation of nuclear weapons is already taking place on an increasing scale. For Britain to believe that in abandoning such weapons we would have any influence on the course of events today beyond making us more liable to death and destruction than we are—protected as we now are by our own nuclear weapon—is an illusion.
The Minister's speech filled me with foreboding about the general direction in which our defence thinking is going. The hon. Gentleman gave what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) rightly called a spine-chilling account of the growth of the Soviet Navy. He gave an account not only of its growth but of the purposes for which it might be used, as suggested by such a high authority as Admiral Gorshkov—namely, a kind of modern gunboat diplomacy for exercising power and influence throughout the world. But the conclusions which the Minister drew from his analysis were entirely opposite to those which I would have expected. If the hon. Gentleman had said, "In the light of what we know about the growth of the Russian Navy or the views expressed by its leaders, we must make a bigger effort than we have planned, or even a bigger effort than the Conservative Party made", I would have applauded him. If he had said "We cannot for financial reasons make a bigger effort but we shall try to mobilise our allies to join with us in resisting this development, and we shall at least maintain and preserve the assets that we have in, for example, Singapore, Gan and Simonstown, and our Mediterranean presence", I would have supported him wholeheartedly. However, the hon. Gentleman's response seems to be to look at the danger and to run away from it, to retreat into a limited area without making any effort to strengthen our defences or the will-power of those with whom we work. One of the retreats that we are undertaking is the abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement. It is to that matter that I wish to devote my remarks. A few years ago the abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement would have led to at least a complete day's debate in the House. But as our concern with our overseas interests has shrunk so far below their continuing importance, debates such as this provide the only opportunity to discuss these matters. The Western Alliance is essentially an oceanic alliance. It is an alliance on the one side between the United States and Europe and on the other side between the United States and Japan. The United States and Europe are linked together by the Atlantic Ocean in terms of defence and trade. The United States and Japan are linked by the Pacific Ocean. But all three industrial power centres—Japan, United States and Europe—depend for their livelihood on access to raw materials and to the market, where they can pay for what they buy. Many of these raw materials are purchased from a great range of countries which lie around the Indian Ocean—New Zealand, Australia, South-East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Persian Gulf and the East Coast of Africa down to South Africa. If we were denied access to those sources of raw materials and to those markets, our economies would be in mortal danger. We are all conscious of the importance of oil, and, indeed, in the last 18 months we have hardly spoken of much else. However, it is not only oil that is at stake. We must also remember the importance of copper, gold, uranium and a whole variety of metals that are essential to our metallurgical processes and that they stem largely from these areas. Access to those items is vital to all our economies and, above all, to the hard-pressed British economy. The blow that would be struck at us if we were cut off from those materials, or if their price were to be greatly increased, would far outweigh any economies that the Government may make in defence. In talking of the importance of these matters to all Western countries, particularly to Britain, we must remember that in regard to access to the Indian Ocean, and thereby to raw materials, the Cape route is vital. It is true that the reopening of the Suez Canal means that a good proportion of the trade which has gone round the Cape will now be able to go through the canal. But the Minister misled the House—I am sure unintentionally—by suggesting that the Cape route was no longer essential and that the Suez Canal was an alternative. It is not for me to pronounce on the views of future Governments in Egypt, but we know that the southward openings of the Red Sea are in the hands of countries dominated by the Soviet Union. I refer to Aden—South Yemen—and the Republic of Somalia. The passage of the Suez Canal is itself of only slight importance, as all British Imperial strategists of the last century knew well, if the openings to the Red Sea are in the hands of the other side. Apart from the precariousness of the Suez Canal-Red Sea route, the large tankers will have to go on using the Cape route, as will a great deal of other shipping concerned with Australia or the East Coast of Africa. Therefore, the Simonstown Agreement remains the key to the security of the Cape route and to much of our trade in the Indian Ocean area—and to all of it if the canal or Red Sea route should be closed again. We are concerned not just with the particular place known as Simonstown but with all the South African ports, with our co-operation with the South African Navy, with the communications centre and with the repair facilities. They provide the essential facilities—and, indeed, the only facilities—between Britain and Singapore on which, to the best of my knowledge, we can rely. I am sure that the Minister on reflection will agree that he misled the House when he said that there are alternatives. There are no clear alternatives.The right hon. Gentleman put his view moderately, but I totally disagree with his conclusions. Is he aware that recently one of the biggest groups which we have deployed for years to the Far East returned round the Cape without having to call at Simonstown at all?
I do not think that in any way proves the hon. Gentleman's point. It was able to go that way round the Cape because the Cape route was in safe hands. Secondly, had there been any problems, all the facilities were at its disposal. They may be at its disposal in future on commercial terms or they may not. Who can be sure? What is more, under the Simonstown Agreement those facilities were available to us for use as back-up even in a dispute in which the South African Republic was not itself involved.
Ten years ago the Indian Ocean was still a British lake. Today the Soviet fleet predominates in the Indian Ocean. With the opening of the canal and our withdrawal from Singapore, Gan and Simonstown, this predominance will become a Soviet paramountcy dwarfing the two United States frigates based at Bahrein or the modest improvement in the faciliites at Diego Garcia, even if they are approved by the Senate and Congress. As we sit here in this House this afternoon, our access to the raw materials and markets of the Indian Ocean is already at the mercy of the Red Fleet. Some may say, "What is the threat? What am I worried about? Is there really cause for concern?". I thought that the Minister gave a good deal of cause for concern in his own analysis. There is concern about Soviet gunboat diplomacy. Admiral Gorshkov referred to this matter in a recent article in the Morski Zbornik, the Red Fleet's newspaper, when he spoke of the increasingly important peace-time rôle of the Soviet Navy and of the political influence it can exercise by a tacit demonstration of superior force. That is gunboat diplomacy in the old Victorian style. It means that the newly-fledged, weak independent countries around the Indian Ocean could be influenced in their policies by the arrival of the Red Fleet. It may even determine the character of their regimes and, therefore, their relations with Britain and with the Western Alliance as a whole. We must not think in purely national terms but in terms of the Alliance of which we are a part. We know from repeated pronouncements from Moscow that it is a basic strategy of the Soviet Union to deny us access to raw materials and markets as a way to destroying what they call imperialism. There are other threats, too—for example, the possibility of a blockade by proxy. We know that the Soviets are generous in providing arms to potential allies. We have seen lavish supplies of Soviet arms go to Egypt, Syria and Somalia. We might find such arms being sent to the People's Republic of Mozambique. It is not altogether fanciful to believe that they might make available some of the older submarines which, although still fully effective, are surplus to Soviet requirements. We could find in local conflicts between, say, Somalia and Kenya, or Mozambique and South Africa, those submarines being deployed to intercept our shipping with those countries and setting up a blockade. This type of thing has happened before. Older Members will remember that during the Spanish Civil War, when Franco had no submarines, British ships trading with the Spanish Republic were frequently sunk by submarines alleged to be Franco's submarines but which in fact were Mussolini's submarines. This could be done again. The Russians could provide submarines ostensibly to some African country in conflict with another. However, much the most important threat is the essence of naval power itself as a means of exerting political pressure. Perhaps the best way that I can illustrate this point is by drawing attention to what the White Paper says about the threat in central Europe. There is a very eloquent passage in the White Paper which explains how the preponderance of Soviet forces in central Europe—tanks, troops, aircraft and so on—while they do not necessarily presage open aggression, could be used as a means of political blackmail in a crisis. The same is true of the sea. All of us agree that we must maintain adequate forces—comparable forces if possible—in central Europe so as to have a measure of flexible response to a Soviet threat. We do not like the trip-wire conception which gives us no choice between capitulation or catastrophe. At present we are not even adopting a trip-wire philosophy in the Indian Ocean. We are leaving nothing to protect our shipping routes and our trade supplies—not only Britain's but those of Europe, America and Japan—against an increasing Soviet presence. The Secretary of State has said, and the Minister reiterated this afternoon, that we must concentrate our defence effort on NATO, on Europe and on the North Atlantic. Unfortunately, we cannot so concentrate on our economic effort. I wish we could. With the advent of North Sea oil it will be easier, but we cannot do so at present. Indeed, we shall never be able to do so wholly, nor will America, Europe or Japan. We shall always be dependent on the supplies that come from around the Indian Ocean. Who will protect those supplies? The Americans? It would be marvellous if they would. There was a time when the Americans thought that they could undertake everything outside NATO by themselves. Since Vietnam they think very differently. It is just possible that if we, the French, the Dutch and the South Africans were to maintain some sort of presence in the Indian Ocean, necessarily based upon Simonstown and Singapore, because there is nowhere else, the Americans would join us and contribute to the common effort and produce a force comparable to the Soviet. But unless we do so my bet is that they will not. We must face the fact that the NATO Alliance is not in itself enough. We can no longer go on with a Western Alliance limited by the Tropic of Cancer. We need a global alliance of the free nations, the main pillars of which will have to be the European Community, the United States and Japan. For this alliance the Simonstown Agreement and the facilities at the Cape are vital. This Government have not sold them down the river—they have thrown them away. No price has been paid to us in exchange. No alternative facility has been offered at Dar-es-Salaam or Mombasa. I cannot see the reason for doing it. There is no saving in manpower or money that can be even measured within the margin of error. There was no pressure from the African countries. Only a few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked the Foreign Secretary what representations had been made to him by African countries to withdraw from Simonstown. My hon. Friend received the answer "None". There is no good will to be gained from this operation—absolutely none. Our presence has been known since the end of the 18th century. It was unobtrusive and the reasons for it were well understood. This withdrawal has been done for one reason, and one reason only, namely, to appease the opinion of certain sections of the Government party below the Gangway who have pressed for this withdrawal when the African States have not. Those sections of the Labour Party have pressed for it and, consciously or unconsciously, they have done so at the behest of Soviet inspirations. The Soviets know what they are doing, because they are not concerned about the welfare of the African population. They are concerned with denying us raw materials and the strategic positions which we have had in the South Atlantic for so long. It will be very difficult to re-create something which existed and which was no problem. It is much harder to create than to destroy. I can only hope that the West will face up to the danger in time and in some form repair and regain the use of an asset which this Government have so incontinently thrown away.5.25 p.m.
I come from an area which has built many famed battleships. It ill becomes me to say that I should like to see no more battleships built in the Clyde. I say that because we can build other kinds of ships of much greater value than warships of any kind.
I have listened to various speeches and wondered whether I should speak. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) talked about sea lanes. When I think of sea lanes I think of the Victorian era. The hon. Gentleman spoke about defending ourselves against attacks. Who in these days will attack sea lanes? We have heard talk of conventional wars. There has never been a conventional war. Have we ever known a war to start and finish with the same type of weapon? When one reads the history of the last war, one discovers that Germany was experimenting with a weapon called the V4 during the 1930s. It ultimately became the VI and then the V2. There was nothing conventional about it. While we were still playing around with the traditional methods of defence, the Germans were proceeding quite differently. Have we examined our NATO allies? We have discussed the Army and the Air Force and we are now discussing the Navy. What does NATO mean in terms of politics today? We have two major powers: the USA, which has encircled the whole of the USSR with devices, and the USSR, which has en-circled the whole of the USA with devices. Those devices are not there for fun. Does anyone believe that if war breaks out the forces that we have in Europe and any big ships or sophisticated submarines fitted with the most modern and up-to-date missiles—I have seen some of them—will be able to stop war breaking out? In my view, the whole of the NATO strategy is completely futile. Moreover, who says that the waters south of the Mediterranean, south of Simonstown or near Australia belong to anyone? The fact that we were in those waters first does not make them ours. I am not pro-Soviet. If we are entitled to have battleships, submarines and other vessels of war there so too is every other country. When I hear debates like this, I go back to before 1914 and think of some people who ultimately became known as "Jingoists". They developed the slogan:In other words, if the Russians have 1,000 Polaris submarines we must have parity, if not superiority. I sometimes wonder whether we are living in 1975 or 1905. If war breaks out, can it possibly be a conventional war? It might start as a conventional war. We are living during a time of liberation movements, revolutions and struggles for independence. This is an era of revolution. Time will not stand still just because we want it to do so. It is time we took cognisance of the fact that we have invented weapons of war which will be used. When President Kennedy said to Mr. Khrushchev "You will remove those missiles from Cuba or else," he may or may not have been bluffing. Perhaps he would have used his weapons. We know that once atomic weapons of any kind are used there is holacaust. Who knows who would survive? Possibly the only people who would survive would be those in Holy Loch. They are well protected. The Minister is proposing to reduce the Estimates. I wish that he would reduce them even more. In all seriousness, I wish that we could entirely eliminate all weapons of war. We in Govan could still build ships that could carry the goods of the earth to every part of the earth."We want eight—we won't wait."
5.33 p.m.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) will forgive me if I do not follow too closely his interesting historical and contemporary analysis of the strategy of war. I can assure him that there will be no more battleships built in Govan.
It is right that the third of our debates on the three Armed Forces should take place this week, when the Chancellor is to announce his measures to try to combat inflation. There may be cuts, freezes or squeezes, but we should recall that a Government have only two primary tasks in a free country. Those tasks are to defend and to feed the people. If a Government cannot provide the conditions under which the people can feed and defend themselves, anything else is quite useless. Houses, hospitals, schools, roads and social security benefits are all as nothing if we cannot perform those two primary tasks. I am delighted to be able to start by congratulating the Government upon not one facet but three facets of their naval policy. I would like to say how delighted I was when, last month, they followed a suggestion I made in my maiden speech last November to the effect that the Beira Patrol should cease to operate. The patrol has wasted millions of pounds and man hours. It has meant that tens of thousands of men in the Royal Navy have been bored to death as they patrolled up and down a useless patrol line. We all know that goods were got into Rhodesia by other means. I congratulate the Government on making this sensible decision. I congratulate them, at long last, in heeding the calls that we made and that other people made to the former Conservative Government to proceed with the maritime Harrier.Is it not an extraordinary fact that the very Labour Members who dominated the action against Rhodesia and supported the Beira Patrol are the same people who are now saying that we must reduce our defence spending to nothing?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out how inconsistent the Labour Party is in its inconsistencies.
The decision to proceed with the maritime Harrier means that we are opening up the possibility of an enormous export market. There are numerous nations who wish to buy this most advanced aircraft. We are at the same stage with vertical-take-off aircraft as our aviation industry reached with the Comet before the Elba disaster. It would have been a criminal shame had we decided not to proceed with the project. The decision also means that fixed-wing flying will continue in the Royal Navy. Thirdly, I congratulate the Government on their continuing decision to retain the Polaris fleet. Ever since the 1964 election the Labour Party has managed to be consistent in going against its manifesto pledge, not renegotiating any agreement and keeping the Polaris fleet. My only regret is that we have not built a fifth Polaris vessel. That would have meant that we would have made the deterrent completely credible and watertight because there would always have been two vessels on station and not one, as occasionally happens. Having congratulated the Government on those points I must now refer, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to the question of Simonstown. The Soviet maritime threat throughout the world grows month by month. The Soviets are now moving into fixed-wing flying. They are commissioning their first aircraft carrier. The more we cut back our maritime forces, the more the Russians develop theirs. Now we have thrown away the Simonstown Agreement. I am reminded of what happened in the 1930s when the Government of Neville Chamberlain abrogated the arrangement whereby we could use the ports of Southern Ireland. We know how many tens of thousands of British lives were lost during the 1939–45 war because we had cast away that agreement for no good reason. The Minister says that there are alternative arrangements to Simonstown. I would like to know where they are. Can they be in Beira, controlled by the Marxist Frelimo? Let us proceed north in our steamer. Do we go into Somalia or do we cross to Aden and ask the Government of the Southern Yemen whether we may use the facilities of that port? We have already heard that the Singapore arrangements are being brought to a close. What about something in that country? I refer to paragraph 38, Chapter I of the White Paper, which says:In effect the Minister is saying that, apart from Simonstown, there is nothing. Charges of humbug come well from the Minister, who has demonstrated, by the fact that there are no alternative arrangements, that he is an expert on the question of humbug. Let us move further north to the southern flank of NATO. For the first time for hundreds of years we are to withdraw our forces in the Mediterranean. This is at a time when Greece and Turkey are at loggerheads, virtually fighting one another over the issue of Cyprus. It is at that point that we say we shall not contribute anything more to what NATO can provide in the Mediterranean. The "Hermes" went to Cyprus at the time of the disturbances. It was only because we had a ship in the area that we were able to evacuate a large number of British families in the northern area of Cyprus. The "Hermes" is part of our amphibious fleet. What is to happen to that? "Bulwark" is to be withdrawn from service next year. "Hermes" is to be primarily an antisubmarine carrier. Of "Fearless" and "Intrepid", only one is to remain in service at any particular time. The Royal Marine Commandos are to be reduced by 25 per cent. Yet the Minister says that we are allocating amphibious forces to NATO. What is the amphibious force? It has been decimated and emasculated by the policy of the Government. The Government must realise that one of the great things required by any fleet if it is to be credible in size. We cannot reduce the number of our anti-submarine frigates dramatically and at the same time say that we recognise the gravity of the threat posed by the Soviet submarine fleet. Does not the Minister realise that frigates and patrol boats can indulge in other activities in time of peace? I refer particuarly, from a constituency point of view, to fishery protection. The fishery industry is at the moment being shamefully neglected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and now it would seem that the number of ships available to help look after our fishermen is also to be reduced. Anti-submarine vessels and other small ships of this kind, if they are available, can help defend the oil rigs. We must concentrate on defending the offshore oil. It is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite telling us that ail will be well because in 1980 the oilman cometh when, first, they are mortgaging the oil to the extent that there will be little or no money left and, secondly, if they succeed in keeping any of it there is no method of defending the oil. Finally, we have a Government who have failed not only in their duty to the nation but also in their duty to NATO. Grave concern has been expressed by many senior NATO officers about the running down of our forces and the cutting back of our Navy. I remind the House of the words first written in the reign of Charles II, and now the preamble to the Articles of War:"We plan to withdraw from the staging post on Gan by April 1976 and from the naval communications station on Mauritius. If there is any requirement for facilities in the Indian Ocean area in the future, we shall be able to use Diego Garcia where we have agreed to a modest expansion of facilities by the USA."
Times change and circumstances change, but the philosophy behind that statement is as true today as it was in the reign of Charles II. It is because of the shameful way in which the Government and the Minister have betrayed the country and the Navy that I shall vote against them tonight."It is upon the navy … that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend."
5.42 p.m.
I have sat through many defence debates during the last 10 years but this is the first occasion when I have made a contribution to the deliberations of the House. I do not claim to be a specialist on the subject of defence, but having listened to many debates I think there is a common sense point of view that should be put to the House against the points of view of those who claim to have some knowledge of military matters.
Many of us on the Government side are reinforced by resolutions passed at Labour Party conferences and by the TUC in particular asking us to close the Polaris bases and to get rid of the Americans who are using those bases. Therefore, I want to concentrate my contribution on this particular subject and to reinforce some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). It is in this context that I want to discuss the 1975 White Paper, which I think is quite evasive when it discusses the future of Polaris. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will go into some detail concerning the future of our Polaris submarines. The White Paper says that the Government will maintain the effectiveness of Polaris without moving to a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons. In other words, it seems to many of us on the Government side that the Government are prepared to allow these weapons to go into obsolescence, to rust and to wear themselves out, although on a past occasion the Secretary of State has said that these weapons would be credible right into the 1990s. If that is the attitude of the Government, and if they are not to evolve a new generation of weapons, it would be politically advisable for them to make a statement here and now—the sooner the better—that it is their intention to scrap the Polaris missile. We have some obligations under the non-proliferation treaty under Article 6 of that treaty we have agreed that it will be our objective to phase out our nuclear weapons. It seems to me that there is no reason why the Government should not, instead of waiting for a few years until this weapon becomes obsolete, take a political initiative—and an economic initiative, in our present economic crisis, because we should save money—to help in particular the discussions now beng held to outlaw nuclear weapons. It seems to me that we always discuss the subject of defence on the basis of theories that have emerged since the previous war—in fact, from many wars previously, if one listens to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). His speech might well have been made in the days of Palmerston when he talked about a global strategy and how to deploy our warships in the Indian Ocean, in the Mediterranean and throughout the world. Those days have gone, and in fact the generals have often been accused of fighting the next war with the theories of the last. It would seem that some of the admirals fight their wars with the theories of the war before last.The point that the hon. Member makes about the lessons of earlier wars is perfectly valid, but as long as this island remains a nation of 55 million people dependent on the outside world for its food and its industrial supplies it is necessary to protect the routes by which those resources come into the country. Surely no lessons from previous wars are required in order to hammer this home.
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to defend our country and to protect our ability to get food to this country. This is a problem that every country in the world has to solve, and it is certainly not unique to this country. I imagine that most countries would face very serious economic difficulties if they could not import raw materials from abroad. This is a global problem. It is not a peculiarly British problem. If every country in the world said that in order to solve this problem it needed to deploy its naval strength throughout the oceans of the world, there would be some tremendous complications.
We can no longer act as we did in the imperialist past by sending battleships to areas of the world to put down the natives. We have to think of what the nature of a future war is likely to be. Everyone agrees that it will be a nuclear war. The Soviet Union is now capable of sending a rocket to the moon and of aiming that rocket to reach the moon within a square mile of the target. With that technique the Soviet Union can from its own land surface blow out of the water any surface ship in the world. It is quite easy to find out where these ships are by means of photographs taken from outer space. Techniques exist today for this to happen. This is why Polaris submarines have been developed. Under the surface of the sea they are not as vulnerable as surface ships. But the generals and the admirals do not seem to have accepted this conception of what a future war might be like.Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his philosophy that there must inevitably be a nuclear war, with nuclear weapons used, is as false as was the philosophy that gas was bound to be used in the last war? It was not used because of the retaliatory measures that would have been taken. The same thing could happen with nuclear weapons. There is a great danger that there would be war with traditional weapons as we know them rather than with the nuclear weapons to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he rightly says, the nuclear weapon has been shown by those people who agree with it to be a great deterrent. It was argued that if countries had a nuclear weapon no one would dare use it and that countries have said "We do not intend to use this weapon unless we are attacked with the weapon by another country". This was a deterrent. As a consequence, there may have been substance in the argument that it would never be used.
But there have been subsequent developments, and the hon. Gentleman, with his great interest in military matters, has probably heard of the Schlesinger theory which says that not all limited nuclear engagements reach holocaust level. He suggests that nuclear weapons should be used at battlefield level and that they should be deployed in what is regarded as conventional warfare. But no one knows how limited a nuclear engagement is. The Russians might take a different view of what is a limited engagement. We have got away from the old belief that the nuclear weapon is a deterrent which will stop others attacking this country. The theory now being put abroad is that the nuclear weapon is a conventional weapon which can be used at battlefield level. In reply to a Question a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that it was not our intention to accept that theory and that we still regarded the nuclear weapon as a deterrent. I ask my right hon. Friends, however, whether any talks have been held at NATO level. Our forces are pledged to NATO. Have there been talks about this new method of using nuclear bombs? I think it is time that the Government considered seriously the position in which they might find themselves. My only purpose in intervening in the debate is to suggest that defence is a political question and that the solutions can be found only on a political level. It is not a matter of saying that the world can be divided into goodies and baddies and that, if the baddies are rearming, our only answer is to arm ourselves to an even greater extent than they are. We have to find political solutions, and they are being found, slowly but surely. Détente is the order of the day. In a few days' time American and Russian astronauts will be shaking hands in outer space. We are making some progress on the non-proliferation treaty. We have the strategic arms limitation talks. We are now considering seriously the fact that it is economic suicide in the world today that we should spend $100,000 million a year on armaments when half the world is starving. People are coming to their senses. They are putting the military strategists in their place and telling them to get back in the queue. I am not a pacifist. I want to see the country defended. But it must be done in the context of the larger political problems. I suggest that the Government could make a contribution to a political solution. Backed by the realisation that the Polaris submarines are now obsolete and are being phased out, if the Government were to take a political initiative and say "We intend to abolish the Polaris weapon as our contribution to non-proliferation", I believe that this would evoke a response, especially in countries poorer than ours, such as India or even China, where a great proportion of the national wealth is devoted to nuclear research and to manufacturing the bomb. It is time for someone to break the vicious circle and to take an initiative by saying "We are taking a tentative step, anyway, to get rid of the nuclear weapon." I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take this very seriously. We have been given a pledge—at least, I take it that it is a pledge—that they do not intend to produce more sophisticated nuclear weapons or to update our present nuclear weapons. If that is the situation, let them take the next step. Let them pledge themselves to abolish the Polaris missiles so that people in Scotland can sleep a little safer in their beds. If the Government do this, I believe that they will have the backing not only of their colleagues in the Labour Party and the trade unions but of the overwhelming mass of the people.5.55 p.m.
I share with the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) one of the views that he expressed. It is the concern which I am sure every right hon. and hon. Member has about the increasing levels of expenditure which countries incur on arms. We all want to see a reduction in arms expenditure. However, when I hear the views of people such as the hon. Member for Darlington and some of his colleagues I find it extraordinary that they do not appear to have learned the lessons of history about the balance of power.
We should know by now that if we do not secure a balance of power against our potential enemies, we endanger and imperil our freedom. I wonder when the day will come when a certain section of the Labour Party learns the lessons of generations, if not centuries, of history about the balance of power. The facts are that it is not just Great Britain but the Western European nations which are lulling themselves into a false sense of security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said in an extremely powerful speech, the primary duty of any British Government is to secure our own defences and to ensure that we are defended adequately against our potential enemies. As I see it, the purpose of today's debate is to discuss one major peril threatening not only us but the Western world. It is the growing strength of the Soviet navy. There is no need for me to recite all the figures. They are set out adequately in the White Paper. They have been recited adequately by the Secretary of State for Defence and his junior Ministers in successive debates. They have been recited adequately by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We see the increase in submarines, the increase in frigates, the increase in amphibious forces and the increase in Soviet aircraft. Now we see the construction of Soviet aircraft carriers. There is no need for me to recite all the figures. The extraordinary feature which my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) brought out so well is that the Government are brilliant at analysing the threat but rotten at finding the right prescription. We see the Soviet navy spreading its tentacles throughout the oceans of the world—not just in the East Atlantic but in the South Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. We hear the instruction of Admiral Gorshkov to his navy, "Go out to sea and stay there." We hear other statements by the admiral, such as "All the modern great Powers are maritime States." Those are the words of a naval leader in an imperialist nation. For that reason, we should ask ourselves what are the Soviet objectives in this dramatic expansion, especially bearing in mind that the Soviet Union does not need a vast Red fleet to protect its own supply lines. I suppose that it could be argued that one of the objectives is a defensive one, because the Russians wish to counter the strategic delivery system of the Western sea Powers. That is a not unreasonable argument. However, anyone looking at the size of the Soviet navy could argue forcefully that it is an arm of Soviet foreign policy. Its objective is a political one. It is to influence, to exert pressure, to exercise threats and to intimidate in various parts of the globe. It would be reasonable to assume that the Soviet navy is not just defensive. It has the ability to strangle the supply lines of Britain and Western Europe, and so must be assumed to have an offensive capability. Sometimes I wonder whether some Labour Members realise the facts of life for Britain and Western Europe. The size of the sea mass of the Western world has not changed, nor has Britain's dependence on the oceans for our trade. Ports in Western Europe handle 50 per cent. by value and 30 per cent. by volume of the world's international trade. Oil is the biggest single commodity moved by sea. In terms of tonnage carried by merchant ships, Britain and Western Europe are far larger than Russia, Japan and other great Powers. A total of 32 per cent. of our gross national product is involved in maritime trade. For the United States, the figure is only 8 per cent. We must ask, against the background of these facts, what the Government are doing about the growing threat of the Soviet navy. The Government are cutting by one-seventh the number of destroyers and frigates, by one-quarter the planned number of conventional submarines, by one-quarter the amphibious force, which will weaken the northern flank, and by one-quarter the Nimrod force, which has an essential role to play in surveillance. It would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on the order for maritime Harriers and on deciding to go ahead with the through-deck cruiser. This has justified the stand taken by naval chiefs in the early part of 1966, when they insisted that there was a need to continue the carrier force or to have a substitute for it. The northern flank has been badly weakened by Government decisions. The Mediterranean, with serious problems in the Middle East, Italy and Portugal and between Greece and Turkey, is the most politically unstable area of NATO, yet the Government have decided to withdraw from the area. The Soviet navy is exercising a pincer and encircling move on Scandinavia and threatening to throttle the world trade routes and our supply lines. It is in a position to control, block or interrupt our military and civilian supplies which come by sea. How can we respond? The Government have been keen to talk about cuts in public expenditure. We want to see these cuts, and we should be looking for ways of economising in defence services. The obvious ways to make savings are in arms procurement and standardisation. The NATO navies have a hundred different types of ships of destroyer size or larger. Mr. Schlesinger said in January this year:So we could economise by a common attack within NATO on procurement and standardisation. We must also get a common view within NATO on the right way of interpreting statistics about defence budgets. We should not be talking about proportions of gross national product. We should be considering the per capita contribution, and the absolute contribution of each nation, and, above all, we should be considering the strength of our potential enemies. That is our most important criteria. As a maritime Power, we should be taking a lead in ensuring the stability of the northern flank of NATO and the Mediterranean. We are the largest Navy in the European part of NATO, and we should be taking the lead in its maritime strategy. I would go some way in agreeing with the Under-Secretary that there is an argument for specialisation between different countries—one nation may be better able to play a particular role in defence rather than another—although there are dangers in taking this argument too far until we have a really united Europe. We are strong and experienced on the naval side, and if we lose that strength NATO loses a vital aspect of its defence. It is essential that we should ensure that NATO has an adequate naval strength to counteract any Soviet political or military threat. When one realises the reliance of NATO Powers on the trade routes of the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, it seems wrong that their area of responsibility should stop at the Tropic of Cancer. For many generations Britain has been carrying the burden of maritime defence for many other Western European nations. It is time that NATO became more outward-looking and adopted a proper maritime strategy. Look at the Gulf and the Soviet position in Somalia and West Africa. It is essential that NATO should become more outward-looking, and Britain is the only nation that can take a lead in this development."Within NATO, the combat effectiveness of existing forces could be improved by one-third, with no increase in forces, if we were able to obtain greater standardisation."
6.8 p.m.
I do not often speak in defence debates but I have followed the subject from a distance for some years. Recently the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman, has been looking, perhaps rather obliquely, at an aspect of defence—some of the strategic problems posed by the North Sea oil installations.
My interest in defence has been brought up to date recently. With colleagues of the Labour defence group, I spent an interesting day at NATO. In the short time I was there I found a genuine understanding of Britain's economic problems. Our friends on the Continent have too much good sense to be compassionate about Britain—they know we would resent it—but they understand that there is a direct link between defence commitment and economic capacity. That is true of all industrial societies. If a country takes its defence effort beyond its industrial capacity to sustain its commitments, this could easily be disastrous, as has been demonstrated in the last 100 years in the history of European wars. Nevertheless—and here I differ in approach from some of my hon. Friends—the United Kingdom cannot expect to shelter under the protection of the NATO umbrella without at the same time making a fair and effective contribution to collective defence. British naval strength is of the greatest importance, for we have a long naval tradition and vast sea experience. Present circumstances dictate that we must commit that naval capacity to northern waters and to what are generally known as the Atlantic approaches. I have always opposed my grander party colleagues, even those in the leadership, who thought that the Royal Navy should be used as a kind of world police force to put out "bush fires". I can remember an eminent leader of my party using that description of the Navy's role. I think that is a certain prescription for our getting involved unnecessarily in every petty war that is going. My instincts were against it, and I am glad that the Labour Party has now seen sense in that respect. It was absolutely right in my view for us to withdraw from our Far East com- mitments, including Singapore, and leave the Pacific to the Americans, the Australians and their new Pacific allies. I agree with quite a lot of what was said by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) about the problem of the Indian Ocean, but I do not believe that the United Kingdom can do it alone or should attempt to do so. It is no good saying that if we begin, others will follow. That is the kind of thing one says when trying to fill a gap in one's thoughts, but it does not represent objective reality. However, there is a stronger case for a kind of extra NATO where that alliance would take on a wider collective global rôle to fill in the gaps which the Americans are incapable of filling and should not be expected to fill. There is in the United States the same public concern about overstretching national economic resources for defence as exists in this country. With our obligation, then, to concentrate on Europe and the Atlantic approaches, the fast expansion of the Soviet Navy is to us of the greatest importance and interest. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) said that the objectives of the Soviets were political. Of course they are. That is true of all countries. War is a continuation of politics by other means. That was the saying of a great German military strategist, and it is a fact of life. War and politics are inescapably linked, so one must not complain if the Soviets see naval expansion as a way of extending their political influence. It is our business to note it and react correctly to it; to do less would be to neglect our duty. If I were to attempt to give an explanation for this new Russian interest in naval strength I would put it under three heads. The first is historical. The Russians have a great sense of inferiority about their past naval achievement. It has not been outstanding, unlike their great history and glory as a military power on land. I need not dwell on their experiences at the beginning of this century with the Japanese or their disastrous failure in the First World War. They made hardly any naval contribution during the Second World War. Therefore, their leaders and their admirals—who, like all admirals, are ambitious men—wish to further their reputation and their careers and to make up for their country in the present what it failed to do in the past. The second reason is the power relationship. I think the Soviets resent—and it is understandable—the way in which the Americans have come from the other side of the world to fill the vacuum in naval strength, particularly in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which has been left by the withdrawal of the French and the British. I think that the Soviets expected to fill that vacuum as the Czar would have expected to do so before them. Thirdly, I think the nature of Soviet society is stern, and we in the Labour Party, particularly, have to face that fact. In many ways Communist Russia is a modern Sparta where the military virtues are greatly extolled. I was in Portugal last summer and had some political conversations. I do not think that it is any accident that there is a curious alliance between many military, naval and air force personnel in Portugal and the Portuguese Communiss. A Communist society offers many opportunities for promotion of military men.Is it not in that respect greatly similar to a Fascist society?
I do no know about that, but would say that Soviet society has one obvious advantage in history over Fascist societies in that it tends militarily to be more efficient because it organises the masses. We should, therefore, not be surprised about Russian naval ambitions. That would be idle. Our business in life is to protect our own country and its allies. The pace and freedom of the world depends on the free nations reacting correctly and objectively to that situation now we have recognised it.
I am a Social Democrat, and I do not use the term in the way that The Times uses it, as a kind of Liberal who has strayed out of true. I use it in the Socialist historical sense, which is certainly well understood on the Continent if not in Printing House Square. As a Social Democrat I had hoped that the Soviet Union, without losing the Socialist economic character of its society, would develop in a more pluralist way and give more individual freedom to its people. So far my hope has been disappointed. Nevertheless, we must strive for disarmament by mutual agreement, and this Government, like their predecessors, are striving in that direction. Discussions have been going on for months in Geneva and Vienna in an attempt to get controlled and agreed disarmament. We must continue with that and never stop trying, for the burden of arms weighs us all down. I come finally to the extent of defence. Frankly, I believe that the percentage-cut approach is absurd. We really cannot do it in that way. We need effective defence in relation to commitments—no more, no less. That is largely a technical question and hard to judge. I am afraid that effective defence must include nuclear weapons, because they are, regrettably, the way the science of war has gone. Mass death and destruction is always horrible whether caused by nuclear weapons or by weapons of any other kind. I respect my hon. Friends who have spoken for their doubts and worries, and certainly I do not ignore what my party has said in conference on these matters, either. But if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and others have said, they are not pacifists—and I accept it—I believe the logic of their argument is really neutralism and that Britain should withdraw from NATO, although that is not said as often today as it was in the past. We shall perhaps then become a Sweden or a Switzerland, and there is nothing dishonourable about that. But if we were to do so it would not help to save money on defence, because the percentage of public money committed to defence in Sweden and Switzerland is greater than in this country or generally in Western Europe, for the obvious reason that if a country has to defend itself individually it will cost more than doing it collectively with allies. The defence cuts that have been made so far were financially inevitable. Had the Conservative Party continued in office, probably it would have reached roughly the same financial conclusions as the Government have reached. That is my own objective view. I do not mind the Conservatives arguing or criticising, for that is the business of an Opposition, but I feel that we have now reached the limit and that that is the opinion held by the British public, in spite of our economic difficulties and irrespective of party. There are many millions of our fellow citizens who have lived through two world wars. I am one of them, though I was very young—in my early childhood —in the first world war. Like so many others, I lived through those wars and all the trials and tribulations that went with them. There are many millions in this country who have that memory, and in view of those experiences, I do not think they would lightly forgive any British Government who might be tempted to neglect the effective defence of Britain. I do not believe that we have such a Government. I have every confidence that my right hon. and hon. Friends will care for the effective defence of their country and will do so with prudence and economy.6.14 p.m.
It had always been my resolve to start my speech on a harmonious and uncontroversial note. That resolve has been made easier by the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I do not think there was a word he said with which I disagree. I agree with almost everything he said, just as I profoundly disagree with almost every word of the speeches we have heard from the hon. Members for Barking (Miss Richardson), Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) and Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) and probably shall disagree with the speech we shall hear from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that I may be in the position of following him in this debate, and I hope that he will allow me to make the same pleasant opening to my speech as he himself has made to his.
I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he agrees with everything that I shall say unless he has a profound conversion "on the road to Damascus" within the next few moments. One can only hope for the best.
The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East was a distinguished one. I will continue on a harmonious note by offering to the Minister who opened the debate my wholehearted congratulations about one matter relative to defence, the decision by the Government to order the maritime Harrier. It may well be known that during the time I had the privilege of being Minister for the Royal Navy I strove hard to get a decision made on those lines. I was not successful. Treasury Ministers are very powerful in any administration, as everybody in the House knows, and a decision was deferred, and was deferred again. At least we did not make the decision not to go for it. Had we done so, I would have resigned. My resolution relative to the Harrier that we should eventually have the Government arriving at a right decision was made the stronger after I had made a flight in this revolutionary aircraft. Through the courtesy of Hawker Siddeley I flew in it, and shall always retain the memory of doing so; and I would like to repeat the performance. We took off vertically, and then accelerated almost as though the aircraft was being ejected from the barrel of a gun. It was a wholly remarkable experience. I was very grateful to Mr. John Farley the test pilot, who took me up in the aircraft. I saw on the horizon what looked like a warship and spoke over the intercom asking whether it was. The reply was "You are the Minister, so we will find out." We zoomed down, and stopped in mid-air as near to the captain on the bridge of H.M.S. "Torquay" as I am to you Mr. Deputy Speaker. He was a little surprised, in the middle of a navigation exercise 200 miles off the coast, at finding his Minister peering at him as he stood on the bridge. When I got back to the office now occupied by the Minister who opened the debate I made haste to dispatch a fleet signal sending greetings to H.M.S. "Torquay" before we could receive a fleet signal from that ship complaining about being "mobbed up" by a Hawker Siddeley Harrier It is indeed a truly remarkable aircraft. The fact that there are more than 100 of them flying in the United States, with the American Marines, clearly establishes it as a remarkable aircraft that can jump everything, including national barriers and national prejudices. The Government are wholly right to go for the maritime version with its extended range, more powerful radar and all-weather capacity. It will make H.M.S. "Invincible" and the ships that follow of the same class much more powerful weapons in the hands of the Royal Navy. I have no doubt that the decision to go for this aircraft will be justified also on the ground of the exports that we shall be able to achieve, a very important matter. Many navies will be interested in acquiring this aircraft, navies which would not have taken the plunge of purchasing an aircraft of this character from this country had it not first been ordered for the Royal Navy. I congratulate Hawker Siddeley on this fantastic development, and I have little doubt that there will be considerable overseas sales arising in the future. I only hope and pray that the great firm of Hawker Siddeley will be spared nationalisation. From now on it will be necessary for me to become less harmonious in what I have to say. The Minister was asking my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to indicate what further savings we should seek. Here is a saving which springs to mind at once, a saving which could be effective. Let Hawker Siddeley continue to operate efficiently and well under its present management and save the money that it would cost to nationalise it. Precisely the same applies to the savings which could be effected by dropping plans to nationalise our warship building firms. It would cost the taxpayer many millions if the great firm of Vickers were nationalised. The same applies to the highly efficient firm Vospers, which does so magnificently in the export market, and the Scottish firm of Yarrow. Sir Eric Yarrow has done supremely well in establishing a place in export markets and building ships for navies throughout the world. We can suggest straight away savings of many millions simply by not nationalising those firms. From the gloom, mist and chaos created by the Government relative to defence matters, there is, then, one ray of light, which is the good decision to go for the maritime Harrier. The general position, however, is that, first, we had the so-called long-term review. This took a long time in preparation, and I do not quarrel with that. I know how hard the Department was working in preparing the review. That review was designed to set the pattern, so we were told, for at least 10 years or so. The ink was hardly dry—I cannot say on the print because the review was not printed at first because there was a strike. The typescript was hardly smooth on the paper before there was another £110 million cut. It was said to be not an "arbitrary" defence review, but, of course, it was arbitrary. The instruction laid down was that there should be a review which would effect a cut in defence expenditure to bring us into line with our less defence-conscious allies in the proportion of GNP spent on defence. Indeed, the White Paper so indicates. Almost at once a further cut of £110 million was announced. We have not yet heard how this further £110 million cut in expenditure will affect the Royal Navy, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of telling us tonight. Perhaps the Minister will assure us also that the White Paper to be produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer erelong will not contain yet further defence cuts. The White Paper is not like a Budget, so perhaps there might be a little leak and the Minister might assure us that the White Paper will not include yet another defence cut. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assure his constituents in the dockyard that they will not be affected by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces in his White Paper. That is the situation of the so-called long-term review, from which another £110 million was cut, and we understand that things are yet again in the melting pot. One of the most serious effects of the review was to cut back the shipbuilding programme so that some 14 planned ships are not to be part of the Navy. What a conclusion to draw after what has happened in maritime affairs, as the Minister pointed out. Ever since Cuba there has been a truly massive maritime build-up by the Russians under Admiral Gorshkov, who has been able to sell the whole idea of maritime strategy to the Politburo so that forces have been built up at a fantastic rate. Yet the Government decided on one substantial cut which was followed by another cut. I only hope that there is not to be a yet further cut.Is it not extraordinary that the Government always pronounce on the Russian threat but, having pronounced on it and said how great it is, they cut expenditure right down until we have no defences left?
I agree with my hon. Friend. A substantial element of schizophrenia is shown by the Labour Government in relation to this matter. One has the brilliant deployment of the maritime threat, which is nearly as good as the "Know your Navy" team in action —it is probably written by the same people—followed by the answer that we must have a unilateral cut. It ties in with the theme put forward by Government supporters that the cuts are an instrument for détente. Again the same sort of schizophrenia comes through—we are all dedicated to force reductions, but we want them to be balanced force reductions. To say that we are assisting détente by a unilateral cut involves an element of intellectual gymnasticism bordering on the schizophrenic. The conclusion of all that is that I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said in his intervention.
One of the most distressing aspects of the White Paper concerns the withdrawal of our presence on a permanent basis from the Mediterranean. What has happened to that sea over the last year and more surely illustrates how important it is that we should play our part in maintaining stability there. When our NATO allies are in semi-conflict, or in actual conflict as were Greece and Turkey, when other nations close to the Mediterranean—Portugal and Spain—are showing signs of instability, it is a great shame that we should withdraw our NATO presence, particularly as we were one of the leaders in setting up the Standing Force for the Mediterranean. I take no particular satisfaction from the fact that the Italians have decided to increase their contribution to replace us. I am delighted that they are increasing their contribution. But I had hoped that those forces would have been deployed side by side with the modest British presence in the Mediterranean. All the political events show the need for that deployment, and the withdrawal is particularly ill-advised, as, indeed, is the cutting down of the shipbuilding programme. When there is a submarine threat so vast as is the Russian threat, to decide to cut down the number of frigates and destroyers to be built is totally wrong. The Minister and I share a devotion to the Royal Marine commandos. He and I paid a visit to HMS "Bulwark". We both enjoyed that visit immensely, and it increased the admiration we share for the Royal Marines. It is an odd way of showing one's admiration to cut out one whole marine commando unit. They are superb troops with a maritime tradition and with the tremendously useful capacity of amphibiosity—just the sort of capability we need—especially when one sees what the Russians are doing with the Alligator class ships, which are capable of a very big lift of amphibian-borne troops. The Russians are building up and we are cutting down, and I am very sorry to see that gap growing. I bitterly regret these cuts, the more particularly because they follow cuts which the Conservative Government had reluctantly made. The fact that we made cuts renders the cuts made by the Labour Government less defensible, not more so. Of course, from time to time we have to make defence cuts—the sky is not the limit—but the fact that we made cuts makes these further cuts, which go into the flesh and muscle of our forces, less easy to defend. I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State with a view to suggesting one way of helping the defence budget; that is, by extending the amount of assistance we give to foreign nations relative to training over here but charging for it. There are no fewer than 71 nations, which are listed in yesterday's Official Report for my benefit, which have forces training over here. I suspect that we are not charging those nations an economic rate for the job. The Government should carry out an exercise to discover whether money is being made from this. If there is any liability, that sum should not come out of the defence Vote. Otherwise there would be further artificiality in the GNP argument. The previous administration set up an investigation into the rôle of the Royal Naval Reserves. The Government have received its report. The Minister referred to the reserves in opening. Will lie publish the results of the study group which was set up by the Conservative administration? At least, will he issue what might be described in security terms as a "sanitised" version of it, so that we can know what is the departmental thinking about the reserves. The Royal Naval Reserves have a considerable rôle to play in the defence of off-shore oil rigs. Here is a duty which the Royal Navy Reserves can perform and on which they should concentrate. They would be willing to do so. I made sure that this consideration was inserted in the terms of reference of the investigation. I had a splendid time as Minister with responsibility for the Navy. I know that the Minister is enjoying himself immensely. He values the naval tradition. The fact that he has a dockyard constituency perhaps has nothing to do with that. He inherited as Minister the finest Navy in the world. It is still that. It is also the third most powerful Navy in the world. I hope that the Government cuts will not force it to cease to be the third most powerful Navy. I trust that the Government will allocate sufficient funds so that our Navy remains the best Navy in the world, although inevitably not the biggest.6.42 p.m.
I am happy to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), as I agree with so much of what he said.
I join in my hon. and learned Friend's references to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I agree with much that he said. For instance, he said that NATO must fill the gap left by the Americans. I agree. The Western world must fill that gap. That supports the opinion of the Opposition that we need larger, not smaller, defence forces. I agree that defence expenditure must not exceed our capacity to pay. It is not a question of whether we can afford the money which is spent on defence; it is a matter of how we spend it. The Opposition have already indicated how, by stopping the nationalisation plans, money can be found to increase our expenditure on defence. The effective defence of the United Kingdom must depend not on the money supply situation. It must depend on our commitments. I am sorry that more Government supporters do not appreciate that. It is a sad reflection to see how few Government supporters are present for this important debate. I join the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary of State to the Navy, to the men and women who man the ships and establishments, for their highly professional attitude, their great efficiency and their great heart. I pay my tribute to the people who man our Fleet. However, I join issue with the Minister when he says that we are moulding a Navy matched to modern needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred to the Minister's spine-chilling recitation of the build up of the Russian fleet. How can that build-up be matched by the reductions proposed by the Government. The Minister said it was essential that we should maintain the Atlantic link. He said that we are capable of maintaining that link now. The Russians are building one nuclear submarine every month. We must bear in mind the situation with which we were faced at the beginning of both world wars, when the enemy had only a handful of submarines. Bearing those facts in mind, how can he say that our Atlantic link is safe when even one year's production of Russian nuclear submarines could shatter it. It was said that we are putting our main effort into anti-submarine capability. Why are the cuts to affect the Nimrods? If we are to destroy enemy submarines we must first find them. The Nimrod is the finest instrument for finding submarines. Why is the number of frigates to be cut? We cannot say that our effort is being put into anti-submarine capability when cuts are being made in our vital resources. Hong Kong was mentioned. I hope that the Government will consider changing the type of ship stationed there. The Government have decided to withdraw from Simonstown, from Gan and from Singapore. Hong Kong is, therefore, left out on a limb. That is a vulnerable situation for any major warship. I suggest that we employ a small, fast patrol boat, strongly armed with missiles. I refer to the type of small patrol boat which Vosper has built successfully for so many foreign navies. I add my annual plea for one more Polaris submarine. This matter has already been referred to. An addition of one Polaris submarine to our fleet of four would double the effective strength of that force at sea. Every year it becomes more important that we should build an extra Polaris submarine as a future replacement for our ageing fleet of submarines. The Minister glossed over the comparatively new commitment of the Navy to look after the North Sea oil rigs. We were told that our needs will be met from North Sea oil by 1980. As our dependence on North Sea oil becomes greater, so the need to protect those wells increases. Those installations are vulnerable. They could easily be damaged by collision, hostile action and sabotage. They are difficult to protect. Their numbers are growing and they are widely dispersed. The Daily Telegraph of 3rd July reported that the Navy had ordered five off-shore patrol vessels, each vessel being 200 ft. long and of about 1,250 tons displacement. Will the Minister give us more details about these vessels, such as their speed, their endurance and how they will be manned, whether they will be armed, and whether they will be manned by the Navy, or—following the practice of the United States coastguards —by Royal Naval Fleet Auxiliaries? I should like to have more information about those vessels and also information on what other steps the Government are taking to protect the oil rigs. Are the oil rigs to have, for example, helicopter coverage? Are they to have radar protection—the modern equivalent to the anti-submarine loop? I know that the Russians would like to know these things, as we would, because I understand that their radar trawlers have been snooping around for a long time, and that a cruiser had a look at the oil rigs not long ago. There could well be a case for comparatively small, fast patrol boats of long endurance—in other words, boats similar to the weather ships stationed in the North Atlantic—that can stay at sea for a comparatively long time, and for a back-up of major warships at strategic positions. This is probably the most vital issue which we have to examine in the immediate future. We have only between four and five years in which to obtain an effective defence for these oil rigs, without which all our planning—the Government's planning, and economic planning—which depends on our need for oil being met from the North Sea, will disappear. I hope that the Minister will inform us of his plans. Obviously, he cannot give us much detailed information, but how is he proposing effectively to protect the North Sea oil rigs?6.51 p.m.
I apologise to the House for having missed half an hour of the debate earlier in the evening, but, unfortunately, I was recalled to the Committee on the Community Land Bill where the usual channels had not made their calculations with their customary precision. As I am a member of that Committee it would be unusual if I were to go into the gravamen of my argument without commenting on the quite extraordinary remarks made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in relation to the Community Land Bill.
In passing I should like to place on record my extreme surprise at the fact that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman should not have been prepared to allow at least one intervention during his speech from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that will not become a precedent. The hon. Member for Ayr said that the Community Land Bill in a full year will cost the nation £300 million. It would be dishonest of him to let it go at that and not admit, as I am sure he would if he were present, that the very sentence from which he lifted that remark in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the Bill goes on to say that in the same full year disposal of land will come to £800 million or £900 million and that the net effect of the Community Land Bill will be a saving to the Exchequer and to local authorities of some £550 million in a full year. It is quite remarkable to criticise the Government for wishing to spend public money by referring to one of the Bills they have introduced with the purpose of saving money to the public authorities, both local and central. Moreover—and this is another point which we must get fixed in our minds if we are to make sense of this debate and the general argument on defence cuts—it is confusing the issue to relate expenditure of public funds for purchase of ownership such as land, with expenditure of public funds on, for example, defence, which not only is a burden on public expenditure but also has a real resource cost to the economy. This is why many Labour Members wish expenditure to be kept as low as is reasonably possible so that the burden of the resource cost to the economy is kept as low as possible.Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that the running losses of one nationalised industry after another are a very heavy burden on the economy? Is he so hopeful as to imagine that profits might be earned in future by the nationalised industries?
The hon. Gentleman has taken me into a much wider area than the present debate. He will be aware that the reason why nationalised industries make losses on returns on accountants' losses at the end of the year is that successive Governments of both colours—I do not wish to make party points—held down the prices below that which the market could bear and that which was needed to cover investments.
I should like to take up the point made by a number of Conservative Members about the Russian navy. I did not intend to do so but points have been raised to which I should like to attempt a reply. All Conservative Members who have spoken have referred to a massive and modern Russian naval build-up. I recognise that their remarks reflect quite a number of Press reports which, over the past two years, have dealt with precisely this subject. However, it is remarkable, when one starts to study this area, how very little authoritative study has been given to the alleged claim that there has been a massive Soviet naval build-up. The most recent authoritative report is the one that was published by the Brookings Institution 18 months ago. I assure hon. Members that the Tribune Group has no share or financial interest in the Brookings Institution. Indeed, we do not normally find much comfort in its publications. In its publication 18 months ago on the Soviet naval strength it came to the interesting conclusion that between 1958 and 1973 there was no increase in the number of surface vessels in the Soviet navy. It stated that the number of persons employed in the Soviet navy over that same period declined from 750,000 to 500,000 and that the period of conscription in the Soviet navy was reduced from four years to three years. This meant that not only did the Russians have fewer men but those men spent less of their time on operations. Moreover, there was little evidence that a higher proportion of ships had been built in recent times. In 1958, three-quarters of the Soviet surface fleet had been built within the previous eight years. In 1973 only one-quarter had been built in the preceding eight years. I appreciate that these figures are two years old. I am only a layman and I have access only to published information. It is possible that the Minister has carried out more recent and deeper research into this subject and he may have other figures available. If so, I hope he will take the opportunity, when he replies to the debate, to make these figures available to the House. It is extraordinary, if we continue to postulate an increasing and accelerating Soviet build-up, that the figures are not available. In so far as information is published, it would not appear to support the quite wide and extraordinary allegations that have been made. The difference is that the Soviet navy is being deployed in a way that it was not in 1958.I think the hon. Gentleman will find the answer if he studies "Jane's Fighting Ships". He will find that in fact the number of Soviet ships has increased. What is more important is that where a conventional submarine has been scrapped it has been replaced by a nuclear submarine; where a Soviet destroyer has been scrapped it has been replaced by a Kara class cruiser, which is probably the most powerful warship in the world.
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I would not attempt to disagree that the Soviets are going in for nuclear-powered submarines. At present the nuclear-powered submarines available to the NATO forces greatly exceed those of the Soviet fleet.
No. That is absolutely wrong.
We can take up the actual figures later. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I can clarify this matter behind Mr. Speaker's Chair.
On the matter of deployment, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) dealt at length with the Indian Ocean. He referred to the specific Russian fleet as having a predominance in that ocean. I have with me the statements that were made to the Senate hearing only last month by the American Chief of Staff. General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean had hardened into a cruiser, two destroyer escorts, two minesweepers, two amphibious ships and a submarine. The Secretary of State for the Defence Department, Mr. Schlesinger, said that the American presence in the Indian Ocean consisted of a carrier command ship and two destroyers. We are aware, of course, that it is American naval practice to have a nuclear-powered submarine in attendance on a carrier. Therefore, the difference is not so striking. It is not such as to give the Russian presence a predominance. However, to the American presence must be added the further observations made by Mr. Schlesinger that over the past 18 months there have been seven deployments in the area in augmentation of their permanent presence including five visits by a carrier, again with two destroyers and a submarine. This accounts for over one-third of that 18 months. In other words, for a third of the previous 18 months the American presence in the Indian Ocean had been greater than that of the Russian. Of course, if one is a Russian and sitting in the Kremlin looking at the map and worried about the question of balance, one looks not simply at the American and Russian presence but also at the fleets of France and Britain. If one looks at the Indian Ocean balance and the ships present there, one finds that in March 1974—again I apologise because these figures are necessarily a year old; I can rely only on published information, and I should be grateful if the Minister would correct me later if that is necessary—the surface combat vessels of Britain, France and the United States in the Indian Ocean totalled 16. In the same month there were only eight surface combat vessels of the Russian navy present in the Indian Ocean. That hardly indicates the kind of predominance which the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion would have us believe was occurring in the Indian Ocean. Certainly this deployment by the Russian Navy is new and serious, and it is certanly regrettable, but it is not the convincing argument for a British naval build-up which some Opposition Members are asking us to entertain. Particularly, it is not a convincing argument for expansion of the base at Diego Garcia. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the expansion of the base at Diego Garcia, I could not help noticing that there were murmurs of general approval from the Opposition. When he referred to the Russian expansion of the base at Berbera there were also murmurs, but of disapproval and contempt. However, I ask the Minister to say how he sees these two developments as being so very different. Looking again at the statements to the Senate hearings only last month I notice that Mr. Schlesinger says that the Russians at Berbera are building a runway of three miles. Therefore, we at Diego Garcia must have a modest expansion of the runway to 12,000 ft. If my calculations are right, there is certainly a difference between three miles and 12,000 ft.—but a difference of about 25 per cent., a moderate difference, and certainly not the difference between a threatening and damaging military expansion and a merely modest expansion on that island. It is a fact that the Americans are proposing to spend over $100 million in expanding Diego Garcia and that their Chief of Air Staffs has said that they will from time to time station F111 bombers on the island. I am deeply disturbed by what appears to be known about Diego Garcia expansion. I am particularly saddened when I remember that at the Senate hearings last year, 1974, William Colby, the Director of the CIA—again, not a card-carrying member of the Tribune Group—said that if there were an expansion of the American naval presence in the Indian Ocean it would be matched by an expansion of the Soviet naval presence. That is exactly what we have seen happen over the past 12 months. This saddens me. I remember also last year that Senator Henry Jackson —again, no, member of the Tribune group—said:I am afraid that the events of last year have been that we on the Western side have sacrificed that opportunity and that there now is little opportunity for restraint in that area. I ask the House to consider this question. What is really our self-interest in this area? The Minister said that we respect the views of the littoral States around the Indian Ocean, but he will be aware that many of them have expressed grave disquiet over the expansion and development at Diego Garcia. I should have thought that even those who are worried about the trade routes, their protection and their strategic importance, must recognise that it cannot be in our interest to affront the good will and the stated intention and desires of the littoral States that surround those trade routes. I find it deeply patronising that we seem to think that we can protect our trade routes in areas of the world far distant from our shores only by having our own naval or military presence there. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that once upon a time the Indian Ocean was a British lake, but that it now no longer is. Of course not—rightly and properly so. The idea of the Indian Ocean being a British lake was a patronising affront to those States that surround that ocean. I do not find it much of an improvement—nor would their Governments probably—to try to turn that ocean into a European or Anglo-American lake, or, indeed, even, with the Soviets, a Caucasian lake. Obviously, the littoral States want us to avoid an arms race in that area, and it would be to our advantage to assist in that objective and thus, by protecting the good will of those States, to protect our trade routes. Lastly, I am seriously concerned about the very large number of references in this debate to the need to get south of the Tropic of Cancer. Over the last two or three months the significance of the Tropic of Cancer has taken on the same importance in strategic debates as east of Suez did in the 1960s. I find this a rather serious development. Diego Garcia is part of the drive to get NATO to commit itself south of the Tropic of Cancer. I rather fear that our termination of the formal agreement with South Africa over Simonstown may mask a growing involvement in that area. It is extraordinary that, at a time when we are ostensibly cancelling that agreement, the South Africans are spending 10 million rand on expanding the harbour facilities. I should have thought it unlikely that they would do that if they were sure that there would be any less usage of the port by foreign States. I am also gravely disturbed by some information that has come to light over the last few months regarding the communications falicitics at Silvermine, immediately adjacent to the port of Simonstown. We are all aware of the Press reports showing that these facilities were built with equipment purchased using NATO codes on NATO forms. It has been claimed that this is standard commercial practice, and that it merely assisted South Africa in obtaining the commercial contract which it otherwise would not have obtained. What has not received the same Press attention and is much more disturbing has been the suggestion, particularly from Denmark and Holland, that NATO is getting information based on these communications facilities and that we are giving them our IFF codes for cancelling out British and NATO ships and aeroplanes and are, in return, receiving information about other ship movements in the area. This is very serious and disturbing. I am worried that we are seeing a drift south of the Tropic of Cancer, but not one being done openly on the basis of open debate, but covertly, behind closed doors. If there is a compulsion to move south of the Tropic of Cancer let us debate it openly. But I can see, against it all the weighty arguments used against the British presence east of Suez. I remind hon. Members that this takes us back to the general question of Britain's rôle at the end of the Twentieth century. That rôle must be related to our economic stature, and our position in the league of nations. I should like to refer to one or two remarks made by hon. Members on the relative lack of presence on the Government side of the Chamber. I ask hon. Members to appreciate, as I am sure they do, that there are many other demands on the time of Members. However, I remind them that last night I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) were here for a debate on arms sales on a motion put down by the official Opposition, and indeed, we found the position reversed. There were fewer speakers on the Opposition side then than there are now, but the Government side was able to maintain its presence to the end. The point made repeatedly in that debate, which links in with the general concern as to the defence review in this debate, was that by going in for arms sales Britain is being enabled to keep up a military pretension and an arms industry which it could not otherwise afford. The tragedy of tonight's debate has been that it has shown us how many Opposition Members have still failed to realise that we are carrying on military commitments beyond our shores which we do not have the capacity to fulfil. I should very must regret it if, as this lesson is being learned by more and more members of the public though not by hon. Members, we were to go in for a maritime strategy far ranging and far beyond those shores."From time to time opportunities for regional restraint present themselves; and in my judgment the region is the Indian Ocean and the opportunity is now."
7.10 p.m.
First, I answer two of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that his figures were a little out as regards the American runway on Diego Garcia. The American runway will be shorter than that built by the Russians. Of course, the Americans are part of NATO and are our allies; the Russians are not.
Secondly, it is always easy to cast aspersions on how many Members are present on one side of the House or the other. However, I think it will generally be agreed that today the Liberals have been conspicuously absent. I have been sitting behind their empty bench throughout the debate. I did not try to speak, as I normally do, on the Army Estimates or on the Air Estimates because I knew that I had been invited to a naval conference in Annapolis by the Supreme Commander of SEALANT. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I am sad to see that my hon. Friend has deserted the back benches, but I congratulate him today on occupying our Front Bench. We were not able to run too wild at the conference because we were accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman was present as well as one of his Government colleagues. The value of such conferences does not lie only in the formal speeches that are made, excellent though they always are. There is also much value to be gained from the talks that one has with, for example, admirals of the other NATO countries and with the politicians. It gave me much satisfaction to talk to admirals from Denmark, Norway, West Germany and other countries and to get their points of view. It is in those personal talks that we gain so much. In the White Paper the Secretary of State said that we would not weaken the central front in Germany. I appreciate that I am turning to Army matters, but when I was in Germany it was clear that that policy had been carried out with the exception of the movement of spare parts. The position of the Royal Navy is not clear. Perhaps it has been left out of matters too much owing to its tradition as the Silent Service, although the Minister has been speaking for it today. It seems that we have been allocated the task of defending the Eastern Atlantic. In those terms we think of the Channel, the North Sea and the outlet off the Shetlands Isles. It may be that if war breaks out—no one wants war, but by talking about it I am sure that we are more likely to keep the peace—we shall be quickly engaged on the naval side in dealing with the Russian submarines. I am sure that that will happen more quickly than action on the land involving the Army. It is the Navy which safeguards the Channel and ensures that reserves and supplies reach the Army. I was a little alarmed by what the Minister said about the Navy Reserves. We are an island race and we have been sea-loving people throughout the ages. Young boys enter the reserve as naval cadets although they may be unable to join the Royal Navy for certain personal reasons. However, the love of the sea is in them, and that love is answered by being a member of the reserve. Is the Minister to publish a paper on the Naval Reserves? I understand that there is to be a reduction in the number of men in the reserve at the end of the day. It may be that we cannot maintain training centres and that a reduction will produce a more efficient force, but I would like to see a paper published on the subject. Any reductions that are made cannot be because of lack of money. The reserves provide the cheapest form of capable and disciplined manpower in the event of hostilities. I welcome the confirmation that the three through-deck cruisers are planned with a Harrier package. This matter particularly interests me as it has been studied by my Defence Committee. As I have said, I believe that in the event of hostilities one of the main threats will be the Russian submarines. The through-deck cruisers, with their capacity for helicopters, will provide the main attack on the submarines. They might well be vital. Will they be on time or shall we have to use the services of HMS "Blake" and HMS "Tiger"? I have been on board HMS "Blake", and it is not ideal. Both vessels are due to be phased out altogether. It seems that this is a crucial rôle, and it is clear that we shall have to move quickly if there is an opening of hostilities. As I understand it, the Russians would be capable of laying a large number of mines. We know what mines can do. They can be laid by air, by surface ships or by submarines. That is an area in which the naval reserves could play their part. I hope that we shall be adequately protected in that respect. Next, I turn to discuss the dockyards. My Committee and I have always striven to ensure that matters which do not relate to defence do not appear as defence costs. Clearly, there are now fewer ships, and fewer refits are required. We have a good dockyard at Gibraltar. Is it essential that all dockyards in this country are kept open from a defence point of view? The fact that there are large work forces engaged at the yards should not be the main consideration. You may say that each dockyard specialises and that they must all be kept open. I think you said that you were going out to get other work—Order. The hon. and gallant Member must address the Chair.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I beg your pardon very much.
Is the Minister satisfied that he will receive payment for certain works that he has said will be carried out? Will these works be properly costed? Whenever I have visited the dockyards I have been anxious to see the accountancy systems. So far I have not managed to understand them. I have always asked how many ex-chartered and cost accountants are engaged upon the accountancy. Only in one dockyard—it is a yard in the area which the Minister represents—did I find a man who said of his own volition that he had obtained qualifications as a cost accountant. It may be that the Navy keeps its records in a special way, but a civilian qualification in accountancy cannot be to the detriment of any man. I should like to say a few words about Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, which have had development difficulties. When I was on a private visit to Gibraltar in January, the admiral took me round the dockyard and showed me a target at which they had fired Exocet. That target had been smashed up good and proper. A vessel hit by a missile of that nature would have been put out of action, if not at the bottom of the sea. The dockyard team which had to repair the target ready for another exercise was pretty browned off at the amount of work it had to do because the weapon had caused a tremendous amount of damage. The Exocet project contains a good deal of French expertise and British equipment, and the United Kingdom Service personnel take a great interest in Exocet. So far as I could see, it was a most excellent missile. I visited Turkey some months ago and met some of our personnel there, and also personnel from other NATO countries, particularly those stationed at Izmir. That visit brought home to me what was meant by the withdrawal of the British presence in the Mediterranean. This is a political matter rather than a point dealing with strengths and weaknesses of various navies, but we must remember that Britain has always had a presence in the Mediterranean. We have had great successes in the Mediterranean area, as can be judged from history. I welcomed the Minister's comments about the exercises which are to take place in that area so that it cannot be said that our presence is being entirely removed from that sphere of influence. We are most dependent on our sea routes for our oil supplies and for all the goods we need in time of war. NATO is responsible for the Atlantic and will do a great deal to ensure that goods are properly convoyed across the Atlantic. I appreciate that there are one or two small naval vessels engaged in work connected with oil rigs. Protection of that nature is aimed more at countering possible hijackers than at gaining war-time experience. We all know that oil rigs suffer in rough sea conditions and accidents happen, but in war time the rigs will become possible targets for destruction. The enemy could inflict a great deal of damage on their shore installations. These installations will be important to us in times of war, and we should consider them in our main defence strategy. At present I have got the message from conversations with Service personel that we can contain the Russians, although the balance may be tilted a little their way. We can contain them and, we hope, defeat them, but the Russians in respect of both their navy and their army are continuing to rearm, and obviously this affects the balance. If the democratic nations do not do more to keep up their hardware and to give well-trained professional troops the means to keep up their level of com- bat-readiness, we shall fall back. That is where the threat may lie. It appears that the Russians are striving not to reach parity with our forces but to obtain vast superiority. This is what the democracies must seek to avoid. I do not know who are the right people to sound these warnings. Is it the job of Service personnel or of politicians? Who is to warn our nation that we must keep up our arms strength if we are to survive? It is our job to protect our