Orders of the Day — Labour Party (Election Pledges)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 29 July 1965.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Miss Joan Vickers Miss Joan Vickers , Plymouth, Devonport 12:00, 29 July 1965

Certainly not. We have stuck it very well and kept hon. and right hon. Members up to their job whenever necessary.

The Prime Minister accused us of being partisan in our attitude to various groups. In my view, we have the right to protect those who need protection. It was rather strange to hear the Prime Minister say that, especially as he went on to say that he had been kneedeep in the difficulties of old-age pensioners and bus fares. He admitted that he was partisan towards one section of the population. That is how he acts in his own constituency, and he has no right to accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) of being partisan in regard to particular sections of the population who need our protection.

It is not my intention to discuss what was said in the Labour Party manifesto. I wish, first, to refute the charge that we have not been a constructive Opposition. The various Bills which have been before the House have been studied more deeply than at almost any time during the years that I have been in the House, and it is interesting to find the number of Amendments which have been accepted. For example, the Race Relations Bill left the House after Second Reading as one Bill and came back as quite another. I am certain that this was because of the reasoned Amendments put forward by the Opposition. I could take many other Bills, such as the Rent and Finance Bills, in regard to which the Opposition have been extremely constructive. In any case, it is not for an Opposition to put forward policies. Their turn will come at the next election. We have to put forward constructive proposals and Amendments to the Measures which the Government in power put before the House.

I come now to a subject which has not been referred to today, that is, defence. On 27th September, 1964, the Prime Minister came to my constituency and made a speech which was probably part of the reason for my reduced majority. He said: It is not possible to come to Plymouth without saying something about naval affairs, about the dockyards and about the Royal Navy". As Plymouth, for the past 300 years, has depended on and done an excellent job for the Royal Navy, one can well imagine that that sort of remark would be welcomed with a "Hear, hear". There are 14,000 people who work in the yard. No doubt, to get their interest and, perhaps, their votes, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say: We believe that in the present conditions"— to my mind, conditions are worse now than they were at that time— we need a stronger and more effective Navy". I am sure that people again said "Hear, hear" to that, but he continued: The Royal Navy is not adequate for our needs in the 1960s. It has been run down to a dangerous extent by the Conservatives in their pursuit of nuclear illusion for political and prestige purposes". When the Navy Estimates came along, I listened with great interest to know what changes to improve our great Navy would be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. What did we hear? First, the fifth Polaris submarine is not to be built. The Hunter class submarines are being delayed. There is no question of the carrier being produced for a number of years, if at all. We were told that there would be four extra County class cruisers and 12 Leander class frigates. This was the major programme filling in the necessary details of the changes foreshadowed by the Prime Minister to give the country a stronger Navy.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—it seemed to me to prove that he really considered that we did not need this very much stronger Navy—how adequately the Royal Navy had played its part in the past year, for instance, in Kuwait, Brunei, Tanzania, Malaysia and Cyprus. In fact, the Royal Navy never failed.

Another of his statements interested his audience very much. He said: We have to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement. As far as I know, no action has been taken about that, and I hope that whoever is to reply at the end of the debate will tell us what has happened about the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: Redeployment in our defence expenditure as promised in our manifesto will help to provide the resources needed to stimulate regular recruitment. This is a very big problem. What has happened? The hon. Gentleman went on to say in the same speech: It is not only rates of pay—it is just as much a question of accommodation and married quarters, which have suffered severely defence cuts dictated by the missile Polaris programme. We on this side of the House have asked several times about the scheme for ratings to be able to have loans to buy their houses on re-engagement. All that we have had from the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy is a promise that he may make a statement before the end of the Session. As there is to be a cut of £100 million in defence expenditure, I want to know whether this will involve withdrawing the promises which were definitely given to the ratings that there would be a scheme for them, if they re-engaged, to get some loans for their houses, because the situation with regard to married quarters and other accommodation, as I know only too well from my interview session, is extremely difficult at the present time.

Furthermore, on 11 th March the Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy said: We are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 659.] If we are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers, I should like to hear when we shall be able to know something about the new carrier. At the moment we have only H.M.S. "Eagle", a modern carrier, and the "Hermes", which will not be ready for approximately another two years, and the older carriers which will soon be at the end of their service. How can we look forward eagerly to flying Phantoms from our carriers if we have not got the carriers, or, as far as I know, the Phantoms either at the moment?

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: I believe, and state with all the sincerity at my command that I believe, that our reappraisal of defence policies, with our emphasis on the rôle of the Navy's regular job, will provide better security, better assurances for the future than the vacillations of Tory defence policy. I would beg to differ with the Prime Minister over that last remark. There have been more vacillations by the present Government in a shorter time than ever in the history of our country in regard to our policy for defence. We cannot have an answer today, but I hope that on Monday we shall have a very definite statement as to what is meant by all these points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in my constituency. He continued: I … state with all the sincerity at my command", and this is a very important question affecting not only my constituency but the whole of the Royal Navy and its future recruitment, and many other dockyard towns as well. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in wanting a stronger Navy, he will have to get the recruits to man the ships. I want to know what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is breaking his personal pledges. I agree that they were made to persons in a particular area, to my constituents, but, of course, this kind of statement gets round—I am sure that it was meant to get round—to all the other dockyard towns.

The right hon. Gentleman also said in that speech: Another issue—we believe in fair wages and fair conditions. I suggest that this hardly appears to be the case. For some time I have been trying to get action taken on behalf of certain sections of people who, I think, are being treated most unfairly, and I keep on being pushed off all the time. I want particularly to mention the apprentice group instructors. They have been asking for non-industrial status. It seems ridiculous that in the dockyards they have industrial status but if they do exactly the same job in H.M.S. "Fishgard" they have non-industrial status. I do not consider that this represents fair conditions.

I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy stating that the Department had not heard from the Amalgamated Engineering Union on this subject for many years. I can understand that. The Amalgamated Engineering Union knows that if those concerned are given the fair conditions promised by the right hon. Gentleman it will lose some members. We are told that the Civil Service Staff Association would support the promotion of these people to non-industrial status. We then get a further difficulty, because we are told that this Civil Service union is not a negotiating body for the conditions of these men and has nothing to do with the conditions under which they work. Therefore, how can it ever hope to get fair conditions for that area? I should have thought that this point could have been tacked by now.

I gather that while discussions were in progress between the trade union side and the Treasury—I have this information in a letter which I received on 9th July, 1965—the Chancellor accepted the proposal of the trade union side to stand still on future negotiation. Does this represent fair conditions? Surely it is for him to make up his mind about what status these men should have. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy should be able to do his own thinking and not solely be dependent on the trade unions for advice in this respect.

I had a further letter on the subject of fair conditions for surgery assistants, who wish to be non-industrial. I mention this particularly because I received a reply saying: I am not surprised to learn that the Transport and General Workers' Union is not taking up their case since the trade union side of the Council have agreed with the Chancellor that a moratorium should be placed on all further non-industrialisation pending negotiations. Why should a moratorium be placed on these individuals? Is it purely to save money? If their status were raised, they would get better pay and better pensions. I want to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman carries out his pledge to the people in the Royal Navy and the dockyards that they shall get fair wages and fair conditions.

The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, with a sentence which I think needs a great deal of explanation if we are to know what the future of the Service is to be: But there is one thing I want to add—the greater use of Royal Dockyards as well as Royal Ordnance Factories for civil work. Nobody, I am sure, would quarrel with that. At present there is, I believe, sufficient work for the Royal Navy. But it makes us very doubful about Socialist pledges when one looks at what has happened in other quarters.

The Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy is one of the Parliamentary representatives of Woolwich, and in his election address he said: There is the problem of the Arsenal. For years I have fought hard in Parliament and elsewhere to keep the R.O.F. alive and flourishing. Now the Government"— that is, the Conservative Government— has finally decided to close it down. I have however— This was in his election address— received the assurance of Mr. Harold Wilson that a Labour Government would carefully review the decision. If re-elected I would immediately draw this question to the attention of the relevant Labour Ministers. I should like to know who in this case are the relevant Labour Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman is himself now a Minister, why has he not been able to take any action?

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) also had in his election address a passage about the closing down of the R.O.F. at Woolwich Arsenal: … a typical piece of Conservatism. Contracts go to private interests first. The public interest and the taxpayer's pocket come second. On 21st December, 1964, the "Go-Ahead signal was given for the Royal Arsenal to be gradually shut down. There was to be no civilian work. In the Daily Telegraph of 22nd December, 1964, one of the shop stewards said: We are more disgusted than words can express The Labour Party slammed the Conservatives for announcing last year only two weeks before Christmas that the Arsenal was to be run down. Now the Labour Government announces this four days before Christmas. What are we to say? Knowing dockyard language, it was obvious what he might have said. However, I am sure that, on this occasion, words failed him. Words will fail us if similar action is taken in the rest of the naval establishments. I therefore seek a full assurance that the pledge given in the speech by the right hon. Gentleman will be carried out—civilian work being provided if necessary—because it is essential to the whole area that we should know what is to happen in regard to future employment. The dockyard towns are concerned because of the announcement of the £100 million cut likely to take place in the near future.

The final sentence from the right hon. Gentleman's speech made one wonder what is going on with regard to planning for the future. He said: I believe there will come a time when Plymouth's dependence on the Admiralty side of the Ministry of Defence will be matched by growing interest in the work of the new Ministry of Overseas Development. It will he interesting, and it is rather worrying, to know what is meant by that sentence. Perhaps we can be told.

I only mention this one point because it has not been mentioned before and it is essential to thousands of people throughout the country that they should not be deceived, as they were deceived in the last election, into voting for a Government that promises them a better Navy and even more security in future. It is on this point that I hope the Government will keep their pledges.