Laid-Up Ships
44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many of His Majesty's ships are now laid up or could not be ready for service in 14 days.
I regret that it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.
In view of the state of unrest in the world, in view of the enormous commitments of our country, and in view of the increasing menace of Communism, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Royal Navy, which has saved us so often in the past, will be kept fully equipped and ready for action?
Certainly, Sir.
Is not this a very simple request in time of peace? Is it really against the public interest that this figure should be disclosed?
It is frequently very desirable that certain information should not be disclosed to the public, and this is one of the kinds of such information.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea when it will be possible to resume the practice of publishing the Admiralty List?
Not at the moment, but I am perfectly willing to consult my noble Friend to see if, later, it will be possible.
But was not this information available before the war? Will not the Admiralty take as a guiding rule that the practice followed before the war should be followed now? This secrecy and hush-hush is most disagreeable.
Answer.
I thought I had answered that previously, in saying that I will consult with my noble Friend to see if in time it will be possible to release this information.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any of these ships could easily be repaired within 14 days if he were to get a team of Communist engineers on the job?
Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that he does not concede the inference contained in the first supplementary question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?
Certainly, Sir.
Strength
56.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state approximately the number of officers and ratings on the strength; and how many of them are ashore and afloat at the latest convenient date.
The approximate total strength of the Navy at 31st March was 190,000, including Royal Marine Police, but excluding Wrens. Of these, some 75,000 were serving afloat, the remainder including men under training, were ashore. The Wrens numbered about 7,400.
In view of the fact that His Majesty's ships cannot put to sea unless adequately manned, and in view of the fact that I am told it is very difficult for some ships to put to sea, will the hon. Gentleman see that as many ratings are put afloat as possible?
I am glad the hon. Member has now caught up with his leader, who asked the same question rather earlier. If he will read my statement on the Estimates he will see the explanation of the large number of people who are unavoidably ashore at the present time.
Scientific Service
57.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the present strength of the R.N. Scientific Service; and what proportion is this figure of the Scientific Civil Service.
The present authorised complement of the R.N. Scientific Service comprises 1,127 officers in the scientific and experimental classes. This figure is approximately one-eighth of the total complement of officers in the Scientific Civil Service.
Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what the actual figure is?
I said 1,127 in the Navy
Rosyth Base
58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he has considered a letter from the Methil Co-operative Society, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, urging the retention of Rosyth naval base and its continued use for the repair of naval and merchant ships: and what reply he has made.
Yes, Sir, and I have written to my hon. Friend referring him to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on 20th November, 1946, to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison).
Is the Civil Lord aware that a very large number of communications have been sent to him during the past few weeks, and that the answer he has given to them is the same that we have been getting regularly for three years?
It shows the hon. Gentleman is persistent, anyhow.
Will the Civil Lord say when a decision can be made on this question, and will he give us an approximate date on which he will receive a deputation to give the final decision—the final favourable decision?
I am quite aware of the considerable number of communications which are received, and also of the desire of deputations to come along. Indeed, my noble Friend and I have met one or two only recently. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is under consideration, and that the final decision will be reached as soon as possible.
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any consultation with the Minister of Defence in this matter, in view of the strategic advantage in two world wars of having a naval base in Scotland?
I can inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter has been considered by the Minister of Defence, and was, indeed, considered by him before he became Minister of Defence. Before any final decision is made he will be consulted in connection with it.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the major factor, besides the solvency of this Co-operative Society, in deciding whether they get this port or not?
Arising out of the Civil Lord's original reply, can the hon. Gentleman say whether, conversely, any communication has been received from Rosyth naval base urging the retention of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?
Long-Service Pensions
59.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state what adjustments to long-service naval pensions are contemplated by reason of the retiral pensions benefits proposed under the National Insurance Act, 1946.
No, Sir. I regret I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 25th November last.
Can the Financial Secretary give any indication when he will be able to make a statement on this, in view of its importance?
I fully realise its importance, but it concerns a number of other Departments besides the Admiralty. I cannot yet give any firm date.
Maltese Ratings
60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why Maltese serving in the R.N. are not allowed to become members of guns' crews.
It would not in general be economical to train in the more specialised gunnery duties men who are serving on non-continuous engagements for service only in locally employed craft in which there are no such duties to perform. In the case of ships with large power-worked gun mountings, however, it is common practice to use Maltese ratings as part of the guns crews in the turret magazines and shell rooms.
As the Maltese proved themselves to be expert gunners in the Army, is it not time that the Navy removed this restriction?
That is another question.
Requisitioned Agricultural Land
61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many acres of agricultural land are now held under requisition by his Department for the storage of ammunition; and what plans he has for the early restoration of this land to food production.
A total of 698 acres of agricultural land is now held under requisition by the Admiralty for the storage of ammunition. It is intended to clear and release 298 acres by the end of this year. Two hundred acres will probably be required for a permanent subsidiary armament depot. The remaining 200 acres are used for storage of large quantities of ammunition being returned from overseas.
Dartmouth College Entry (New Scheme)
62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the future of the Dartmouth and Special Entry schemes of elevation to commissioned rank.
Yes, Sir. I will, with permission, make a statement on this subject at the end of Questions.
Later—
The Admiralty have for some time been reviewing the methods of recruiting officers for the Royal Navy, with particular reference to the entry through the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that we have every reason to be satisfied with the quality of the naval officer produced by the entry of boys at about 13½ years of age, and their subsequent education at Dartmouth. The Royal Navy can justly claim that its officers have stood the supreme test of war, a claim which my noble Friend, the First Lord, and the Board of Admiralty, are proud to have the opportunity of endorsing. The best tribute to Dartmouth is the distinction with which the product has served the country.
We feel, however, that, for reasons which I propose to give, the time has come for a change in the present system of entry into the Royal Navy through Dartmouth. This system and the training given at Dartmouth may be regarded as having taken their present form about 40 years ago, though one far reaching change was made in 1941, when my right hon. Friend, who is now the Minister of Defence, introduced the scholarship system. When Dartmouth was founded the educational system in the country was very different from what it is now. Inevitably, entry was the privilege of boys whose parents were able to afford to send their children to preparatory schools. The reduced fee system which has been in operation at Dartmouth for many years did little to attract others, and the scholarship system of 1941, excellent as it was, was only a beginning of the broadening of the basis of entry. The new educational system of the country, designed as it is to ensure that every child has an equal opportuity of securing the best education he is capable of absorbing, makes it possible to afford the opportunity of becoming a naval officer to boys from all classes of the community who possess the qualities of mind and potential leadership required by the Royal Navy. With this object in view, my noble Friend has decided to modify the system of entry into the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, to provide for candidates to join at about the age of 16 years. Evidence will be required of candidates' educational standard—something approximating to the present school certificate is the standard provisionally in mind—and of their ability to profit by the further education which will be given after entry. The method of selection will also include an interview, the exact scope of which has not yet been determined. Cadets entering Dartmouth under this scheme will be eligible for the Executive, Engineering and Supply Branches of the Royal Navy. It is contemplated that they should spend five terms at Dartmouth before proceeding to sea. The House will, I think, be glad to hear that no fees or charges, either for tuition or board and lodging, will be payable in respect of new style Dartmouth cadets. Entry will be open to candidates of the quality required from whatever schools they come. I am satisfied that with such a wide basis of recruitment, followed by nearly two years' further education and training at Dartmouth College, there is every reason to expect that the naval officer produced by the new Dartmouth system will be a worthy successor to the naval officer of today. The Admiralty intend, of course, to continue the system of recruiting officers from the lower deck and, as I stated in my speech introducing the Navy Estimates, we hope that it will be possible to select an overall average of 20–25 per cent. of officers in these branches from the lower deck. It is hoped that ultimately the new system of Dartmouth entry will provide one half of the remainder of the officers required for the Navy, the balance coming from the special entry system at about 18 years of age, which it is also intended to continue. It is not possible yet to fix a date when this new scheme will be introduced but it is hoped that the first entries will begin in September, 1948. In a new scheme of this magnitude there are bound to be many details to settle. The Admiralty contemplate that in the initial stages the two systems will operate side by side, the numbers under the present system being gradually reduced, and the numbers under the new system gradually increased until the new system is fully operative. The House will recognise that the scheme affords for the first time an opportunity to suitable boys from all schools in the country of becoming naval officers; and the Admiralty are confident that they can rely on the co-operation of education authorities, headmasters, arid others concerned in education, in ensuring the success of the scheme.As I think I was the first to introduce commissioned entry from the lower deck, I am in sympathy with the general spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I wish to ask him this: Are we to take it that the period of training for the midshipman is now to be reduced from four years to two and a half years, or something like that? There is now four years' very intensive and specialised training. Is that being thrown over, and are we coming down to two and a half years? I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he can tell me whether that is so?
Not altogether; it is not a question of training midshipmen, but the training of cadets. They will receive less training at Dartmouth, because much of the previous training there was of a purely educational nature, which they will now acquire at school. We shall concentrate, in the shorter time, on the technical training which will be necessary.
Was not a great deal done by way of the vocational training which was obtained during this four years? It certainly produced a marvellous class of officers for the Royal Navy.
Certainly, Sir. As I have been at pains to explain, it produced a marvellous type of officer, and we think that the new scheme will produce an equally good type of officer, even with the shorter period.
I would like to make it clear that this matter will have to be debated. We cannot give our accord, at this stage, to the definite reduction of the vocational training of officers of the Royal Navy from four years to two and a half.
Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be generally welcomed in the Service, not only as a move towards ending an entirely obsolete class discrimination, but also as a means of maintaining that high standard of naval efficiency of which this country has been proud?
Is my hon. Friend aware that although his statement will give general satisfaction, as far as it goes, further democratisation is necessary in the special entry system from the public schools at the age of 18, which at present is largely restricted to the more expensive schools?
Is it not the case that we have had for a long time special entry at the age of 18 for officers, and that senior naval officers take the view that after a few years' training it has been impossible to tell the difference between a Dartmouth entry and a special entry at 18?
Yes, Sir, that is perfectly true.
Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I personally was responsible for the outside entry, both from the universities and from the public schools, and that the core of naval officers has always had this intensive training?
I cannot agree to the separation of naval officers into a corps and something which is not a corps.
I shall have to instruct the hon. Gentleman in spelling. In this case, core is spelt "core".
Is not the period of provisional training under this proposal less than two years and not two and a half years?
We are not definite as to the exact period, but we think that it will be five terms or possibly six.
As Dartmouth is in my constituency, may I be allowed to ask a question? [Interruption.] I am more closely responsible for it, possibly, than some other hon. Members. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the retaining of the geographical situation of Dartmouth College will bring very great satisfaction to South Devon as being obviously the most suitable place for it?
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it has been decided by the Admiralty to keep the existing midshipman system and also the Greenwich system, because these are indivisible when one is considering the training of officers?
Yes, Sir. There is no alteration in that.
While welcoming the statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to assure us that the intellectual content of the education given between i6 and 18 will bring cadets near to the higher school certificate standard? Can he assure us that the curriculum will not be overloaded with technical training upon the excuse that the allotted period is now short?
They will certainly get an adequate amount of intellectual training.
While welcoming the statement that the more technical side of the training is to be deferred until r6, may I ask whether the selection from schools will be by nomination or by examination, and whether Dartmouth College is to come in any sense within the ordinary educational system of the country?
There will be both an examination and an interview, but Dartmouth will obviously not come altogether within the ordinary educational system of the country. The Board of Education have been consulted on this, and they think that it is a workable scheme, with which they are very satisfied.
While welcoming the general implication of the statement, and having had the Minister's assurance that his object is to produce first-class naval officers, may I ask if there will be any further opportunity of discussing the details of this scheme?
I am afraid that that is not a matter for me.
As the school certificate has been mentioned as a standard of entry, is it intended that the dockyard school cadet scholarships shall be tenable at Dartmouth College?
That is another question.
Boat Building (Timber Allocation)
63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the building of boats required urgently by his Department is being held up by the inability of boat-builders to obtain the necessary timber; and if he is giving priority to these builders within the total amount of timber allocated to his Department.
I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind the case of one particular boat builder, who is engaged on work for the Admiralty. Inquiries are being made, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
Has my hon. Friend observed that the second part of my Question is much more general; will he answer it, and show that he is aware of the very serious situation in this industry?
I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the serious situation in the boat building industry, but that is not a matter which is entirely within the province of the Admiralty, as we depend on allocations of raw materials from other Departments.
Will the Civil Lord bear in mind that what the hon. Member is suggesting would mean considerable unemployment in many boat building centres at the present time, where boats are being built not only for use in this country, but for export?
Is my hon. Friend aware that I was merely suggesting a proper grading of priorities as between different kinds of boats produced?
Will the Civil Lord confirm or deny that there is a shortage of boats in His Majesty's Navy at the present moment?
I am afraid that that does not arise on this Question.
Will the Civil Lord go into the question of whether the small boat builders are getting a fair proportion of the work available?
The small boat builders engaged in building commercial craft and fishing vessels are definitely getting a fair share of the allocation.