Skip to main content

Royal Navy

Volume 439: debated on Wednesday 25 June 1947

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Docks, Rosyth And The Clyde

25.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he proposes to make a statement regarding the future of Rosyth dockyard and the project of establishing a graving dock in the Clyde.

The future of Rosyth Dockyard is still under active consideration, and although I cannot say when a decision will be taken, I hope that it will be at no very distant date. The question of a new graving dock requires detailed examination of a number of different factors and is unlikely to be decided for a considerable time.

May I ask the Civil Lord whether the Chiefs of Staff have given any decision about the strategic advantages of Rosyth which was so apparent during the two great wars?

The Chiefs of Staff are, of course, taken into consultation on these matters, and everything they have said is being borne in mind.

Would the Civil Lord arrange for me to have a talk with the Chiefs of Staff, so that I can get them to make up their minds over this question, which has been hanging fire for two years now?

I am afraid I shall have to ask the Chiefs of Staff whether they would consider that.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great handicap to recruiting in Scotland and the North-East coast of England as a result of there being no home port in this part of the country?

Will the hon Gentleman bear in mind that Rosyth is the only docks on the North-East coast and that it provides deep water anchorage for the whole of the Home Fleet in a comparatively safe area?

When will the Admiralty make up their minds that we are to have this graving dock on the Clyde, where we have built the finest ships which have sailed the Seven Seas, including the "Queen Mary," the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Vanguard." Is the Civil Lord aware that these ships are going down to Southampton in order to be equipped, when they could come back to the Clyde to be finished? We have been pushed off for years; surely, it is time for them to decide? I would like to know when they are coming to a decision?

I think the answer to that supplementary question is given in the second paragraph of my original reply. My hon. Friend will find that we are examining the matter, but it must take some time before a decision can be reached.

The Admiralty have been examining it ever since the present Government came in. We do not want an examination, we want a dock.

During discussions with the Chiefs of Staff, would the Minister bear in mind the apparent influence of the Minister of Defence in this direction?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the period of time over which this matter has dragged on, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment.

Allowances, Greece

26.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the hardship being caused to naval officers and ratings, now serving in Greece, due to the inadequacy of their allowances on account of the present rate of exchange between drachma and sterling; and what action he is taking to remedy this hardship.

Officers and men of the Royal Navy now serving in Greece are in the same position as members of the Army in this matter, and I would therefore refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The allowances for members of the Naval forces will be reviewed at the same time as those of the other Services.

But is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this matter has been dragging on now for 18 months? Why cannot this be put right and a decision be given now? Is he further aware that this hardship is greatly increased by the quite inadequate stocks kept by N.A.A.F.I., and can he not do something in that direction to try to meet this hardship?

As regards the second part of the supplementary question, that seems to be another matter. As regards the first part, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said yesterday that the allowance was reviewed recently. It has been reviewed from time to time and will be reviewed again.

But in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for War told us yesterday that this matter is being examined jointly by the Navy, Army and Air Force, will the Senior Service perform its proper function of taking the lead in this matter and see that review and discussion are translated into action and remedy?

They act in co-operation with the other Services. It is not a question of taking the lead; they all act together.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that the best way out of this dilemma is to bring all our officers and men back from Greece?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether action will be taken in regard to the review which is being undertaken by the Services in this matter, and will it not be a matter of ordinary procedure that the Services should take action in accordance with what is the currency in these nations and adjust the pay of the Services accordingly?

We are certainly anxious to take action as soon as the review can be completed, but I cannot promise when it will be. I hope it will be soon, because we are just as anxious as hon. Members are to see that these men are not put to any hardship at all.

Is it not a fact that the Treasury has already agreed to this increase for the staffs of the Embassy and the Economic Mission, and why should there be any delay with regard to the Services?

I have no doubt that it will be taken into account when we are discussing the matter with the Treasury.

Aircrews (Operational Stars)

27.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Royal Navy intend extending to naval aircrews the same rules with regard to the granting of operational stars to ferry and transport pilots as now apply in the R.A.F.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform their Lordships that this decision will give some pleasure, and will he-tell them that it is satisfactory to the friends of the Senior Service to see them so successfully trying their wings?

Hms "Terrible," Devonport (Electric Cable)

28.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what use has been made of the electric cable which had been reeved, clipped, and connected to H.M.S. "Terrible" at Devonport and which, under a recent order, consequent upon alterations of specifications, was removed.

The cable removed from H.M.S. "Terrible" will be used as far as possible in other ships and shore establishments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cable could have been salvaged, but that was not done, and will he please explain to the House why this wanton wastage is allowed in the dockyards, and what he proposes to do in order to stop it?

I cannot see where the question of wanton wastage comes into it. We say that we shall use the cable as far as possible in other ships and establishments, and what cannot be used will be handed over to salvage.

Is the Civil Lord aware that the cable was cut into short lengths which it is not possible to use again and that rewinding could have taken place, salvaging a great part of it, if care had been taken in giving orders to that effect?

If my hon. Friend likes to give me details of the allegations made, I will go into them carefully for her, but my advice up to now is that there has been no misuse of this cable at all.

Oil Waste Discharges, Cawsand Bay

30.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that Maker Parish Council has complained that landing craft have been discharging waste fuel-oil in Cawsand Bay; that the foreshore has been covered in oil and people have had their clothes ruined; and if he will take the necessary action to prevent a recurrence of this nuisance.

I am informed that the Maker Parish Council wrote to the King's Harbour Master, Plymouth, on 9th June complaining of oil fuel pollution in Caw-sand Bay, and that an acknowledgment of this letter was sent by the King's Harbour Master on 10th June asking for details of the time and date of the alleged pollution in order that the matter might be fully investigated. The Council's reply is still awaited. I can assure the hon. Member that the Naval authorities at Plymouth make every effort to prevent contamination by His Majesty's ships. King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, in fact, state that:

"to pump overboard in harbour or basin, or within 50 miles of any coast, any oil fuel, oily refuse, or bilge water, etc., which may contain oil fuel residue is strictly forbidden."

Is it possible for the Admiralty to find out what type of vessels were in the vicinity of Cawsand Bay at the time mentioned?

I can state that, among other vessels, there were six landing craft which have been sold to the Greek Navy and are on their way to Greece. They were there, and it is possible that pollution may have been caused by them, but I cannot say, because we got the information so late that it was impossible to take any action.

If information does reach the Admiralty that this occurrence had nothing to do with the Royal Navy, will the hon. Gentleman give publicity to the fact?

Coal Consumption (Tugs)

31.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much coal is consumed each week in stoking up tugs, other than duty tugs, which are subsequently not brought into use.

Coal-fired tugs are used only in naval dockyards. All those in use are duty tugs and are normally employed at some period during the day. In any isolated case where a tug is for some reason not used, the coal consumption under banked fires is under five cwt. per week.

Is my hon. Friend aware that tugs other than duty tugs are stoked up every Saturday morning and not subsequently used, and will he take steps to see that this wastage of fuel is stopped immediately?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend and myself are getting different information. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to let me have the source and type of information which she receives, I shall be only too glad to go into the matter.

Blackburn Aircraft

32.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, what aircraft produced by the Blackburn Aircraft Company have been accepted for service by his Department since 1939; which of these types were rejected for any reason; and after what period of service.

Since 1939, the following types of aircraft produced by the Blackburn Aircraft Company for the Navy have been accepted for service:

  • (a) The Firebrand torpedo-strike air craft.
  • (b) The Swordfish torpedo-spotter-reconnaissance aircraft.
  • (c) The Barracuda torpedo-bomber aircraft.
  • The Swordfish and Barracuda were designed by the Fairey Aviation Company. None of these aircraft was rejected after service; the Firebrand and Barracuda are in use but the Swordfish has been withdrawn on account of obsolescence.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that not one of these aircraft used by the Fleet Air Arm has been a success, and that the performance of the Swordfish was completely ruined when the manufacture was taken over by this company, and that at least one of the aircraft taken over by this firm was little more than a flying death trap?

    No, I cannot accept all those statements, and I ask the hon. Member to await the reply to his next Question which, I think, will answer some of them. From my personal experience, the Barracuda is not as bad as all that. I have landed on an aircraft carrier in one myself.

    33 and 34.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (I) whether the Board of Admiralty is entirely satisfied with the quality, performance and suitability for naval air service of the Blackburn Firebrand;

    (2) for what purpose it is intended to use the Blackburn Firebrand; and for what purpose this aircraft was originally designed.

    The Firebrand is primarily for torpedo attack. This aircraft was originally designed as a single-seater fighter to be fitted with the Sabre engine. The use of this engine by the Navy had, however, to be given up owing to the greater need of the Royal Air Force. The substitution of another type of engine would have involved a major re-design of the aircraft if it were to fulfil its original function, and before this could have been completed, the aircraft would have been out-dated as a fighter. It was, therefore, decided to develop it for torpedo work. The Firebrand, with the modifications incorporated, has now been cleared for Service use, and the type has satisfactorily completed deck-landing and other tests. A new squadron of Firebrands has just been formed and these aircraft are likely to be retained for front line service until a more modern type is available.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this aircraft has reached Mark IV before even going into service with one squadron and that even today far the greater part of its time is spent on the ground on account of unservice-ability? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Firebrand is now out of date?

    Every aircraft becomes out of date extremely quickly, but this aircraft is in use, and will be in use until a better type is evolved.

    Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the contact between the designers of the Fleet Air Arm and constructors is sufficiently close, and that it takes place at a sufficiently early stage in development?

    Yes, I am so satisfied and I wish to make it perfectly clear that had the original plans gone through, this plane would have been in service long ago. But at that moment the needs of the Royal Air Force were considered paramount and the needs of this particular plane for the Navy were sacrificed for that purpose at the time.

    Petty-Officers (Pay Code)

    35.

    aske the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that sufficient incentive is offered to petty-officers and chief petty-officers by the new pay code to make a career in the Royal Navy; and what proportion of these ratings, eligible to sign on to complete for pension, are taking advantage of the opportunity to do so.

    The new pay code has not been in operation long enough to enable us to give considered opinion whether or not there is now a sufficient incentive to encourage men to take up a career in the Royal Navy. With regard to the second part of the Question, I regret that I am at present unable to add to the information given in the reply of 30th April to the hon. and gallant Member. I will, however, inform him further as the necessary figures become available.

    Can the Civil Lord say to what extent the petty-officer and chief petty-officer, particularly men with families, are better off under the new pay code than they were before?

    This matter was very fully discussed in the Navy Estimates last year. We feel that under the new pay code they had a far better career in the Navy than has ever been the case before.

    But is my hon. Friend aware that the new pay code varies to the disadvantage of a young petty-officer compared with comparable grades in the other two Services?

    I am afraid I cannot accept that. The new pay code has been devised to achieve equality between the three Services. It may be true that a young petty-officer is not getting as much as an old petty-officer, but eventually he will do so.

    Is my hon Friend aware that many chief petty-officers today are worse off than 25 years ago?

    They may be worse off than 25 years ago, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that they are far better off than 10 years ago.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the Navy there is considerable doubt as to whether the new pay code is going to improve the welfare of the men in the Navy? Unless he can give the House a satisfactory answer, will he appoint a Committee to consider whether another new pay code should be introduced?

    ; I am afraid I cannot agree that there is considerable doubt about the effects of the new pay code. Apart from the pay codes, we are endeavouring to make conditions of service as easy as possible, and better than they have ever been for the chief petty-officers and petty-officers, and that has to be taken into consideration.

    Upper-Deck Ratings (Training System)

    36.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he proposes to make any changes in the present system of training upper-deck ratings in gunnery and other technical subjects; and whether he is satisfied that the present system, particularly that part of it which has to be carried out at sea, is producing as good results as the old system involving non-substantive rates.

    There has not been sufficient time, and circumstances have been too abnormal, for adequate experience to have been gained on the present system of training of upper-deck ratings in technical subjects. I can, however, say that no change in the system is at present contemplated.

    Does not the Civil Lord realise that just as my previous Question was about welfare, so this deals with efficiency, neither of which is improved by the present pay code. Will he not, therefore, consider setting up a technical committee to examine the whole matter?

    I must say that the information which has been provided by the people who have charge of the Navy—the Naval Staff—indicates that that allegation bas no foundation whatever.

    Surrendered German Submarines

    37.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many German submarines were surrendered to the United States and Soviet Governments under the terms of the Potsdam Agreement; how many of these have now been destroyed in each case; and when this information was received.

    As was stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) on 30th April last, ten German submarines were allocated to each of the United Kingdom, United States, and Soviet Governments at Potsdam. The remainder were to be destroyed by 15th February, 1946, and of these, four were, reported by the United States Navy in March, 1946, as having been sunk by them by the appointed date. Eleven others were held by the Soviet Navy, and the Soviet Government gave a further undertaking last March that they would fulfil their obligations in this matter by August this year.

    Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that these, I think, 21 submarines are all the German submarines which are held by the Soviet Government at the present time in contravention of the Potsdam Agreement?

    Actually the number which they are responsible for destroying is 11. They have promised us that they will do that by August of this year.

    Was any reason given or known to the Admiralty why these submarines should not have been destroyed by the agreed date?

    No actual reason has been given, but we are justified in accepting the assurance they have given.

    Foreign Service (Reliefs)

    38.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that personnel of H.M.S. "Wild Goose," now at a foreign station, "are more than three months overdue for relief; that the relief is still at Colombo and cannot leave there until the end of July; and whether he will arrange that men who have served long periods on foreign stations are relieved on time and that reliefs are sent from this country in sufficient time to effect relief at the proper date.

    I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to relieve men serving overseas on time. In view of his statements I am, however, making inquiries in the case of H.M.S. "Wild Goose," and will inform him further.

    Special Entry Cadets (Grants)

    39.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give any indication as to the working of the scheme of financial assistance for special entry cadets introduced last year.

    Yes, Sir. Since the scheme was introduced last September grants varying from £10 to £150 have been made to the parents of 58 cadets entered through the Special Entry Group of examinations. The parents of these boys form an interesting cross section of the community ranging from gas stoker, colliery overman and bench engineer to cost accountant, mercantile marine officer and schoolmaster. There is no doubt that it would have been impossible for a great many of these boys to enter the Royal Navy as officers without this financial assistance. I think the House will agree that the scheme has achieved its object of broadening the field of entry and made it possible for any boy who reaches the required standard to become a Special Entry Cadet regardless of the financial circumstances of his parents.

    Prize Money

    40.

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is in a position to state the amount of prize money available; and when it will be paid.

    As after the 1914–18 War, a considerable time must elapse before the amount of prize money can be determined because in condemning ships and cargoes seized in prize, the Prize Courts throughout the Empire have not distinguished between droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty. We are trying, in close consultation with the Dominions, India and Burma, to estimate as accurately as possible the amounts which should become available, as droits of the Crown, to be granted for the benefit of the Naval and Air Forces of the Empire. Until returns are received in a common form from all Empire Prize Courts, it will not be possible to frame a sufficiently accurate estimate of the amount or to forecast when grants can be made. I must, however, repeat my former warning that the amount will certainly be very much smaller than after the 1914–18 War. Legislation will also be necessary, and this cannot be introduced before next Session.

    Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Board of Admiralty have yet decided what will be the service qualification for entitlement to this prize' money when it is available?