Skip to main content

Royal Navy

Volume 486: debated on Wednesday 18 April 1951

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

Aircraft

33.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what time has elapsed between the issue of first staff requirements and the equip ping of the first Fleet Air Arm Squadron with the last three new types of aircraft accepted by his Department.

Five, 4½ and 5 years approximately.

Is the hon. Gentleman's mind not disturbed by the length of time it is taking these aircraft to get into service from the drawing board?

To the layman it seems long, but I am told that our aircraft are not out of line with any others in this matter of production.

34.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is anticipated that the GR 17/44 aircraft for which the staff requirement was issued in December 1945 will come into service.

I regret it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information, but the House can rest assured that all practicable steps will be taken to ensure that the G.R. 17 will come into service at the earliest possible date.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that an aircraft which was conceived in 1944 and came into service this year was out of line with the answer which he has given to the previous Question? Will he not seriously consider holding an inquiry, with the Ministry of Supply, into the whole question of aircraft production?

I am quite ready to look into those matters, but I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the weight of aircraft production is on the R.A.F.

Dockyard, Bermuda

35.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval dockyard in Bermuda is now finally closed.

Is the Minister aware that this small dockyard community has done very good work for over 100 years, and that the closing of the dockyard has severed an important link in the Colony with the Royal Navy? Would he consider sending a special message to the Government of Bermuda?

I am quite prepared to reiterate the expressed opinion of the Board of Admiralty as to the great services which have been rendered by the Bermuda Government and people living in Bermuda. I will look at the other point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Does the Minister's answer mean that the considerable number of Barbadians employed in this dockyard have been discharged, and if so can he give an assurance that they have been found employment?

If we have no work we have to discharge them, and if there is no employment for them out there I can give no assurance that they will be employed.

Defence Programme (Priority)

36.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which type of vessels rank as first priority in the defence programme.

The emphasis, at present, is on ships and aircraft for antisubmarine and mine warfare.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of steel arising from the shortage of transport wagons which, if not tackled very soon, will result in an automatic priority system which may not be as comfortable as the one which the hon. Gentleman wants?

Yes, Sir, but I should have thought that that question would have been better addressed to the Minister of Supply.

Retained Men

37.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to assist those ratings who are being retained beyond their Regular long service engagements by reducing the additional time for which they are being retained, and by assisting them to obtain civilian or Government employment.

38.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men due for release after long service in the Royal Navy have now been retained for a further 18 months; to what extent he anticipates that it will be necessary for all these men to serve the full extra time; whether he has now investigated the possibility of safeguarding the position of such of these men as had already secured offers of employment in civilian life; and what provisions exist for appeals against retention on grounds of hardship.

Approximately 6,000 men have now been retained. I am unable to say that any reduction in the period of retention will be possible. Appeals for release are considered on their merits, but release can only be permitted in cases where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the measures to assist the resettlement of retained men.

As this comparatively small section of the community is particularly hard hit, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the measures he is taking to ensure their employment when they return to civilian life will be effective?

I do not think that we can guarantee that for everybody. I should have thought that the chief advantage lies in the fact that we are likely to be in a period of full employment.

Can my hon. Friend say whether it would be possible to reduce the extra time by calling up more Royal Fleet reservists, who have, after all, always been aware of their obligation, whereas these men do feel that, although what the Government are doing is quite legal, it is a breach of contract?

It would be possible to shorten the period of service by doing that, but I am not at all sure that we should do justice to the Royal Fleet reservists if we did so.

Following is the information:

The facilities for finding employment for ex-Regulars are constantly being extended, and will be available to these men. For example, in Civil Service examinations, and certain London County Council examinations, ex-Regulars are allowed to deduct the actual period of Regular service in order to bring them within the age limits. Men who had already competed successfully in the special Civil Service examinations for the executive and clerical classes will have appointments held for them. In the police my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has informed the appointing authorities that, in suitable cases, he is prepared to approve the appointment of Regular Service men who would have been within the age limit but for their retention.

39.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give an undertaking that those men retained in the Royal Navy for 18 months after the expiry of their normal period of service will not have their period of service further extended.

I can give a firm assurance that no increase in the period of retention beyond 18 months is contemplated.

In view of that welcome assurance, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Admiralty is taking action to raise the regular size of the Navy sufficiently in order to make sure that he will be able to fulfil the assurance?

My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that we shall increase the size of Vote A this year.

Greenwich Hospital (Water Supply Scheme)

40.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to report on the progress of the negotiations between Greenwich Hospital and the Alston-with-Garrigill Rural District Council with regard to a lease of land owned by the former and required by the latter in connection with a water supply scheme.

Negotiations are now at an advanced stage and I hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been going on for a very long time and that the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Greenwich Hospital has already caused grave hardship to the people of Alston-with-Garrigill? Can he promise us today that the negotiation will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion within, say, four weeks?

I know that the negotiations have been going on for a long time, but I do not blame Greenwich Hospital altogether for that. I have been into the facts of the case. A more prompt reply to letters would speed up negotiations a little.

Destroyer (Sale To Egypt)

41.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why H.M.S. "Cottesmore" has been sold to the Egyptian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to sell to foreign Powers other destroyers of this class.

This ship was sold in June, 1950, as surplus to our requirements. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 4th April.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply to Question No. 36 about priority being given to antisubmarine vessels in the defence programme, how can he say that this vessel was surplus to requirements? If the Government wish to sell anti-submarine vessels, would it not be wiser to sell them to nations subscribing to the Atlantic Pact?

As to the first part of the supplementary question, I believe we have none of this class of ships now serving with the Navy. At any rate, we have only one or two. As to the second part of the supplementary, it is our policy to sell these ships, or to loan them or give them, to countries in danger as a first priority.

Will the hon. Gentleman state in what respects the negotiations over H.M.S. "Cottesmore" differ from those over the Centurion tanks, which, we were assured in the House, were not to be sent to Egypt?

This ship was offered to the Egyptians as long ago as the autumn of 1949. She is not now H.M.S. "Cottesmore," and has not been for a very long time. She is an Egyptian ship, manned by an Egyptian crew.

Were not old battleships and new battleships sold to friendly Powers and potential enemy Powers when the Tory Party was in power?

Would it not have been rather useful if H.M.S. "Cottesmore" had been retained in the Navy to escort British tankers through the Suez Canal?

Naval Constructors (Pay)

42.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement on the pay and conditions of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

The scale of pay of the constructor grade of the Royal Corps has, as already announced by my noble Friend in another place on 11th April, been increased from £900–£950 at the minimum, and from £1,250–£1,375 at the maximum, with effect from 1st August, 1950.

Is the Civil Lord aware that the changes which the First Lord announced are in the higher grades? Can he say when he will announce the changes for those under training?

I cannot give any definite date with regard to the probationers, but we are doing all we possibly can to reach an early settlement.

Motor Torpedo Boats

43.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new motor torpedo boats have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those responsible for constructing these vessels state that between 1945 and now nothing like that number-have been made, and that they have had to pay off men and close their yards through lack of orders? Is he aware that his answer is misleading to the House?

If it is not misleading, may I ask him whether, in referring to 24 vessels, he is referring to vessels started during the war but not completed then and re-started recently?

I am answering the Question, which asked how many M.T.B.s. have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

Retained Officers

44.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress he has made towards the granting to extended service officers now compulsorily retained in the Service an option to take up permanent engagements.

This matter is under review. I realise that the officers concerned would like to have a decision quickly, but it will be some time yet before an announcement can be made.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as these officers were so welcome to the Admiralty not only during but since the war, they are now likely to be equally welcome to the Admiralty in the longer term, and, therefore, should be entitled to expect consideration?