My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in his assumption. The purpose of the new title is to indicate more precisely the nature of the duties these ratings nowadays carry out. The Branch concerned considers the new names an improvement, and it can be compared with the change of the name from stoker to engineering mechanic. It brings them more into line with the terms used in civilian employment. The title of this rating is admittedly rather cumbersome when spoken in full, but it will normally be abbreviated in the letters "L.T.O."

My Lords, does that mean that in future a naval officer will never make a signal but will operate a tactical communication? Is the First Lord aware that for centuries our sailors have been masters of terse and vigorous English? Will the Admiralty honour this tradition instead of wallowing in gutless verbosity?

My Lords, I think the noble Lord may rest assured that the Royal Navy will continue to make signals of all characters. I think the noble Lord may also be assured that the Royal Navy will continue to express itself in terse English, whether in terms of endearment or otherwise.

My Lords, will an admiral now be called a leading personnel operator?

I think the noble Earl will prove incorrect.

Have the sailors expressed themselves in terse English on this change?

My Lords, is this not a case of change for the sake of change—a policy from which, I am told by some of my noble friends, the Navy is suffering lately?

That is not so. I can give the noble Earl one other reason which I think is important. We have, of coarse, to consider the later civilian employment of sailors, and these words do make the position clearer. It is sometimes thought that a signalman is simply somebody who waves flags. The point is, that these words indicate that he is a highly specialised man of a much wider training and specialisation than that. I think that that is a point which must be borne in mind, even though, as I frankly admit, these particular words are indeed cumbersome.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this definition of a signalman will be circulated to the Labour Exchanges; and, if so, will they understand it?

The Labour Exchanges will no doubt learn about it. What is important is that when people are being engaged for civil employment there is some idea of the very technical and complicated work which these men have learned during their period in the Service. This title gives a fuller picture than the term formerly used.

Why on earth should the word "signalman" mean a man who waves flags?

That I cannot answer but I believe it is generally understood to be the case—certainly it was the original function for which he was employed.

My Lords, when communications are made which are not tactical, who will be employed to make them?

Those communications which are not tactical will be made by a radio communication operator.

My Lords, if this change has not yet come into force, will the Admiralty reconsider it in order to meet the wishes of both Houses of Parliament? Finally, is my noble friend aware that this is not only not good English; it is not even tolerable Scots?

My Lords, I will certainly bear the noble Lord's point in mind, and in future, I will endeavour, in matters of this character, to take advantage of Lord Conesford's special knowledge of English.

My Lords, if the First Lord is going to reconsider the matter, would he give an opportunity for another Question to be put to him before the matter is finally decided?

It is open to the noble Lord to put to me any question he likes.

Would the First Lord undertake that the decision shall not be reached and then the House told afterwards, but that the House shall have an opportunity of asking if the Minister is ready to come to a decision?

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that. This decision has been reached and it has in fact been promulgated; that is the reason why the information is published. But I will certainly consider what has been said to-day.