§ 2.50 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement can be issued indicating what ships of the Royal Navy of all classes it is intended to dispose of (a) by scrapping and (b) by sale to other countries; and, if so, whether such statement can be retrospective to the beginning of 1958.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, as already announced and debated earlier this year, the Admiralty will scrap no ships which have a useful life left in them or which we should expect to bring forward for service in war. We have already announced nearly all the ships to be disposed of in pursuance of that policy.
However, to bring this fully up to date, the figures in the different categories of the more important warships stand as follows: 6 aircraft carriers; 9 cruisers; 14 destroyers; 44 frigates; 24 ocean minesweepers; and 13 submarines. These ships are all of war-time or prewar construction, and I cannot conceive any circumstances in which they would be of use to the Royal Navy. I cannot, of course, anticipate which of these ships may yet be purchased by other countries.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, as an instance of whether these ships can be of use or not, I would suggest that it is surely better to take a non-operational aircraft carrier as a troop carrier than it is to take an operational one which would, so to speak, be out of commission for operational purposes for an almost indefinite period. Would it not be better to think again before you scrap all the out-of-date aircraft carriers?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, in the first place I would not regard troop carrying as a necessary function of the Royal Navy. We have done it from time to time, but I should hesitate to say that we should regard it as one of our normal tasks.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I should have thought it was the constant operation of the Royal Navy in my long years of experience at the Admiralty. Might I ask the noble Earl whether there has been some change of policy? We were all interested in the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall on Monday night, in which he stated quite specifically that it was necessary to keep the armaments up and in no case—I am trying to interpret him—to have unilateral disarmament. Many of us feel that we have had unilateral disarmament for the last two years. Has the policy been changed?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I am glad the noble Viscount has asked that question, because this is not a question of disarmament; it is a question of disposing of equipment we do not want. What I am emphasising, and have tried to emphasise, is the importance of new equipment. I do not think the noble Viscount would greatly disagree with me when I say that such resources as we have should be used to give the Navy new ships and equipment—that is what I am trying to do—and that we should avoid spending money on older ships which have practically no value at all.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, to follow the general relation of that to the policy of armament in general will be of great interest. But is it not a fact that, whatever the future may be in the next five, ten or fifteen years, many of these ships, although not right up to modern standards, would be exceedingly useful? We 393 have proved that over and over again in more wars than one, and in ways that we never expected at the time the operations broke out. That is the fact, and I trust that the Admiralty are not simply scrapping everything in the hope that they are going to get a big expansion on something new. They should not scrap anything until they are quite certain it is never going to be used.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we have this point very much in mind in the decision to which we have come. I do not think he wants to develop this matter into a broad argument, and I think it would be inappropriate on this Question.