§ "1. That 92,338 Officers, Seamen Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 884 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935.
§ 2. That a sum, not exceeding £12,633,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935.
§ 3. That a sum, not exceeding £2,277,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935.
§ 4. That a sum, not exceeding £3,165,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935."
§ 4.4 p.m.
§ Mr. GEORGE HALLI beg to move, to leave out "92,338," and to insert "90,338."
I might say at the outset that this Amendment was not put down only for the purpose of having a discussion. My colleagues on this side of the House are quite serious in attempting to demand this reduction, because we say that the increase asked for in this Vote cannot be justified, taking into consideration all the circumstances connected with the Fleet. In dealing with this matter, it will be as well to trace the personnel of the Fleet for the last five or six years. Compared with 1927, when the numbers amounted to just over 101,000, there was a reduction in 1932 to just under 90,000. As a matter of fact, it was realised before 890 the last Conservative Government went out of office that the Navy was over-manned, for in the three years 1928, 1929 and 1930, there was a reduction in the personnel of no fewer than nearly 7,000 officers and men. That, in itself, is an indication that at that time it was felt that the Navy was over-staffed. In 1931, Mr. Alexander, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, in the Statement which he issued with the Navy Estimates, referred to the fact that it was possible to have further reductions owing to the operation of the London Naval Treaty. Let me quote Mr. Alexander's words in the Statement on page 4:
Further, the provisions of the London Naval Treaty relating to the earlier scrapping of capital ships have been the main factor in effecting a saving on cost of personnel amounting in these Estimates to some £400,000. The Vote A figure for 1931–93,650—represents the number expected to be borne on the first day of the new financial year, and that number is expected to fall (almost entirely by natural wastage) to 91,840 by 31st March, 1932.When this reduction took place, it was brought about with the full knowledge and the concurrence of the Board of Admiralty. There was no question that it was felt that not only the services afloat, but the services ashore, were swollen, and this reduction was brought about. At that time it was considered that they had reached numbers which were sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Navy. When one compares the position to-day with, if you like, the pre-London Naval Treaty period, one cannot understand why in the last two years it has been necessary to increase the personnel by something like 2,600. If one compares the tonnage, one can best quote the statement of the First Lord when he introduced the Estimates for 1932 and said that in the year 1931–32 we had to dispose of 74,000 tons of warships and completed barely 26,000 tons. The operation of the London Naval Treaty meant, in the words of the present First Lord, a reduction of 60,000 tons. The reduction did not operate only in that year. The tonnage is similar to-day to what it was in 1931–32 when the First Lord made his statement, and with the reduction of 50,000 tons we have at the present time a personnel similar in numbers to what it was before the scrapping of these ships took place. Comparing the tonnage position to-day with any previous tonnage, I think it may be argued that there is no justification for this in- 891 crease. One might compare the tonnage with that of 1913. In that year we had a tonnage of 2,160,000; at the present time the tonnage is just over 1,100,000. I think that in 1913 the personnel of the Fleet was about 140,000; at the present time it is working up to 93,000.In dealing with the Fleet of 1913, it is interesting to compare, not only the actual tonnage, but the class of ship with that which we have in the Navy at the present time. In reply to a question which I put to the First Lord on 14th February of this year, he stated that in 1914 we had 69 capital ships and at the present time we have 15. In 1914, we had 108 cruisers, and at the present time we have 51. In 1914, we had 216 destroyers and 106 torpedo boats, making a total of 322 destroyers and torpedo boats, as they were then classified. At the present time we have 152. In 1914, we had 74 submarines as against 52 at the present time. Compare the Fleet and personnel at the present time with the pre-War Fleet and personnel, there can be no justification for this increase, taking into consideration the tonnage which we had at that time. I know that in previous Debates on the personnel of the Fleet the personnel of the Japanese and the American Fleets have been referred to. Hon. Members who ask us to take into consideration the increases in the personnel of those fleets I would answer in the words of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Speaking on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" when this question of personnel was raised last year, he said:
I would ask hon. Members not to pay too much attention to actual numbers. Every country has a different method of manning its ships; different countries' ships of the same tonnage and armament might have an entirely different complement, and it must not be assumed from that fact that the ship with the smaller complement is less efficient. Efficiency is determined by the quality, not by the quantity, of the men in the ship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1933; col. 2252, Vol. 275.]I agree with those remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Even taking into consideration the position at that time, there is no justification for the increase in the number of personnel asked for under Vote A. I know it can be argued that there have been considerable changes in 892 post-War ships compared with pre-War ships which may make them more difficult to manipulate and control at the present time. One can grant that, but, allowing for it and taking into consideration the reduction in tonnage, the increase in personnel would more than cover any changes which have taken place in the mechanism of the ships. I have repeated on more than one occasion in this House the effect on the Navy in the change over from coal to oil. In 1913 there were between 39,000 and 40,000 stoker ratings when coal was the fuel used. At the present time, the number of stoker ratings is down to something like 17,000 to 18,000, so that the Admiralty has been able to benefit considerably by the change from coal to oil in the number of ratings for the Fleet.It is interesting to note the changes which have taken place in the personnel in the last three or four years. The number of commissioned officers asked for in Vote A shows a reduction of 364 compared with 1931. That is in three years. There has also been a reduction in the number of subordinate officers of 189 or a total reduction of 550 commissioned and subordinate officers. But while there has been this reduction there has been an increase of 161 in the number of warrant officers in the same period. Some of the higher ratings have gone and lower ratings have come in and that is why there is such a small variation in Vote 1 as regard wages. There is a very large increase of 2,304 in the number of boys in service and in training, and, on balance, allowing for the reduction in the number of commisisoned and subordinate officers and seamen, and the increase in the number of warrant officers and boys, Vote A now asked for by the Government shows a number which is only 111 fewer than the number asked for in 1931.
I come back to the point at which I started, to say that, taking all the factors into consideration, we cannot see any justification for the increase. As regards the reduction in the number of officers, while there is a saving in Votes A and I there is an increase in Votes 13 and 14 which are non-effective Votes. The Admiralty must be somewhat alarmed at the increase in these Votes from year to year. At the present time, the non-effec- 893 tive Votes call for something well over £9,000,000 and that is a point which must be taken into consideration. The First Lord, in dealing with the increase in personnel, expressed his satisfaction that as a result of the increase the men would have greater comfort than they had previously. We on these benches would not do anything to interfere with the comfort of the personnel of the Navy. As long as we have a Navy, we certainly say that the officers and men should live under conditions which are as comfortable as possible consistent with service at sea.
We are a little concerned about some other matters in this Vote. The First Lord said that ample numbers of recruits were presenting themselves and that for every candidate accepted for service fourteen were rejected. That is an indication that there is no falling-off in desire to offer themselves for service in the Navy, on the part of boys of fourteen or fifteen or whatever may be the age of entry. But while we are told that there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable recruits, we find under Vote A an increase in the number of officers required far recruiting purposes. On page 22 we find that the number of recruiting officers in the 1933 Estimates was 70. The Government are now asking for an increase of five on that number and I suggest that there is no justification for that increase.
§ Mr. SPEAKERMay I point out to the hon. Gentleman that what he is speaking of now comes under Vote I and deals with recruiting expenses.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member referred to page 22 and the matters on that page certainly come under Vote I.
§ Mr. HALLAs far as the actual numbers are concerned, unfortunately in Vote A we have no comparison as between the Estimates of this year and those of last year. The same thing applies to the numbers of officers and men and also to the number of Royal Marines. While the actual money comes under Vote I the numbers for which the money is required come under Vote A.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is so, but I think the hon. Gentleman was speaking of expenses.
§ Mr. HALLI wish to confine myself to the numbers but it is not easy to make any comparison between the number now-asked for under Vote A and the number asked for last year unless one also refers to Vote I. There is a comparison between the numbers provided for this year and last year in the Vote covering wages and expenses. I wish also to mention the question of the Royal Marines. In Vote A it will be seen that while there has been a reduction in the number of commissioned officers in the Navy, there has been an increase of 14 in the number of commissioned officers in the Royal Marines in 1934 as compared with 1933. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an explanation if possible of why this increase has been found necessary. One would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the Admiralty are sufficiently conversant with the work which a number of seamen and marines do on shore and whether it is work which is, strictly speaking, naval work. Is it the case that numbers of seamen and marines are employed in semi-private capacities in the homes of naval officers? There is, unfortunately, a feeling in some of the naval ports that a number of the personnel, and especially ratings, are employed on duties which are not strictly naval duties and it behoves the Admiralty to inquire from time to time and ascertain for themselves whether such complaints are justified.
I find that on the "Enchantress," which is the Admiralty yacht, 40 ratings are employed. The First Lord answered a question on this subject some time ago and my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secertary very readily responded to an inquiry which I made recently and gave me the figures. This yacht has not been used for service at sea for something like 10 or 12 years, though used on one occasion, in 1929, to accommodate some members of the board. Year by year since the War a sum of £3,500 has been required to keep this yacht in the condition in which it is at present. A large proportion of this money goes to retain the personnel of 40 on the yacht. The Geddes "axe" committee in 1922 recommended that the yacht should be sold. She was put up for sale and at that time failed to attract a buyer. The First Lord in reply to a question in June of this year said the ship had not been 895 used for her proper duties since 1929 and was not being used for her proper duties owing to the extra expense which would be incurred. In answer to a Supplementary Question he said he was hoping for better times to come and that when they came he would ask for enough money to commission this ship because he thought it was necessary in connection with the duties of the board. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said he would not ask money for that purpose while times were bad. I do not know what is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman or the board, but I see no prospect of times being so much better than they are, as to enable us to afford enough money to commission the "Enchantress." I think it a waste of money to retain a personnel of 40 to keep this yacht which is unlikely to be used for some time to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) raised this matter on the Navy Estimates proper and I hope we shall hear something from the Parliamentary Secretary about it.
The last point which I wish to make is a very important one. It relates to the position of naval officers who desire to become Members of this House. Questions have been put to the First Lord recently concerning paragraph 17a of King's Regulations relating to the Navy. The essence of that regulation is to permit naval officers becoming Parliamentary candidates and enabling them, if they fail to secure election, to continue in the Service. No officer or man in the Service is permitted to issue an election address, or in any other manner publicly to announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate or a prospective candidate for any constituency. We are not complaining on this side of the result of a recent election and it is not for us in any way to attempt to interfere even if we desired to do so with that election. I feel sure as was pointed out in the previous Debate on the Estimates we extend a very hearty—
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes this matter come under Vote A?
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Gentleman wish to increase the number?
§ Mr. HALLMy proposal is to diminish the number but that does not refer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who unfortunately comes within the difficulty with which I am dealing now. I understand that the board now contemplate the alteration of the regulations to make it regular for Admirals of the Fleet to offer themselves as candidates for this House. All we ask is that, if the regulation is going to be amended, the amendment should not be confined to the higher naval officers. It really ought to be so amended that each member of the personnel should have the right of carrying out his duties as a citizen.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI really think this is quite out of order. It cannot be raised to-day, though it may some other day.
§ Mr. HALLI bow to your Ruling, Sir. I am dealing with an officer who is included in the numbers asked for, as I understand it, in Vote A, but I accept your Ruling and will not proceed any further. In face of what I have already said in dealing with personnel, when one considers that in two years there is an increase of 2,600 officers and men I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House whether the Board of Admiralty has yet made up its mind as to the numbers required under Vote A to keep the Fleet efficient. As I have pointed out, from 1927 to 1932 there was a reduction of something like 10,000 in the numbers while from 1932 to 1934 there is an increase of 2,600. Can we expect an increase in numbers next year? Or are the numbers now provided for under Vote A sufficient to meet all the requirements of personnel? Speaking on behalf of my colleagues here, we feel that there is no justification for the increase. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech on the Estimates, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the discussion, did not in any way satisfy us that the increase asked for under Vote A is justified. For these reasons, I move the reduction.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Commander MARSDENThe hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has raised some very ingenious arguments why the Fleet should be reduced by a certain number of men, but I am afraid his arguments are not reasonable from the point of view of what he would con- 897 sider desirable, because a reduction of men must first of all affect the efficiency of the Fleet. Here are two reasons why it would militate against efficiency. Only a year or two ago it was decided to reduce the complement of capital and other ships in the Atlantic Fleet. The experience of the War had shown us that a certain number of men are necessary and through the shortage of men the complements have been cut down. I can give another instance. As long as I can remember when a ship was due to leave a foreign station, the new crew would go out and relieve it on the station. If it was coming home the new ship would be on the station before its return. That is not the case now. I do not say in every case, but in many cases a ship comes home from a foreign station, arrives in England, has perhaps to be refitted, pick up a new crew and go out again, and during that period the foreign station is short of one unit. That is the second instance where the small number of men militates against the efficiency of the Service.
My hon. Friend said that he would hesitate to vote for the reduction if it would act against the comfort of the officers and men, but it is as necessary from that point of view as from any other that the number should be increased. One of the most appalling things for a man in His Majesty's Service is to come from abroad to Home Service and think he is out for a more or less peaceful time at home to see his family and get a certain amount of shore life and then, because there is a shortage of men, to have his leave restricted in every direction. The barracks are almost denuded. I think I mentioned last year an incident of a tug of war team which came up to the Royal Tournament on condition that they would be defeated in the first round because they could not be spared from the barracks. These things act against a happy and contented Service at home. I am sure my hon. Friend is voting against an increase in the number of men for political reasons, and, if the political reasons did not exist, he would vote for an increase.
I would like to refer to the Warren Fisher Committee. Hon. Members will remember that this Committee was set up some little time ago to inquire into the condition of the medical services.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat matter does not arise on this Vote.
§ Commander MARSDENI believe it does somewhere, but I cannot on the spur of the moment think how. The service is allowed a certain number of medical officers, and they are certainly borne on this Vote. We would like to hear from the Minister who replies, how soon it is intended to give effect to the Committee's recommendations, because the last thing that was said was that they should be given effect to very soon. I am very nervous about being out of order, and there are not many questions I can raise. I should have said something about officers on half pay, but you have ruled that out of order. I hope, if my hon. Friend brings it up when the opportunity arises, we may say something about it. I oppose the Amendment to reduce the number, and I feel sure the House will be of the same opinion.
§ 4.38 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKSI know the First Lord of the Admiralty says there is an increase of 2,057 this last year. The point to which I want to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary is, that whereas since the War, or before, there has been a very large decrease in the number of ratings in the lower deck, there has been an increase in the number of officers. The proportion of officers to men has largely increased since the War. For example, from 1914 to last year the lower deck ratings has decreased from 148,000 to 87,000, but the number of admirals, captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders has actually increased from 1,500 to 1,750, although there are fewer vessels afloat. Last year the First Lord of the Admiralty promised that steps were being taken to reduce the large proportion of officers to men, but I see in the February Navy List that there were 10 more captains than in February of last year and one more rear-admiral. I know inducements are being made to get lieutenant-commanders to retire at an earlier age, but I would suggest that further steps should be taken, not only to reduce the number of officers in the Fleet, but, seeing the large proportion already, to reduce the number of entries of cadets. Otherwise, we shall get the same thing in future years. That means expense to the Government in training these officers in 899 the first place and then giving them money to retire at an early age.
I think some further steps should be taken to reduce the number of flag officers. The rank of Admiral of the Fleet could be abolished altogether and those who hold it could take a useful and respected part in political work. Admi[...]ls of the Fleet very rarely fly their flags ashore or at sea. Certainly the number of rear-admirals requires consideration; some of the work they are now doing could be done by captains, and they would not require so large a staff. We are rapidly approaching a time when we shall have almost more admirals than quarter decks for them to walk upon. On the other hand, I believe that as far as the lower deck is concerned, ratings are not coming forward as they ought to do in order to re-enlist, and the Admiralty has to offer promotion. I was glad to hear from the Admiralty last week that they hope to make the new scheme of promotion from the lower deck a success. I do not know if I am in order in dealing with promotions from the lower deck. If so, I would like to say a few words.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how that would affect the numbers of men.
§ Mr. COCKSI have been looking through the Estimates and I do not see any other Vote on which it could be dealt with. Surely it must be dealt with.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt might be covered by Vote I.
§ Mr. COCKSThen I will raise the question of promotion from the lower deck on Vote I. There was one question the Financial Secretary did not deal with last week. The number of writers and supply ratings shows a large increase as compared with last year. Is there any special reason for this increase?
§ 4.43 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley)The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in moving the reduction of the Vote said it was not intended as a peg for discussion, but to be taken seriously. I am sorry to hear that, because it means that he was not convinced by the argument I gave either in the Debate last year or in my reply the other day as to the reasons 900 the Admiralty have had for increasing the personnel during the past two years. He has made comparisons between the size of the Navy at the present time and the size in 1913. He also called attention to my speech last year when I said we ought not necessarily to compare the numbers in our Fleet with the numbers in other fleets, because the construction of the ships might be different. To that point I still adhere, and I intend to tell the hon. Member that we are making no comparisons, in arriving at our new estimate of the numbers required, either with our needs of 1913 or with the personnel that is demanded by other countries. We are simply increasing the personnel to meet the actual requirements which we have found necessary. When the hon. Member was at the Admiralty he had a very easy time. He found it simple to reduce the numbers and to suffer no evil effects from the reduction because, owing to the surplus of ratings which had existed under a falling Vote A, the reduced number did not have a real trial until 1932, when it was found to be inadequate.
We had always hoped that the numbers that had been laid down for the complements of the various ships would be sufficient, and we also hoped that a sufficient margin for drafting purposes had been allowed. In both cases it was found that the numbers required in some of the ships had been under-estimated and that the complements were on the small side. The margin is the more important aspect of the question, however, and we found that with the margin allowed we could not possibly get along without interfering considerably with the welfare of the lower deck. As the House well knows, one of the things to which the lower deck pays most attention is the importance of having its fair share of home service, and we found it increasingly difficult to maintain the efficiency of the Fleet and to give all the ratings a fair share of home service. The difficulty has certainly been increased, as one hon. Member suggested, by the fact that the Navy is much more specialised and that the margin does not cover one large group but a series of very small groups, each of which has to be dealt with separately. I can assure the House that unless we get the increase for which we ask this year, the repercussions on the welfare of the lower deck will be very serious; and that is a result which, 901 I am sure, nobody, least of all the Mover of the reduction, would desire.
The hon. Member went on to discuss the reduction of officers. He is really very hard to satisfy, for he objected that while the reduction of the officers might make an economy on this Vote, it would increase the non-effective Votes, and he suggested we might be alarmed by the size of those Votes. In that point I agree with him, but for different reasons. We are alarmed because the non-effective Votes, which are growing very rapidly, are always quoted by our opponents and those who wish to misrepresent the actions of the Admiralty as part of our warlike preparations when, as a matter of fact, they are payments for past services. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) also referred to the question of the reduction of officers, and I can assure him that it is a point which is giving us more concern than any other. We are very desirous that the bottle-neck should be widened as far as possible so that officers who come into the Service should have a real chance of getting a successful career, and that they should not find themselves at an important period of their lives, not through any failure on their own part, faced with the fact that we have not enough positions in the Fleet for them to fill.
The hon. Member asked about one or two particular ranks. I think we had better take them from the top downwards. He discussed the question of the necessity for admirals of the fleet. The reduction of admirals of the fleet to the peace complement will gradually take place, and I cannot think the hon. Member really believes that the very modest number of admirals of the fleet is too many. After all, it is only right that people who have served their country for long with great success and courage should have an adequate reward. I give the hon. Member the same answer with regard to the number of officers on the flag list. If we are to make the Service attractive, we must have sufficient rewards for those officers who make a success of their careers. When the hon. Member says that shortly we shall have more admirals than there are quarterdecks, I am afraid he must be thinking of the present lamentable position of his own party, which seems to have more Members on the Front Bench than there are on the back benches.
902 The hon. Member also asked about the increase in the number of writers. That is due to a big wastage next year which has to be made good this year, and we must have the men ready trained so as to take up their positions when the others retire. I was asked why there had been an increase in the Marines. It is for exactly the same reason that applied to the increase in the seamen branches. We found that the margin was not sufficient, and therefore we have had to make a slight increase in the numbers both of officers and of men. There was a suggestion that a certain number of men were borne on the books of the Navy who were not doing the work for which they had been enlisted. In every Service there is always that fear and always the danger that proper attention is not paid to it, but I can assure the House that last year all these supernumeries were gone through with a comb when our numbers were short and we found difficulty in dealing with the drafting situation. I do not think there need be any fears on that point.
I was asked about the "Enchantress," and an hon. Member complained that we were locking up in her 40 men who were really being of no service at all. He did not go on to quote the First Lord's answer to his question in full, in which the First Lord explained that only 16 of these could be dispensed with if the ship was not retained. I think that it would be a great pity if the Admiralty yacht were to be scrapped for good and all. An Admiralty yacht has existed for over 100 years. The name "yacht" is a misnomer, because it is inclined to suggest a pleasure trip rather than a business cruise. It has enabled the Admiralty in past years to fulfil a very important part of its functions in keeping in touch with the personnel of the Fleet. There is no doubt that its loss has been very much felt, although I wonder whether at the present moment the First Lord, who is in the Bay of Biscay, is not more comfortable in a liner than he would have been in the Admiralty yacht. Successive Boards of Admiralty and First Lords have had the same opinion as to the desirability of keeping the Admiralty yacht, and it may be of interest to the House to know that the last time the "Enchantress" went to sea was in the time of Lord Chelmsford, who was the First Lord in the first Labour administration.
903 We are very anxious to keep a yacht, but we are anxious to do it in the most economical way possible and only to put her in commission if times are good and money can be found. The First Lord has always been anxious that the "Enchantress" should be commissioned once again when he has the money. The main reason for keeping this complement on board is to keep her in such a condition that she can either be easily recommissioned or kept in a condition to be sold. A new suggestion is now being investigated. It is that one of the new sloops which are being built might be adapted for the purpose. It would have the advantage that in war time she would be able to revert to the original use for
§ which she was intended. I hope that what I have said has reassured the House as to the need for the numbers of the personnel, and has particularly reassured the hon. Member who moved the reduction that the real reason that we want this increase in numbers is because last year, for the first time, we were able to find out with certainty the exact numbers which we required for the Fleet, and we found that, if we are to pay the attention that we want to the welfare and contentment of the lower deck, the numbers for which we ask in this year's Estimates are absolutely essential.
§ Question put, "That '92,338' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 29.
905| Division No. 171.] | AYES. | [4.59 p.m. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Colman. N. C. D. | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Cook, Thomas A. | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) |
| Apsley, Lord | Cooper, A, Duff | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Cranborne, Viscount | Hepworth, Joseph |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Crookshank, Col. C. da Windt (Bootle) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) |
| Ba[...]fle, Sir Adrian W. M. | Crossley, A. C. | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davison, Sir William Henry | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) |
| Balniel, Lord | Dick[...]e, John P. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Doran, Edward | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. |
| Bateman. A. L. | Duckworth, George A. V. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Duggan, Hubert John | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C) | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) |
| Belt, Sir Alfred L. | Dunglass, Lord | Ker, J. Campbell |
| Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley | Eden, Robert Anthony | Kerr, Hamilton W. |
| Bernays, Robert | Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Elmley, Viscount | Knight, Holford |
| Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Borodale, Viscount | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Leigh, Sir John |
| Bossom, A. C. | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Levy, Thomas |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Lewis. Oswald |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Fermoy, Lord | Liddall, Walter S. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Flint, Abraham John | Little, Graham, Sir Ernest |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Lloyd, Geoffrey |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Fox, Sir Gilford | Loder, Captain J. de Vere |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Fraser, Captain Ian | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Fremantle, Sir Francis | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. |
| Buchan, John | Galbraith, James Francis Wallace | Mabane, William |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Gibson, Charles Granville | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Burnett, John George | Glossop, C. W. H. | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. | McLean, Major Sir Alan |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Goldie, Noel B. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian |
| Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Grigg, Sir Edward | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Cassels, James Dale | Grimston, R. V. | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Martin, Thomas B. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Hanley, Dennis A. | Mitcheson, G. G. |
| Clarke, Frank | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hartland, George A. | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.) |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Munro, Patrick | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) | Tree, Ronald |
| Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Nunn, William | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Savery, Samuel Servington | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Patrick, Colin M. | Scone, Lord | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Pearson, William G. | Se[...]ley, Harry R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Penny, Sir George | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Perkins, Walter R. D. | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston) | Smith, R.W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Smithers, Waldron | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Somervell, Sir Donald | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. |
| Pybus, Sir Percy John | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Spans, William Patrick | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Rankin, Robert | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Rea, Walter Russell | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham | Stevenson, James | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Storey, Samuel | Womersley, Walter James |
| Remer, John R. | Stourton, Hon. John J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Rickards, George William | Strauss, Edward A. | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Ropner, Colonel L. | Strickland, Captain W. F. | |
| Rosbotham, Sir Thomas | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. | Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Blindell. |
| Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. | Summersby, Charles H. | |
| Runge, Norah Cecil | Tate, Mavis Constance | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Paling, Wilfred |
| Banfield, John William | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Hicks, Ernest George | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Buchanan, George | Lawson, John James | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Leonard, William | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Daggar, George | Logan, David Gilbert | Wilmot, John |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | McEntee, Valentine L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Edwards, Charles | McGovern, John | Mr. John and Mr. Groves. |
| Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mainwaring, William Henry |
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKSIn saying a word or two on the question of promotion from the lower deck I want to thank the Admiralty for the assurance they gave last week that they intended to make every effort to secure that the new scheme should be a success. Under the old scheme, in every half-yearly list since December, 1928, one ex-mate lieut.-commander has been promoted commander, but last December there was no such promotion. It is quite true that an ex-mate commander was promoted captain, but I do not find a promotion of one of the ex-mate lieut.-Commanders to the rank of commander. In December last year there were 421 lieut.-commanders in the zone for promotion, and of those 30 were ex-mates, and I was told, in 906 answer to a question, that out of those 30 ex-mates 17 were in sea-going ships. The Admiralty promoted 25 lieut.-commanders out of 421 to be commanders, an average of one in 16.8, but there were 17 ex-mates in the zone of those qualified for promotion, and. I think it was only right that one of those 17 should have received promotion. In two years' time all the ex-mate lieut.-commanders will be out of the zone for promotion altogether, and if we promoted one in each of the next three half-yearly lists it would mean that only 14 would have been promoted to the rank of commander out of 371—that is, one in 27, as against one in 11 of ex-cadets. Therefore, I feel that the ex-mates have not been treated fairly in the matter of promotion.
Another point I wish to raise is that in 1926 an Admiralty Fleet Order was issued stating that ex-mate lieutenants would be able to take specialist courses under the same conditions as ex-cadets. Since that time one has been given a gunnery course, one a torpedo course, another a navigation course, two a physical education course, and two have 907 taken the pilot-observer course. In six years 485 ex-cadets have specialised in seven courses, but among that number were only seven ex-mates, which is a very small proportion. The Larkin Committee recommended that men from the lower deck should be given destroyer training, and the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Labour Government promised that this should be done. As far as I understand however, destroyer training has not been given. One further point I have to make concerns the mechanical training establishment at Chatham. It is difficult to find out from the Estimates the cost of this establishment, because the items are dotted about in different parts. I see that 151 civilians cost £21,700 and teachers for apprentices £414, but cannot the whole cost of the establishment be assembled together, so that we can see at once what the outlay is, as we can in the case of Keyham College? Finally, I would thank the Admiralty for promising serious consideration to the point put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) and myself when we asked them to give the Fleet Engineering Branch of the Navy a position on the Board of Admiralty or in charge of some of the dockyards, in order that their great services to the Fleet shall be recognised.
§ 5.12 p.m.
Lord STANLEYThe hon. Member raised the question of how the cost of the Mechanical Training Establishment at Chatham should be shown in the Estimates during their discussion in Committee, and I am sorry if I did not answer him on that occasion. In his original speech he compared this establishment to Keyham, and said that if we could show the cost of Keyham in detail why could that not be done in the case of this establishment. Keyham is an educational establishment and this one is looked upon as a fleet training establishment. It would be quite possible to do what he asks, that is, to collect the various items and show them together, but if we did it in this case we should have to do it for every other fleet training establishment, which would mean an expense which even the hon. Member would agree, I think, was not justified. On the ques- 908 tion of men who have risen from the lower deck, he referred particularly to the old or ex-mate scheme. I am sure that at such short notice he will not expect a detailed answer as to why specific things have not been done, but in general I would assure him that the moment these men get commissions no difference is made between them and officers who may have received commissions by any other method. Promotion and appointments go to those who are best qualified for particular jobs, irrespective of the way in which they may have entered the Service. It is quite possible that age is the reason why some of these ex-mates have not been promoted and have not been given specialist training. It may be that after they received specialist training they would be too old for promotion, and the time spent on their specialist training would be of no value to the Navy. That is the reason for the introduction of the new scheme, and I can assure the hon. Member, as I did on a previous occasion, that we are doing everything we can to make that scheme a success.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Mr. G. HALLIn this Vote there is an item of £714,000 in respect of the construction of the naval base at Singapore. The Estimate which is presented in regard to the completion of the scheme shows an increase of something like £1,000,000 upon Vote 10 for succeeding years. For that reason I would like to take advantage of this opportunity of asking the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a few questions concerning the base. From newspaper reports which have appeared during the last month or two, we find that there has been a conference of distinguished admirals, on the New Zealand station, I think, where a discussion has taken place concerning this naval base. I would ask the Civil Lord whether the increase which is now contained in the Estimates—I do not mean the increased expenditure, but the estimated increase for the completion of the work—has been put into the Estimate for 909 this year as a result of that conference? Taking into consideration the discussion which took place at the conference, I should like to ask whether this amount of money will be sufficient to carry out the whole of the work, or whether any extension of the original scheme is now contemplated? I have seen the suggestion that it is intended to purchase additional land and to provide additional works, which were deemed necessary in view of certain events which have taken place. I ask whether that is so, whether the original scheme is to stand and the amount of money—I think some £11,000,000—which has to be provided by the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry for the completed scheme, is to stand, or whether we can anticipate a large increase in this amount to provide the completed scheme?
§ 5.19 p.m.
§ Vice-Admiral TAYLORI am very glad that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has raised this question, but I am not sure from the remarks which he made whether he is opposed to the spending of this money upon that all-important naval base. I would remind him that it is just as well that we should bear in mind that the whole of the Imperial defence of the East depends upon a base at Singapore, and that until there is a base, complete in every particular, we are not able either to defend our trade in the East, or to defend Australia, New Zealand, Malaya or India. It is quite impossible at the present time to send a fleet of heavy ships in certain circumstances to operate in the East at all, and we are quite impotent in those waters. It is a matter of the utmost importance that the base should be proceeded with, and I am only too thankful that some provision is made in the Estimates for proceeding with it. It is absolutely essential not only that the dock should be completed, but that the buildings, works and workshops, the pumping arrangements and the defences and so on should be completed at the earliest possible moment so that the base should be absolutely complete in all particulars. Until it is complete, we are unable to carry out any defence operations in those Far Eastern waters. It is just as well that the House and the country should realise the position in which we are placed. I cannot believe 910 that the hon. Member for Aberdare is opposed to the continuation of those defence works, which are necessary in order that we may be in a position to defend the immense interests which we have in those Eastern waters.
§ 5.21 p.m.
The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Wallace)It is quite unusual for the Admiralty to find only one subject raised on Vote 10, and I am extremely obliged to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) for enabling me to give, in a very few words, the reason for this increase in the total Estimate for Singapore. The hon. Member for Aberdare, who preceded me as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, will be well aware that this scheme has undergone a number of vicissitudes, and so far from the figure which we have now put into the Estimates being in excess of the original sum proposed, the original scheme as first adumbrated in 1933 allowed for something like £14,000,000 expenditure, of which £12,600,000 was to be borne on Navy Votes. Even, therefore, with the increase of £1,000,000, to which the hon. Member has referred, the amount which is now proposed to spend upon Singapore is actually less than the original Estimate.
The hon. Member for Aberdare has, I am afraid, been doing a good deal of newspaper reading. Though it is perfectly true that a conference was held, not at the Singapore base but in Singapore Harbour, two months ago between the Commander-in-Chief of the China Station and the Commander-in-Chief of the East Indies Station, and that there were present at the same time an Admiral from New Zealand and an Admiral from the Australian Navy, the conference had nothing to do with the increase in the total Estimate, which was decided on before the conference started, and even before I went out to Singapore. The conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers was merely a routine conference. I am sure that he, as an ex-member of the Board of Admiralty, will agree that it is a very good thing for Commanders-in-Chief of neighbouring stations to meet and discuss problems. I can unhesitatingly give an assurance that what took place in His Majesty's Ship 911 "Kent" during that time had no sinister designs to do with Singapore.
I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that when we have spent the money which is now being asked for in the Estimates, we shall have an adequate base, properly equipped and properly defended. The real reason why we have had to increase the total Estimate is because, as my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty pointed out last Monday, the truncated scheme taken over from our predecessors included a hole in the ground where the graving dock was to be, and did not include the caissons, penstocks and electric power to work it. The main part of the increase is in order to make the base workable and efficiently defended. I may add that the idea that the creation of a naval base at Singapore is a threat to anybody is a pure delusion. You might just as well say that the naval establishments at Devonport are a threat to America, because Singapore is as far from any Eastern Power as Plymouth is from New York. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman will fully appreciate the reasons for the increase, and that the House will give us this Vote.