§ 14. Mr. PARKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date on which the last officer commissioned from the lower deck was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral on the active list and the date of his commission; and whether, in modern times, a captain from the lower deck has commanded a cruiser or a battleship in a sea-going fleet?
§ Sir S. HOARENo officer promoted from the lower deck has yet attained the requisite seniority for promotion to the rank of rear-admiral on the active list. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and in this case, also, lack of seniority is the reason.
§ 15. Mr. PARKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings in the executive and engineering branches and men in the Royal Marines who each year since 1931 have qualified educationally, qualified professionally, been recommended for the fleet selection boards, by the fleet selection boards, and promoted to
| Promotions from Lower Deck to rank of Acting Sub-Lieutenant and Second Lieutenant, R.M. | ||||||
| — | Qualified by Examination during the year. | Recommended for Fleet Selection Boards. | Recommended by Fleet Selection Boards. | Recommended by Final Selection Board. | R.M.S Recommended to Admiralty. | Promoted. |
| 1931— | ||||||
| Executive | 4 | Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive. | — | 4 | ||
| Engineering | 13 | Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive. | 1 | 1 | ||
| Royal Marines | — | Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1932 — | ||||||
| Executive | 5 | Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive | — | 8 | ||
| Engineering | 12 | Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive | — | 4 | ||
| Royal Marines | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1933 — | ||||||
| Executive | 22 | 17 | 12 | 6 | — | 6 |
| Engineering | 21 | 13 | 9 | 4 | — | 4 |
| Royal Marines | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1934— | ||||||
| Executive | 27 | 19 | 8 | 5 | — | 5 |
| Engineering | 6 | 9 | 4 | 4 | — | 4 |
| Royal Marines | — | — | — | — | 2* | 1 |
| 1935— | ||||||
| Executive | 25 | 12 | 3 | 3 | — | 3 |
| Engineering | 6 | 7 | 3 | 3 | — | 3 |
| Royal Marines | — | — | — | — | 2* | 1 |
| 1936— | ||||||
| Executive | 10 | 6 | 4 | — | 4 | |
| Engineering | Examinations not completed. | 6 | 4 | 4 | — | 4 |
| Royal Marines | — | — | — | 2* | 1 | |
| * Includes one not qualified educationally. | ||||||
| NOTES.—(1) The R.N. scheme of promotion is not entirely applicable to Royal Marine candidates. Recommendations are forwarded to Admiralty and the candidates appear before a Final Selection Board only. | ||||||
| (2) Candidates have only to pass one qualifying examination which includes both educational and professional subjects; separate results cannot therefore be given. |
§ 16. Mr. PARKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of fully-qualified candidates, stating whether petty officers or leading seamen, on the gunner, gunner (T), and boatswains lists; and whether difficulties are still being experienced in obtaining a sufficient number of candidates for these ranks?
§ Sir S. HOAREThere are eight fully-qualified candidates on the gunner and one on the boatswains lists, all of whom are petty officers; there are no other fully-qualified candidates on the lists mentioned in the question. The number 1976 commissioned rank under the sub-lieutenant, sub-lieutenant (E), and second—lieutenant, Royal Marines, schemes?
§ Sir S. HOAREAs the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the commended for the fleet selection boards, hon. Member's permission, circulate it by the fleet selection boards, by the in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the information required:
§ of candidates coming forward has considerably, improved, but still further improvement is necessary to meet requirements.
Mr. ALEXANDERWhat steps are being taken to induce candidates to come forward? Is any improvement in conditions contemplated
§ Sir S. HOAREI have had an investigation made into the whole question. The investigation is just completed, and I have not yet had time to consider the recommendations. The position is as I have stated. It is better than it was, but it is not as good as it ought to be.
Mr. ALEXANDERCould the right hon. Gentleman say on what date he would be able to make a statement, if I put down a further question?
§ Sir S. HOAREI could not say at present.