73. Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the officers and seamen, 1553 respectively, in our merchant navy have attended courses in the use of defensive weapons on their ships; and in what length of time it is expected that all such officers and seamen will be fully qualified by having passed through Parts I and II of these defence courses?
§ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin)Courses for seamen in defensive weapons have not yet begun, but will do so very shortly. As regards the Merchant Navy Defence Course Part I as applied to officers of the deck branch, who will handle the defensive armaments, 6,436 have received training, or approximately 43 per cent. Part II is open to deck officers other than masters in command who have completed Part I, and 1,121 officers have attended the course. Owing to the constant flow of officers entering and leaving the Merchant Navy, it is impracticable to forecast when all will have completed both parts of the course.
§ Colonel LlewellinVery shortly.
§ Mr. ShinwellAs regards the training of British seamen in the use of defensive weapons, will any of these officers be serving in vessels in which Chinese and lascar labour is exclusively employed?
§ Colonel LlewellinThat, of course, is quite a separate question. The hon. Gentleman had better put it down.
§ Mr. ShinwellCannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what are the Admiralty's intentions as regards those vessels where Chinese and lascars are almost exclusively employed?
§ Colonel LlewellinThis question deals entirely with those who are going through these courses, and that is the question to which I have replied. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further information, I think he had better put a question down.
74. Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of merchant ships which have had their decks stiffened to enable them to mount guns up to 6-inch calibre; and whether reserves of guns and equipment, now held in readiness for issue to the merchant navy in case of emergency, are fully adequate to equip every ship requiring these?
§ Colonel LlewellinIt would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir R. Rankin) on 7th December last. Satisfactory progress with the provision of anti-aircraft equipments has been made since that date.
Mr. AdamsDoes not the Minister consider that it is rather extravagant to say that it is not in the public interest to disclose information which will be available to everybody?
§ Colonel LlewellinThat is just what it is not.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs it intended to equip any merchant ships with anti-aircraft guns; and, if so, are the necessary guns in reserve?
§ Colonel LlewellinThe second part of my answer refers to that point. I said that satisfactory progress is being made with anti-aircraft guns. With regard to anti-submarine weapons, we already have a completely adequate supply.
§ Mr. ShinwellSurely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the men employed in these vessels have the information made available to them, and why should it be concealed from us?
§ Colonel LlewellinIt is a question of the number which we have so far strengthened. With regard to a particular ship the men in it may well know whether it has been strengthened or not, but the general number is only known to the Admiralty, and it is right that that should be so.
Mr. David AdamsIs it intended to stiffen the decks of the whole of the mercantile marine up to a certain tonnage?
§ Colonel LlewellinPerhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.