NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941. (Hansard, 11 March 1942)

§ Mr. Ammon (Camberwell, North)
There are one or two points in connection with this Vote to which I wish to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty. They are particularly concerned with the training of personnel and the selection of officers. These matters have been brought to my notice by a document which I have just received. It is a document drawn up by a group of young officers who are keen on these matters, and I propose to give a hint or two of the views which they express, for the information both of the public and of the House, and, with my right hon. Friend's consent, I will then hand the document over to him in order that it may receive the attention of himself and his advisers. This document complains that to a large extent the efficiency of the Navy is hampered by a slavish adherence to the traditions of Nelson's day. Among other comments which its authors make, they suggest that the training of personnel, which is now entrusted to retired officers or pensioned instructors, should be given to more active and vigorous persons. They also ask that more attention should be given to training in gunnery, which they consider is very badly neglected. They complain that much of the training has no relation to the modern conditions in the Navy and that a lot of time is spent on such things as making hitches and splices, and so on—things which are not of much use in the modern Navy, however valuable they may have been in the days of sail. In short, they complain that much of the present syllabus for the training of personnel has no relation to modern naval conditions.
1088 They suggest, in view of the possibilities of invasion and the use of the Navy in that connection, that a certain amount of attention should be given to land fighting. They also ask that attention should be given to the abolition of a good deal of very harmful and unnecessary ceremonial which is still adhered to in the Royal Naval establishments. They claim that the time so employed could be devoted to instructional courses, which, spread over a 10-weeks course, would give them no less than another 10 or 13 hours which could be spent on very necessary instruction.
With regard to the training of officers, I ask the indulgence of the House while I read an extract, although at the same time I should like my right hon. Friend to realise that I am in no way detracting from the value of the great service which he did when he introduced promotion from the lower deck. This is what these young officers say as to the effect of the new scheme: The recruitment of officers now is entirely from the lower deck with the exception of a few specialists, nevertheless it is by no means satisfactory, not only that the wrong type of man is often selected but that the right type is far more often overlooked. A certain number of regular officers are still being produced from places like Dartmouth, which it is almost impossible to enter without monied parents. The selection is made as follows. Whilst the trainee is a rating he is first seen by a C.W.1 board which recommend him for a commission. After that he is watched at sea, and if recommended by his captain he goes before a preliminary and then a final Admiralty selection board. If passed he goes to the "King Alfred." The chief criticism of the system lies in the method of selection.

§ Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West)
Is the hon. Gentleman reading from a letter, or what?

§ Mr. Ammon
I am reading from a scheme sent to me by a number of young officers: Every trainee fills in a questionnaire which is examined. Men with suitable educational qualifications are noted and watched. The snag is that no one who has not at least had a secondary school education is even considered, no matter what brilliance he may show while at the training establishment, thus many who might make very brilliant officers are overlooked. The official excuse for this is that without a secondary school education men cannot master the officers' training course. This, speaking from personal experience, is not true. Any intelligent man can easily master the course, while no matter how high his educational qualifications, unless they are linked with intelligence a good officer does not result. Particularly important is the understanding 1089 which an officer has of his men, and the present insistence on education results in a gap between officers and ratings. There is no doubt that the system as at present worked definitely prevents the average rating from ever being even considered for an examination. I do not know how much truth there is in this, but coming from the source it does, I think it would be worth while for my right hon. Friend to consider it in connection with the scheme he has already introduced, with a view to finding out whether there are some points which might be reconsidered to make it more effective and give a larger measure of satisfaction, while securing a wider range of selection for these officers.

§ Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)
I rather understood my hon. Friend to say that he does not put these views forward as his own considered opinion, and that he is not taking personal responsibility for them, and in those circumstances it is important that the House should know more definitely whether these are the views of one or two young officers or whether he himself accepts responsibility for them.

§ Mr. Ammon
I take personal responsibility, although, as I said, I have been more or less informed and inspired by a group of young officers. It is a thing which is quite usually done; the hon. Member himself does it in the House regarding any matter of which he may have some knowledge. So far as that goes, I am responsible for anything I say, and so far as it may be helpful to the First Lord, I propose to hand over to him such information as I may have and any criticisms in connection with the training of personnel and the training of officers, in order that he may be better enabled to discuss the questions which I put before him.

§ Sir P. Harris
Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, with regard to the suggestion that the best types are not always selected, I should like to give a special testimony based on the experience of two visits in connection with the magnificent work done by the "King Alfred." It is one of the best bits of work the Admiralty have done during the last two years. Far from the impression having been conveyed to me that there was any undue inquiry into the origin of trainees or their schooling, I formed the contrary opinion, and I believe that in the recruitment of temporary officers from 1090 the lower deck the Admiralty has set a magnificent example which the other two Service might very well follow. Obviously, in an enormous expansion such as has taken place, there may be exceptions, and men of ability may have been overlooked, but I would like to say, from what I have heard from men in the Service who joined up before or since the outbreak of war, that the regular officers received the temporary officers with open arms, although they have a different badge—which I think is unfortunate; it is a pity they do not follow the example of the other two Services—and the experience of temporary officers is that they are received in every way as equals. They are given every encouragement, and on the whole the feeling of the lower deck, especially among men who joined only for war service; is that they have had a square deal. There is just one other matter which my hon. Friend raised.

§ Mr. Ammon
If the right hon. Baronet is suggesting that I complained that the promotion scheme from the lower deck is a failure, he is wrong. I suggest how it can be improved.

§ Sir P. Harris
My hon. Friend gave me the impression that there was a good deal of grousing on the lower deck. If that is so, he is quite right to raise the matter, but I have seen another side of the story, and I think it just as well to raise that also. When the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was just going to say that if my hon. Friend had concentrated on one case in which there is a need for reform he would have been doing a great service, and that is the question of the status of engineering officers. I know my right hon. Friend must be conscious of a grievance among engineering officers to the effect that they are regarded somehow as an inferior grade. It was largely due to the great work of Admiral Fisher when he was First Sea Lord that higher ranks were made open to them and equality in principle given. I think that far greater use should be made of the skill, knowledge and expert training of the engineering officers. Obviously, all the high commands must go to the executive officers. But I have heard that parents are saying to their boys, "Do not become trained for an engineer officer, because all the higher posts will be denied to you. You will have to do harder work than 1091 the others, but, of course, you can never reach the top." Obviously that is inevitable. Command of the Fleet must go to the executive officers. But, as I said the other day, when it comes to any appointments in dockyards or administrative posts which largely imply technical training, equality at least should be given to the engineer officers. I believe that the organisation of the Admiralty would gain, and I think it would be to the general advantage of the Navy.
I have just looked through the long list of members of the Board of Admiralty. This has very much expanded of recent years. I would suggest that when there is a suitable vacancy, if there is an engineer admiral available with experience and training, consideration should be given to his appointment. The War Office at one time actually put on the Army Council an engineer admiral. There is a man in the Ministry of Supply, a very distinguished engineer officer. I believe it would be very much appreciated in the Service if more recognition were given to the engineering side of the Navy's work.
I wish now to refer to Dartmouth. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) seemed rather to imply that entry at Dartmouth was still confined to well-to-do people. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a great change there, that boys from secondary schools were now to have a square deal, that it was going to be democratised. Of course, it will take time. That ought to be acknowledged and made clear, because that reform would go a long way to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnock)
I wish to raise a small point. I put a Question to-day and received an Answer which really gave us a great surprise. In the registration of youths which is taking place it has been my experience in the last fortnight that a large number of boys have said that they wanted to join the Navy. I have had the humiliating experience of having to tell them that there was no unit for them to join. I brought this matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend personally about six weeks ago, and I went to see the officials concerned. Having spent two of the most happy years of my life in the post to which the hon. and gallant Member for Widnes (Capt. 1092 Pilkington) has been appointed, on which I congratulate him, I have a great interest to see that the Navy gets its share of the boys who are now being registered. It is really a heart-breaking thing to ask people to apply and then have no unit for them to join. It is bad for morale. I hope the First Lord will see that nothing shall hold up this matter in the future and that some assurance will be given about it.

§ Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)
I wish to raise one point upon which I will not detain the House for very long, but it is a matter of considerable importance to retired officers. It is a matter which really affects all the three Services, but I thought that I could most appropriately raise it on the Admiralty Vote, because one looks to the Senior Service to look after its officers, present and past. I hope that in this matter, as in others, they will set an example to the other Services. In 1931, as a result of the economy campaign, a reduction was made in the pay of retired officers. That reduction was partially restored on 1st July, 1934, and in 1935 the retired pay was consolidated on a basis of a 9½ per cent. cut on the standard rate. I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend the First Lord to consider whether that 9½ per cent. cut may not now be restored and the standard rate brought back once more. The amount of money involved for the Admiralty, I was told in answer to a Question, would be £157,000, a comparatively small sum for the nation, but the present position creates one of considerable hardship for the individual officers concerned.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a special Vote dealing with this matter, and the hon. Member will not be able to raise it on the Vote before the House.

§ Mr. Lipson
I thank you, Sir. Shall I have an opportunity of raising it later to-day?

§ Mr. Speaker
That Vote will not come before the House to-day.

§ Mr. Lipson
I am sorry to find that I am not in Order, but perhaps I have said enough to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the matter.

§ Mr. Cocks (Broxtowe)
I wish to say a word on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said about engineer 1093 officers in the Navy. It has been brought up in Debates on the Navy Estimates year after year for the last 10 years, and has been supported from all parts of the House. Why should we get soft and soothing answers, and yet nothing is done? There are two points I wish to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We do not expect engineer admirals to be put in command of fleets, but surely there is no reason that they should not be appointed to be admiral superintendents at dockyards such as Devonport. Why cannot they be given some position such as that? Why should the engineer branch of the Navy not be represented on the Board of Admiralty? We have asked for that year after year, but nothing has been done. If we had geniuses like Lord Fisher as First Sea Lord at the Admiralty, it would be done. I ask the First Lord to consider this matter to see whether something cannot be done.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
I wish to say a word on this matter, being an engineer born and bred. This has been a vexed question with our union for over 40 years. The engineer is still treated in the Navy in the same fashion as when engineers were not in existence, in the days of Nelson. There has been no change made so far as the officers are concerned. There has been a great revolution taking place, particularly in our day and generation, so far as the engineer is concerned. A battleship, particularly, with everything connected with the Navy in that line, is all machinery. Just as in the coalfields, everything is becoming mechanised. The engineer is the very foundation of the Navy to-day. But no change has been made in the position of the personnel in the Navy. In every industry the engineer is given a chance, because engineering is the foundation of industry. I am not saying this because I am an engineer, but this is an engineering age. The Navy, however, is the most conservative institution in this country. It does whatever it jolly well likes, and we need to take a strong hand with it. It is not the perfect institution that it is supposed to be. This is one of the facts which goes to prove that. The engineer has never been given his proper place in the Navy. I do not know whether you will let me touch upon another matter, Sir, which is very serious? That is the position of the Admiralty in relation to shipbuilding.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must warn the hon. Member that there is a separate Vote for shipbuilding, repairs and maintenance, both for the Navy and for the Merchant Service.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
With all respect, cannot I raise this matter, seeing that I can prove to the House that the shipbuilding industry in this country is dominated by the Admiralty? Surely, that being the case, I can raise the question of shipbuilding, which is in a state of chaos as a result of its being dominated by the Admiralty?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member cannot raise it on this occasion, because there is a separate Vote for it.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
As I asked you privately, I will ask you publicly: Can you give me any idea when we can raise this very serious question?

§ Mr. Speaker
On a Supply day, when that particular Vote is asked for.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Then I shall have to be satisfied. I have come here primed with actual facts about the awful state of chaos, mismanagement, and misunderstanding, which arises because shipbuilding is in the hands of men who know nothing about shipbuilding, who have never worked in a shipyard, and who are giving orders to shipbuilders who have built the mightiest steamers afloat, both for the Admiralty and for private shipowners. Well, I shall just have to do the best I can. It is a shame, all the same.

§ The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander)
With regard to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), it has been one of my special desires at all times when associated with the Admiralty to improve both the conditions of the personnel and their avenues of promotion and standards of training. I think I can claim to have done something in that direction. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the statement, made to-day, that there were apparently in war too many officers coming from Dartmouth into the Service who would not have been able to do that training unless their parents had been wealthy. We have revolutionised that situation. We have thrown open scholarship aid to boys not only from grant-aided secondary schools but from 1095 preparatory schools, whose parents could not otherwise have afforded to send them for expensive training at Dartmouth College. We have already received reports on the 20 boys with scholarships from secondary State-aided schools now at the College.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
How many from preparatory schools?

§ Mr. Alexander
About the same number. We want to get the best selection of the brains of our youth all over the country, and to make certain that finance does not stand in their way. I am glad to say that the reports on the first full term's work by those boys have been most encouraging, and that they show that the boys are likely to stand up well to the tasks that they will have to perform.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Would it not be advisable, in view of that statement, for the Admiralty to send a message to the various youth organisations, drawing their attention to the new situation which exists in connection with this training course, and to get the broadest possible basis of supply?

§ Mr. Alexander
The widest possible publicity has been given to it. The fact is best illustrated by the hundreds of applications which we have received for permission to sit in the examinations for scholarships. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we will examine every possible step to see that they are notified. The best avenue for getting candidates is to see that every school, of all the types eligible to send in candidates, is properly informed. With regard to the rest of the case made by my hon. Friend the member for North Camberwell, the record of achievement of those who have passed through the training provided in this war for commissioned branches from the lower deck is, I think, a sufficient tribute to the excellence of the work done. The standard which I have observed, not only from reports but from actual visits which I have paid, among Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers is most encouraging. Take, for example, a young man going from civilian life into training in "King Alfred" and, within 12 months 1096 of that time, becoming a full lieutenant, and destroying perhaps with his one ship, 80 or 100 mines in the face of the enemy. That sort of achievement is a pretty good tribute to the nature of the training the Navy is giving in the war training ships and establishments. I have heard, too, from relatives of my own, who have served on the lower deck in this war and have passed through, or are passing through, the training, how well they think of the training syllabus and of the officers who have had the handling of their training. But when my hon. Friend has a widely-based case made to him from officers, we shall, of course, examine the case with great care. We want to make sure that the selection made from the lower deck under the commission warrant is of the best. It has been so successful that we are anxious not to hold up from training candidates of the lower deck, the work of whose ship has meant that they have had to go to a foreign station. Therefore, we have extended the work of the "King Alfred" to a foreign station in order that there may he wider facilities to take the inflow during the was for training for commissions.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), I am obliged to him, because of his previous knowledge of work at the Admiralty and also his experience at the Board of Education, for the consultation he has already had with me on the subject of Sea Cadets. The position has been different in the case of the Sea Cadet Corps compared with training for other Services. It has been carried out very largely in the past—and a great deal of good work has been done—by the Navy League and other voluntary associations. When the new position came to be created we had to consider the matter very carefully and see what could be done to extend the opportunity in a wider number of centres for these cadets, the arrangements for whom will now be superintended by the Admiralty. I can say to him that the arrangements for the Sea Cadet Corps are being fitted in both with the operations of the cadet corps of the other Services, and with the local education authorities, and at the same time attention has been given to the expansion of the number of units and centres. The present situation is that it is advancing rapidly, and in the case of the two centres 1097 in which I am myself interested—in the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Tyneside—we are already making arrangements for extending units. In view of what my hon. Friend told me across the Table, I shall certainly go to the department of the Admiralty dealing with that expansion and say that the greatest possible expedition should be given to the creation of new centres or branches of the Cadet Corps so that, as far as possible, we can meet what is a very important—and from my point of view very praiseworthy and laudable—desire on the part of youth to join this great Service of ours.

§ Mr. Lindsay
In the case of the Air Force my right hon. Friend will remember that a well-known master, now the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), has been put in charge, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider—I am casting no reflections on present appointments—appointing some reasonably young naval officer, if it is possible for him to be spared, to adapt the training to the young people. I can assure him that they are waiting, and it is pathetic to see them asking to go into these units when there is nothing available for them.

§ Mr. Alexander
I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend and discuss it at once with the appropriate department. There is a very strongly held view in the House with regard to engineer-officers. I have never found in my experience at the Admiralty any desire to under-rate or under-estimate the enormous value of the services and the great technical service rendered to the Fleet by engineer officers. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that they are not placed in quite the position he seems to think. They have promotion all the way through both from the college and the lower deck, and they reach the high flag rank of vice-admiral, so I do not think that his general complaint is quite justified. The question whether they should be given the opportunity of acting, for example, as admiral-superintendents of dockyards is a most important one. We have to remember, however, that the admiral-superintendent of a dockyard always has the advice of engineers, and moreover that he also has a great many non-technical duties to perform which are very often so well performed by naval officers. But I will go this far and say that there can be no real 1098 professional bar to an engineer-admiral acting as a superintendent of a dockyard. The question which the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green put with regard to creating a seat on the Board of Admiralty for engineer officers is rather more difficult. If you are to say that the Board of Admiralty, on its naval side, should consist of a flag officer representing every section, we would have to include the medical, paymasters and so on.

§ Sir P. Harris
Certainly that is not my contention, nor that of those who are pressing for this. We say that if there is an able and qualified engineer-admiral, the fact that he is an engineer should not exclude him from consideration. That should not be a bar against an engineer-admiral sitting on the Board of Admiralty.

§ Mr. Alexander
I shall certainly take that point into consideration. When you consider the controls which have to be operated by a professional member of the Board of Admiralty, you must be certain that the person selected has had experience in all respects, not only as an engineer, of those controls.

§ Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes (Portsmouth, North)
I wish to raise a matter which greatly affects the ability of the Navy to carry out its responsibilities without placing undue risks upon naval officers and men who fly aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm from shore bases. The only torpedo aircraft which the Navy possesses is a seaborne aircraft, the Swordfish, which is six years old, a biplane, with a speed of about 90 miles per hour, and is quite outclassed by the shore-based aircraft it is likely to encounter. It was designed to perform seaborne duties, torpedo work on the open seas, but in the Mediterranean and other places the Admiralty has squadrons of Swordfish based on shore which fly within reach of the shore-based aircraft of the enemy. I received a letter only about a fortnight ago from a young officer in the Fleet Air Arm who was flying in one of these Swordfish squadrons. He says they often had to fly over the land where they met fighters which were infinitely superior, of course, to ours. They did most of time flying at night, and in moonlight in the Mediterranean the night was often as light as day, and they had suffered losses from the fighters of the enemy. He goes on to say: 1099 Our squadron was ordered to attack shipping in an enemy harbour, and the attack had to be carried out in broad daylight. I took part in this attack, and we came out with only three aircraft out of eight, the losses all being due to the presence of enemy fighters. He says further: This is not a criticism of that operation. I quite realise that it was essential to the conduct of the war, and none of us had the slightest hesitation in carrying it out, but it served to show how aircraft designed for sea warfare stood rather a slender chance of survival, when opposed by shore-based fighters. I had that letter by me when we debated the Navy Estimates. I meant to refer to it, but I had not the time. Next morning I saw in an obituary column that this young officer had lost his life in one of these attacks. I quite realise that when the Government decided, in 1937, to keep the Coastal Command under the Royal Air Force the development of torpedo shore-based aircraft would be in the hands of the Royal Air Force, but when this war started the Royal Air Force only had one type of shore-based torpedo aircraft, which, apparently, is not very efficient. I do ask my right hon. Friend to go into this matter very carefully with the Air Ministry and come to some sort of an arrangement whereby young men of the Royal Naval Air Service can fly in aircraft that are not outclassed by enemy fighters when, of necessity, they have to be based on shore within reach of the enemy. There is a young officer in this House who recently commanded one of the fighter squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service. He told me his fighters, which were, of necessity, based on shore, were greatly inferior to the fighters of the enemy and, indeed, to those of the Royal Air Force.
Surely the First Lord should insist on the fighter squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service, based on shore, being properly equipped with fighters that are fit to meet those of the enemy. I hope it will not be suggested that I am trying to make bad blood between officers of the Royal Air Force and the Navy. After all, they all come out of the same cradle, whether they wear dark or light blue uniforms, and I am sure that officers of the Royal Air Force sympathise greatly with those of the Navy for having to continue to fly in aircraft which are inferior to theirs and inferior to those of 1100 the enemy. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) told the House recently how he produced torpedo aircraft 27 years ago. I have a letter, which I happened to receive a day or two ago from an officer who commanded the ship in which these aircraft were carried. It is from Lieut.-Commander L'Estrange Malone, at one time a Member of this House, who says: On 12th August, 1915, under your inspiration and guidance the first successful attack with planes carrying torpedoes across the Bulair lines scored three hits on enemy ships. That was a great day. Surely if the Navy had been free to develop its Naval Air Service throughout the past 20 years or more, we should not be so far behind nowadays when we have only six-year-old 90-mile-an-hour torpedo aircraft. I went over to America eight years ago to have a look at the American naval air service. It was too per cent. ahead of ours. Why could not we have bought torpedo aircraft from the American Navy when the war broke out, and it was necessary to base some of our torpedo aircraft ashore? I am sure we could have got them, and I expect we could get them now. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) told the House that at the beginning of the war Coastal Command, doing naval work, had only American commercial machines, and a few flying boats for reconnaissance, no torpedo aircraft operating and no fighters or bombers. What would have been said of the Admiralty if they had been responsible for carrying out the naval duties performed by the Coastal Command of the R.A.F. if they had been so ill-equipped. When I came back from America I went to Short's works at Rochester, and I was shown—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member is now advancing into aircraft production, for which there is a separate Vote.

§ Sir R. Keyes
I only wanted to point out how backward we were in certain types of aircraft. I think I can keep in Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. and gallant Member confines his remarks entirely to the Navy, he will be in Order, but if he speaks on another Vote, he will be out of Order.

§ Sir R. Keyes
I quite understand, Sir, since the Navy has not any flying boats though it ought to have, so I will leave it at that. What I do suggest is that the First Lord and the Air Ministry should really get together and try to provide the Royal Naval Air Service with up-to-date aircraft, so that the sort of thing which happened the other day, when three enemy ships went through the Channel, does not recur. The Admiralty had only six Swordfish torpedo planes at their disposal. Naturally, the Admiral threw them into the battle. They were seaborne torpedo bombers. What chance was there against the opposition they had to encounter? None. But if the Admiralty had had aircraft similar to those which the Japanese had, and the numbers they used against the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse," I doubt whether those ships would have ever got home.

§ Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter (Hertford)
I would like to ask a question about these torpedo-dropping aircraft, in which I have been interested for a considerable time. Who is responsible for the design of torpedo-dropping aircraft? Does it come under the Experimental Establishment at Farnborough, or whom, because we have been at war now for two and a half years, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has just said, all we have are Swordfish aircraft, six or seven years old. Has nothing been done during the last two and a half years to improve the type of torpedo-dropping aircraft. It is no good the First Lord coming to the House and saying that he and the Secretary of State for Air are looking into the matter now and studying hard. Surely that ought to have been done during the last two and a half years. In the last war we never took two and a half years to develop new machines. We got them out in a few months, and we helped the Army to a considerable extent. A great many Naval Air Service machines were handed over to the Army when the Army were in difficult straits in the last war. If we could do that in the last war in a few months, why on earth cannot the Admiralty get proper torpedo planes for this war. I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman has been. First Lord, but surely in his time he might have insisted on something being done to develop the torpedo plane and not let the 1102 Japanese get away with it as they did. I said a few days ago that it was disgraceful that this should have happened, and I feel rather hot about it, having introduced the torpedo-carrying seaplane and aeroplane into the Navy. We old pioneers have been let down by the technical people, or by whoever is responsible at the Admiralty. I want the First Lord to tell the House who is responsible, and not get away with remarks to the effect that it will be looked into, and so on. Who is responsible?

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
I am sorry that the two rebels in the House, the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), were not given an opportunity of saying what they wanted to say. I want to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the "dead-heads" have been cleared out of the Admiralty since he took office. During the last few weeks I have had some experience of the people in the Department. They have brought to a fine art the system of how to prevent things from being done. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth was removed from command of the Commandos, because if he were still there, perhaps I could have persuaded him to make a Commando raid in Whitehall and go from one office to another cleaning out the whole gang and getting some new, fresh lads in so as to develop work that is essential. If the whole lot were cleaned out from the headquarters and new men were put in, the desire expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) that the work should be got ahead with would be accomplished. Will the First Lord tell us how many changes he has made among those responsible for this very important work? How many "dead-heads" has he kicked out?

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes)
Will the First Lord, with the permission of the House, give some explanation on the questions that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes)?

§ Mr. Alexander
I will speak again on this Vote with the permission of the House. When I rose to reply before, I 1103 thought that no other hon. Member rose. The questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) about the aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm are questions with which I am most vitally concerned. No one who has been responsible for the administrative control of the Navy during the past year and a half could have been anything but concerned about the situation in relation to the torpedo aircraft available for the use of the Fleet Air Arm, but to suggest that the actual aircraft which are in use are useless is, I think, to go too far.

§ Sir R. Keyes
Who said they were useless? I did not. I did not say anything of the sort. They are doing wonderful work, but they run great risks.

§ Mr. Alexander
I am very glad to have that cleared up. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the six Swordfish aircraft which attacked the other day had no chance.

§ Sir R. Keyes
No.

§ Mr. Alexander
I do not accept that, all the more so because they had fighter cover.

§ Sir R. Keyes
I did not say they had no chance of succeeding. I said they had no chance of returning.

§ Mr. Alexander
That depends very largely upon whether they had fighter protection—and they had—as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit. I do not want a wrong impression to go out about the work of the Fleet Air Arm, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want it either. Ever since I have been at the Admiralty, we have been pressing, and with some success, to get improvements in the equipment of the Fleet Air Arm. The suggestion that nothing has been done is quite false.

§ Sir M. Sueter
Will the First Lord tell the House exactly what success he has had in improving torpedo-dropping aircraft? The Swordfish aircraft was shown to me at Malta five years ago, and as it was probably designed a couple of years before that, that would make it seven years old. Where is the First Lord's success?

§ Mr. Alexander
The Swordfish was succeeded by the Albacore, which was slightly faster—not very much—and had some other improvements. It is largely in use to-day. Secondly, there is a very much more powerful and very much faster torpedo-bomber now coming into active production, which has been designed and developed for some considerable time.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. When he says that it is coming into active production, does he mean that deliveries will take place in the next month or so?

§ Mr. Alexander
I do not think I ought to give dates and details about new types of aircraft which will come against the enemy. What I can assure the House is that the work has been done, the preliminary tests and trials have been made, and the plane is coming into active production.

§ Sir M. Sueter
The right hon. Gentleman said he had had success. He has been 19 months in office—where is his success? That is what we are asking.

§ Mr. Alexander
What I am saying has to be taken in relation to the fact that those responsible for aircraft production have first to get the plan and the design off the drawing board; then to make the prototype and get the amendments made after the prototype trials have been flown.

§ Sir M. Sueter
It is no good talking to me about prototypes because I gave the Admiralty the prototype of a torpedo aeroplane 25 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had success. He has had no success.

§ Mr. Alexander
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to hear me—

§ Sir M. Sueter
Do not talk nonsense about prototypes.

§ Mr. Alexander
I am giving the facts. If there is anyone who has pressed more for this work to be done than I have during the last 18 months, in trying to get this equipment for the Fleet Air Arm, I should like to meet him. May I add something else? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth referred to the possibility which there was of obtaining American machines for the purpose of improving the speed and equipment of the Fleet Air 1105 Arm. That has been in progress during the whole of the time I have been at the Admiralty, and we have got fighters, Martlets and other types, which were obtained early on, although, as I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise, many technical alterations had to be made in them to make them successful.
There is one other point I want to make with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford concerning the development of the work of the Fleet Air Arm and the obtaining of faster torpedo-bombers to fly off carriers. We have also had concurrently another problem to settle, and that was the arrangements for landing the very much faster machines. This work has been developed and brought up to date, and we are now able to handle on carriers, as a result of these developments, very fast fighter machines and, equally well, the fast torpedo-bombers which are coming into production. That is the extent of the success which, I submit, has been accomplished.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes)
I want to remind the First Lord of the Admiralty of something he said during the Navy Estimates to which I attached the greatest importance. He said: But the experience in the case of the 'Prince of Wales' and 'Repulse' points to the fact that every possible drive has to be put into further equipping ourselves for the development of this form of attack. That is torpedo-bombing. He then went on to say: I have strong views on the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1942; col. 382; Vol. 378.] I only want to ask him if he will kindly express those views. I suggest to him that he has not done so.

§ Mr. Alexander
Obviously, what I had in mind there was the torpedo-bomber attack upon the Fleet, which was not carried out from aircraft carriers. The attack was made by land-based torpedo-bombers. I feel it to be of vast importance that the Fleet should have at its service an adequate number of shore-based torpedo-bombers for the same kind of work as was carried out against our two ships by the Japanese. There must be no misunderstanding in the House about my views on that. My hon. and gallant 1106 Friend the Member for Hertford hoped we should get together with the Air Ministry in regard to future development. I can assure him that the Admiralty are doing all they possibly can in that direction to get what we feel the Navy needs and must have.

§ Mr. Lindsay
Is this the view not only of the First Lord but of the Government?

§ Mr. Alexander
I am speaking on the Navy Estimates for the Board of Admiralty and of what their view is on these requirements. I was asked whether we would get together with the Air Ministry. We submit our views to the Government, and we shall do our best to get our needs met at the earliest possible date.

§ Sir R. Keyes
The First Lord has really got away from my point. I was not complaining so much about the Fleet Air Arm sea-borne craft. What I was complaining about was that Fleet Air Arm aircraft, which were designed to fight only from aircraft carriers, should have to be used for shore bases—because of the narrow waters of the Mediterranean where they constantly meet shore-based fighters of the enemy which absolutely outclass them and cause many casualties.

§ Mr. Alexander
I am aware that in many instances the torpedo-bombers of the Fleet Air Arm have worked in conjunction with the Royal Air Force on that basis and in those operations.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
What a muddle. It is not your fault.

§ Mr. Alexander
I am sure they have done very wonderful work.

§ Sir R. Keyes
Very wonderful.

§ Mr. Alexander
I can only say that I should very much desire, if they were doing work of that kind with the Royal Air Force, that they should at all times have bomber machines of a pace equal to the speed of the Royal Air Force machines. I cannot deny that they have done work with the Royal Air Force on land-based establishments in that kind of operations.

Schedule
	Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants	Appropriations in aid
Vote.	£	£
1. Wages, &c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of certain other personnel serving with the fleet	10	16,000,000