HC Deb 06 February 1951 vol 483 cc1635-51

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

SCHEDULE
— Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants Appropriations in Aid
£ £
Vote.
1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines 6,650,000 —
2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 450,000 *— 100,000
3. Medical Establishments and Services 50,000 —
6. Scientific Services 750,000 —
8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—
Section I—
Personnel 750,000 —
Section II—
Matériel 3,950,000 300,000
Section III—
Contract Work 350,000 —
9. Naval Armaments 900,000 400,000
10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad Cr. 3,200,000 2,400,000
11. Miscellaneous Effective Services Cr. 200,000 500,000
12. Admiralty Office 100,000 —
13. Non-effective Services Cr. 450,000 —
14. Merchant Shipbuilding, &c Cr. 100,000 —
Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1950–51 £ 10,000,000 3,500,000
*Deficit

8.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Callaghan)

I understand, Sir Charles, that you move within very narrow limits in the disposal of Supplementary Estimates, and I do not think I shall try my luck against you. All I will say is that I am at the service of the Committee, if there are any questions that I can answer.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has adopted a wise procedure in relying upon his printed explanation, and it is now for us to ask him questions on the Supplementary Estimate and to await his reply at the end.

Vote 1 mentions a sum of £6,650,000, and nearly all of this is the result of increased rates of pay which came into operation on 1st September. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House approved these increased rates of pay as giving those serving a greater chance to meet the rising cost of living and adding a fillip both to recruitment and re-engagement. There is a further point about the re-engagement of men who have served for 12 years—to complete time for a pension—which has a bearing on the increased sum required for this Vote.

Under Subhead K, a sum of £150,000 is required for payment of bounties. The House will remember that in September a new scheme was introduced under which ratings who were re-engaged between certain dates received a bounty of £100. Presumably, it is under this Subhead that the money will be found for these bounties. We are glad to see that the Government have accepted the suggestion of paying a bounty for re-engagement, which has been made from these benches repeatedly during the last year or so. But does the Parliamentary Secretary think that a sum of £152,000 is going to be enough for this purpose? This matter is the subject of a Motion in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Order Paper at the moment.

[That this House deplores the fact that the spirit of the scheme under which a bounty of £100 is payable to naval ratings re-engaging to complete time for pension after 1st September, 1950,has been broken, in that men who had no need to re-engage until after that date, but who did so voluntarily before it, have had their claim for bounty disallowed.]

It does not appear that all those who should receive a bounty are going to get it. On Friday, 2nd February, the Parliamentary Secretary, in a written answer to a Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), said that there were some 300 ratings who need not have re-engaged until 1st September, but who, out of public spirit, did so earlier. Are we to understand that no bounties are to be paid to these men? If so, we feel that this is a case where very great injustice is being done. We think that the bounty should be paid to all who re-engage, whose period of extended service begins after the commencing date of the scheme. It seems a little short of a scandal if, in order to help the drafting officers at their depots, these men by signing up before 1st September, when under no obligation to do so, are deprived of this bounty of £100. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say now or later that this blot has been removed, and that the Government propose to deal with this matter in the spirit as well as in the letter of the scheme.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of order. I would like to know how far we can go on this matter. I understand that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) with others has a Motion on the Order Paper on this particular subject. I take it, therefore, that it is their intention that this matter should be the subject of discussion later. I understand that if the matter is likely to be discussed later, it should not be proceeded with at this point of time. If you rule, Sir Charles, that it is in order to discuss this matter, I am quite ready to do so, but there are rules of procedure which, I take it, we must all observe.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring, but if any matter is going to come up in a reasonable time it can not be discussed now.

Mr. Callaghan

There is a Motion on today's Order Paper on that point.

Mr. Thomas

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for not intervening before, because I have just finished all that I had to say on that particular point. I now pass to Vote 6.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have not seen it in today's Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan

The Motion is in today's Order Paper. The Government on this occasion, if I may say so with respect, seems to be ahead of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There is nothing disorderly about my remark. The Chairman says that he has not seen the Motion, and I am in the fortunate position of having seen it on today's Order Paper.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps I might be shown it now.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

In order to help in this discussion may we consider, from the Minister's reply, that he is suggesting that the Government should give time in the near future to discuss this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have not seen the Motion yet. I am waiting for someone to show it to me.

Mr. Thomas

In Vote 6, the increase of £750,000 is all under the Subhead O and covers equipment, materials, and contract research work. How much of this increased estimate is due to the higher prices of materials and contracts, and how much is due to an actual increased amount of research being carried out? It would appear that most of the increase is due to higher prices, since if there were any substantial increase in the amount of research work, there would be, we would have thought, a larger sum under the heading of salaries and wages of those taking part in this extra work.

Vote 8, Section 1, dealing with ship building, requires a further £750,000 for salaries and wages. How much of this increase is due to higher wages and how much to the employment of more men? Section 2—Matériel—requires £3,950,000 more of which £3 million is for stores and equipment presumably to accelerate the dockyard building and refitting programme, and for a measure of stockpiling. How much of this increase is due to stockpiling, to increased prices, and to the operations in Korea respectively? These are the only questions which I have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I must confess that I have listened to many debates in this House and to many requests for the granting of public money, but I have never before heard a spokesman of the Government ask for £10 million without explaining in some detail why he wanted it. I certainly think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty ought to have given us a more elaborate explanation at the beginning, because I think that it would save time in the end.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have had brought to my notice the Motion on the Order Paper. It is an early date Motion, and I consider it very unlikely that it will come on.

Mr. Hughes

That was not my particular point. I think that when dealing with a Supplementary Estimate of £10 million the House is entitled to give the matter serious consideration, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is not entitled to assume that we just nod our heads and give him £10 million without proper explanation. I would point out that some of the greatest controversial struggles in the history of the House and the country have been about the granting of money. King Charles had his head cut off for less than the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to do today. If we are to have taxation and representation, we are entitled to some explanation as to what these Estimates are all about.

I wish to ask some questions, because I understand that we have to do so in order to elucidate something from the Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, I wish to ask him whether he was present when the last Budget was presented, because if he had listened to the appeal made in regard to Supplementary Estimates these Estimates might not have been necessary. I remember listening to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that we must all be agreed that the present danger continues to be one of excess spending. The first question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary heard what he had to say and what influence it has had upon these Estimates. I hope that when Sir Stafford Cripps comes to see the papers he does not read about these Supplementary Estimates, because he will be wondering what is happening under the new arrangement if he does.

Supplementary Estimates deserve just as much consideration as the ordinary Esti- mates. It is said that great debates are coming on in a week's time on the bigger Estimates; no doubt these are just the cocktails before the stronger drink comes on later. Has it been considered that this money has to be paid for and that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the greatest danger to the success of our internal policy has been and still is inflation? Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered that these Supplementary Estimates are likely to lead to inflation, and that therefore we must avoid any development of inflationary tendencies which prevent us from obtaining the importations of raw materials without which our programme of increasing production and full employment will fall in ruins?

Some one has to pay for these Estimates if they are agreed to, and it will be no good any one who supports them complaining later on that a larger burden is being imposed on the British taxpayer. During the debate on the Budget, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said that we have the highest taxation burden in the world, and each one of these Supplementary Estimates is a further burden on the camel's back. I have fortified myself with a good many quotations about the danger of inflation, but I shall not give them to the Committee because they came from speeches by Members opposite, like the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who do not think it is worth attending this Committee. No doubt they will be complaining later on about these Estimates, but today they are missing links.

I wish to ask about some small items contained in these Estimates. I see that there has been an increase in telegrams, telephones and postage. It might be said that we should not worry about the petty cash, but when there is an increase of £230,000 for telegrams, telephones and postage we are surely entitled to have some explanation. What is all this telephoning? Perhaps this is the reason why the Postmaster-General cannot give satisfactory answers to questions about telephones. Surely, when there has been a jump from £321,000 to £550,000 there has been quite a lot of telephoning going on to different parts of the world.

Another question I wish to ask is the expenditure that has been incurred for operations in Far Eastern waters. Can we have an estimate of the naval opera- tions off the coast of Korea? I have read reports of these operations with great interest, and I should like to know how many navies are engaged on this work. I should like to know whether the ships belonging to the Americans and to this country are the only navies carrying out operations on behalf of the United Nations. Where are all the other navies of the nations that have lined up behind us at U.N.O. and are calling for sanctions? What about South America?

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is going beyond the Supplementary Estimates. We can deal only with the increases referred to in the Estimates before us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I know that, but when this debate comes to be considered by the Parliaments of South America they will not be having supplementary estimates, because we are presumably to do the lions' share and pay the full burden of this expenditure. I believe it to be time that the operations in Korea were stopped.

Mr. Callaghan

I suggest that what the hon. Member is saying is quite out of order. I am never averse to a discussion about policy, but we are in Committee of Supply to discuss these Supplementary Estimates. As I understand it, it is not appropriate on this occasion to discuss the question of whether we ought to be in Korea or anywhere else. I am at the service of Members, but I submit that I can answer only questions of detail concerning individual items that appear in the Estimates. That, I believe, is all I am empowered to do under the Standing Orders of the House.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps it would be of assistance to the Committee if I reminded Members what Erskine May has to say in reference to Supplementary Estimates. If the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote;".

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Yes, Sir Charles, I agree entirely with Sir Erskine May on this point. May I point out, however, that what you have read from Erskine May refers to a relatively modest amount, but £10 million is not. I am sure that if Sir Erskine May had been in this Committee tonight, he would be putting exactly the same point of view as I am.

8.30 p.m.

I will merely point out, Sir Charles, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has got into all this trouble and is trying to assist you on Parliamentary procedure because he did not give us a reasonable statement at the beginning. I know quite well that I am not supposed to discuss the policy on Korea. What I am asking about is the cost, and what I was doing before the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded to give you that lecture on procedure was to ask if we are not paying a disproportionate cost of the naval operations in Korea. I was also asking if it is not time that the other 40 nations paid part of this cost for, if that were so, our Supplementary Estimate would not be so big. We are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to tell us how much of this Supplementary Estimate has been incurred as a result of Korea. That is an important question, and the very fact that it was asked by the spokesman of the Opposition shows that it is a question to which an answer is required by both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

There are two points which I want to raise on this Supplementary Estimate and I appreciate your narrow Ruling, Sir Charles. The first is to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has said in regard to this increase of £150,000 in Vote 1, K. I am anxious, as he was, that that figure may not be sufficient because, if the Government are considering the question of including within the bounty those who volunteered prior to the date of 1st September, 1950, then it may well be that that figure is not sufficient. So I should like an answer from His Majesty's Government tonight to the question whether they have considered including those people, and if not, whether they will do so and in those circumstances whether that figure should not be increased.

My next and last point arises on Vote 6 or 8 but in either case there is an in- crease; in Vote 6 of £750,000 for Scientific Services and in Vote 8 of £750,000. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether included in that figure is any research or interchange of knowledge or help which is in being at the moment between the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy. The hon. Gentleman will understand full well the importance on all questions of our defence that those two Navies should be in contact with each other, gaining information from each other, having trust in each other at all times, so that in the event of war they know what each is likely to do and what they have to do. Therefore, in order to keep within the Estimate, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the two figures which are increased have included the necessary contacts between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. That is all I have to say tonight, Sir Charles, and I think I have kept within Order.

Captain Ryder (Merton and Morden)

I am always a little suspicious when I see a round figure like £10 million and naturally I share certain misgivings of the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am sorry, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, (Mr. Emrys Hughes). One can well imagine that when the Board of Admiralty are confronted with an increase of expenditure, they do what they can to see how they can offset it. By skilful bookwork here it has been reduced from a higher figure to the round figure of £10 million.

I can well imagine the consternation that must have greeted their Lordships when they found this enormous increase of nearly a quarter of a million pounds for telegrams and telephone calls. They must have heaved a sigh of relief when the Director of Victualling came along and showed a substantial decrease in the expenditure on soap. The inclination of the Navy seems to be to spend more money on telegrams and less on soap, and I doubt whether that is in the interest of the naval Service. I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on that large increase in telegrams.

May I refer also to Vote 1 (K) which my hon. Friends have mentioned already. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there are about 300 men who feel aggrieved in respect of this bounty. This arises owing to the fact that certain men volunteered to re-engage before the date—I think it was 1st September—after which the bounty is payable whereas, had they waited, as they were in a position to do, and had they not answered the appeals made for men to re-engage, they would be entitled to the bounty of £100.

One can well imagine the meeting of two men with the same seniority, one of whom in a moment of patriotism came forward and volunteered in answer to the appeals put on the ship's company notice board, and whose friend who had waited in an uncertain frame of mind until this monetary reward was offered. The man who volunteered earlier finds that he is £100 worse off. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will investigate this matter and will say something about it when he replies.

Squadron Leader Burden (Gillingham)

Under Vote 8 (Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.) there is an increase of £750,000, including an increase under sub-head B for the wages of artificers. I should like to know if any amount is included here for increasing the very low pay of skilled labourers in the dockyards. Their basic pay is very low, and I understand that there is a shortage of these skilled labourers because their standard of living is extremely low. Has this been taken into consideration, and is it intended to increase the wages of these workers?

My second point concerns Vote 1 (K). We are quite right in pressing, through my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), the concern of this side of the Committee in the penalising of men who have considered it their duty to sign on for a longer period at the earliest possible date. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see the force of this argument and will ensure that these men, who carry out their duty in a patriotic way, do not suffer loss for that patriotism.

Brigadier Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

I reiterate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) said about Vote 1 (K). The Parliamentary Secretary and I have been in correspondence about this since early in September. The men concerned were invited in their patriotism to re-engage to complete 22 years. They could well have held their hands and not re-engaged until after 1st September. They were literally incited—they were asked through patriotic channels—to re-engage. They did so, and by so doing have been robbed of £100. It is not as if this had happened to thousands of men. Judging by the written answers I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, the number concerned is about 300. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this and give these men their just due. They could easily have engaged after 1st September, but their patriotism made them do so earlier, and they should not be penalised for their patriotism.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan)

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) raised a number of points, including the additional cost of research. He asked how much of the extra cost is due to higher prices and wages, and how much can be attributed to additional research work. I can only give an order of magnitude, and I should not care to be committed to figures. Taking as broad a view as I can, I should say that half of this figure is probably due to additional increased research, and the other half to higher costs and prices.

The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) raised a point in this respect concerning the Merchant Navy. Certainly, experiment is taking place, and operational, as well as intrinsic, research is going on into the provision of additional safety measures for the Merchant Navy. This is regarded by the Royal Navy as of the highest importance.

Mr. D. Marshall

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan

The Royal Navy's job is to get the merchant ships through; that is what the Navy is for. Therefore, it is important that our customers should have the best possible means of protection that can be provided. I can assure the hon. Member that a considerable amount of work is being done on that in one way or another.

The hon. Member for Hereford then referred to Vote 8 (1), and asked whether the additional amounts on salaries and wages shown here represent higher wages or whether they represent additions to the number of staff. Practically all the amount is for higher wages and salaries and not for additions to staff. One reason is that the dockyards—the Civil Lord has this constantly in mind—are unable to recruit all the men they would like. As my hon. Friend says, that is because of full employment generally. Therefore, there is much greater competition to the dockyards today for labour than there was some years ago, so the answer is that practically all of this amount represents additions to the wages of existing men serving in the dockyards.

Brigadier Clarke

Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is still unemployment in Portsmouth? I have the names of many men who would like employment there, but have not been accepted.

Mr. Callaghan

I question that; I have a longer connection with Portsmouth than has the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier Clarke

That I doubt, as I was born there and have been there for many years.

Mr. Callaghan

In that case, it is a draw because I was born there also—

Brigadier Clarke

I was there first.

Mr. Callaghan

—and I remember reading the figures of unemployment before the war, as I expect the hon. and gallant Member also remembers. This is the case; it is no use burking the issue. In the days when I was at the Portsmouth Secondary School the height of one's ambition was to go into Portsmouth Dockyard because there was nowhere else to go, except into the Civil Service, as I did.

Mrs. Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton)

What proportion of the increase mentioned by my hon. Friend goes in wages and what part in salaries?

Mr. Callaghan

I could not give that offhand, but I can assure my hon. Friend that by far the greater proportion of it is in respect of wages. If my hon. Friend will look at Subhead B she will see that of the increase of £750,000, the sum of £600,000 is in respect of wages of artificers.

Then the hon. Member for Hereford asked about "matériel," as they still call it in the Admiralty. He asked the same question: What proportion of the extra cost is due to increased wages and what proportion is due to the provision of additional stores? In the case of stores and equipment, under Subhead A only a tiny proportion is due to increased prices. The overwhelming proportion is in respect of the additional stores and equipment that is being produced. In the case of the other substantial item, Subhead K, fuel and lubricants, a fair proportion is in respect of increased prices, but the majority is in respect of additional stocks.

There is also an item in respect of expenditure on fuel for the Far Eastern Fleet engaged in operations in Korea and that does not represent any increase in stocks. There are, in fact, three components in Subhead K, one, increased prices which is a fairly substantial proportion, another increased cost of the Far Eastern Fleet, which is steaming a great many thousands of miles at present, and the other the cost of fuel. The third is far bigger than the first and second.

I was asked and, in fact, twitted about the cost, in Vote 11, of "Telegrams, telephones and postage." Members have had a lot of fun in asking what the Admiralty is doing writing so many letters and sending so many telegrams as to increase the Vote from £321,000 to £551,000. If they had looked at the original Vote before making those humorous speeches they would have seen that this subhead does not relate only to the Admiralty's letters and telegrams but also to postal concessions to officers and men. The greater part of the increase in this Subhead is the result of the special postal concessions that have been made during the last few months, and have nothing to do with Admiralty letters and telegrams. This is additional expenditure in the year ending 31st March next—

Captain Ryder

It comes under Vote 11, which is headed "Miscellaneous Effective Services." Is that a true description?

Mr. Callaghan

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member again that these Supplementary Estimates derive from the original Navy Estimates, which show quite clearly what is the composition of this Vote. I ask the hon. and gallant Member to accept from me that what I say is the case, that this item includes the Forces postal concessions and also to the special Christmas concession, which, he will remember, was made in order to get parcels to Korea.

8.45 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

The hon. Gentleman has explained the various postal concessions quite clearly, but why does this cost appear on the Admiralty Vote? Why does it not come out of the vast profits made by the Post Office?

Mr. Callaghan

That, I think, has nothing to do with the case.

I pass from that to the question of the bounty. The hon. Member for Hereford, the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden) and the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), all put the case of certain men who re-engaged before 1st September, 1950. We can all understand the feelings of those men; I can certainly put myself in their position and visualise what I would feel about the matter. But it always happens that as soon as an increase is given and a line is drawn, the fellows who come just before the point where the line is drawn, wherever that may be, feel that they have been very hardly done by.

This is not so easy a matter as it looks. This special bounty was given as an inducement to men to re-engage. It was designed for that purpose and, therefore, the view was taken very strongly that those who had re-engaged should not qualify for a bounty designed for those who had not re-engaged. The date of 1st September was chosen. This is of course an inter-Service matter, and different rules for re-engagement apply in the various Services. In my own Service men are permitted to re-engage in their tenth, eleventh and twelfth years. In the R.A.F. they are permitted to re-engage at any time after the end of their fourth year. This might mean that if the concession which has been asked for was given men who re-engaged as long ago as the middle of the war—1942 or 1943—would, in the case of the R.A.F., be able to claim the bounty.

This is not, I repeat, an easy matter. I have heard with great sympathy what has been said. I cannot guarantee for a moment that anything will be done, but I will convey to the First Lord what has been said about the matter. It is always the case that when a line of this sort is drawn in a matter which affects all three Services it is not an easy job to separate those who ought to qualify from those who ought not to do so. I suppose it is also the case, although this will not help any one who signed on before 1st September, that those who now sign on before completing their 12 years will benefit at once. Another lot of men are concerned, but the same point is involved. We get into difficulties wherever we draw a line in these matters.

I was asked about the cost of Korea by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I am sorry, but I must stand by what the Minister of Defence said recently on a similar subject in connection with the cost of the fighting in Malaya. He was asked by the hon. Gentleman, who has a very natural and proper curiosity about these matters, if he would give the cost of the military operations against the bandits in Malaya. My right hon. Friend said it would not be in the public interest to publish this information. I cannot go further tonight than he went.

I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham about the wages in the dockyards. These sums all represent additional costs that will be incurred up to the end of 31st March, next. Increases in pay which have been given are accounted for in this Supplementary Estimate. Increases of pay which have yet to be given will be accounted for in the Estimates for next year.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I am sure that the whole Committee appreciates the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has replied to the various questions put to him. As the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), knows well, it is the concern of the Opposition to watch over any increase in the Estimates; and it is right that on this occasion we should inquire fully into these matters and be satisfied as to the explanation given.

I was not either satisfied or convinced by the explanations which the hon. Gentleman gave about the bounty which comes up under Vote 1, Subhead K. When any question of this nature arises it is fashionable for Service Ministers immediately to plead that it is an inter-Service matter, that the Services must walk together and keep in step all the time. If I followed the hon. Gentleman's argument it seems to me that there was no reason for the Navy to follow on this occasion at least, because the hon. Gentleman went on to say that conditions differ between the different Services. Therefore, it appeared to me that the Navy might have been treated properly in this matter.

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to advocate that a Supplementary Estimate should be higher than that presented to Parliament?

The Deputy-Chairman

We certainly cannot increase it.

Commander Galbraith

I am merely alluding to a matter which has been the subject of discussion throughout this debate, and to which a very courteous reply was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot see the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman talks about drawing a line and says that difficulties must always arise whenever a line is drawn. Surely the difficulty here is not as great as all that. Did not the Admiralty announce that a bounty would be paid to men who re-engaged after 1st September, 1950?

Mr. Callaghan

What happened was that the Government announced that a bounty would be paid to men of the three Services who re-engaged after 1st September, 1950.

Commander Galbraith

It would seem, then, perfectly clear that the date of this announcement was the datum line, and that men who did not have to re-engage until after 1st September, but who did actually re-engage, in response to the announcement made in the House, before 1st September, are entitled to be included in the bounty. I cannot see any way in which the Admiralty can dodge-that issue. It seems to me entirely wrong and highly immoral to do so.

There is one other matter on which I was not completely satisfied by the hon. Gentleman. Speaking on Vote 6, he said, that additional safety measures were being provided under that Vote for the Merchant Navy. I am quite certain that every one of us was extremely glad to hear that precautions of that nature were being taken. But, of course, this Vote alludes entirely to scientific services and research. What I would like to know—it may be that the hon. Gentleman did tell us in his reply, but what I want to be certain about—is whether measures are in hand to put into operation the results of the research which has been undertaken under this head; and, in particular, whether measures for the defensive arming of our merchant ships are included in Votes 8 and 9. That is a matter which is causing considerable concern and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that moneys are included in Votes 8 and 9 for the specific purpose of the defensive arming of merchant ships.

Resolved: That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Back to