HC Deb 16 July 1958 vol 591 cc1211-3
10. Mr. Lipton

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why signalmen in the Royal Navy are now officially described as tactical communication operators.

Mr. R. Allan

The title of signalman no longer adequately describes the present day functions of the rating concerned. The new title reflects his main duties, which are in that field of communications connected with the tactical handling of a fleet. The demand for this change originated amongst the officers and men of the communications branch.

Mr. Lipton

Is this really the time to introduce new-fangled long-winded titles like the one I mention in my Question, plus radio communication operators, chief radio communication supervisors, and so on, which are to be found in the incredible Admiralty Fleet Order 1690 issued on 11th July? Although the hon. Gentleman said that the officers are in favour of it, is he aware that the lower deck has already found a one syllable word to describe this ponderous polysyllabic language? Why not cut out all this nonsense and all the difficulties that will be involved in new documentation, amended publications, and so on?

Mr. Allan

I did say in my Answer that both officers and men in the communications branch wanted this change. I very much doubt whether the title given by the lower deck is any more original than some of the titles here. But the point simply is that in the communications branch there is a great deal of common training; and nowadays masts are cluttered up with aerials, and so on. The old duties of the signalmen, the flag hoists, are not being performed by him, and ships nowadays are stationed further apart so that semaphore is not much used. All this means that signallers today are much more concerned with R.T. than other forms of communication.

Mr. Iremonger

Is my hon. Friend aware that this will appear to many of us as part of a continuing and deep-laid plot to "drearyise" the Royal Navy? Could he possibly explain what, if any, positive advantage will accrue from this new nomenclature?

Mr. Allan

I think that the Navy is as gay as it has ever been, if not more so. However, my hon. Friend probably remembers the title of a petty officer, namely, P.O.O.W., Petty Officer of the Watch, a rather cumbersome title. In civilian communication centres his opposite number is called a supervisor. My hon. Friend will remember that the P.O.O.W. is a supervisor and not an operator, and therefore the new term more accurately describes his function. Also, another point which is particularly stressed by the ratings concerned is that if one applies for a civilian job and gives the new name for his previous occupation his qualifications can be immediately understood.

Forward to