HC Deb 10 March 1959 vol 601 cc1156-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £64,899,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I should like to ask one or two questions on this Vote, but before doing so I want to comment on the fact that as a percentage of naval expenditure this Vote has tended to diminish. It represents about 15 per cent. of the total Navy Estimate. I make that comment because of the remarks which are often made about increasing costs being due to increasing wages. That is not borne out in the Navy Estimates.

Am I in order in asking what progress is being made in the Navy in respect of its consideration of the Report on Lower Deck Structure? This has been before the Admiralty for some time and it might make some difference, although not a considerable difference, to this Vote if the Admiralty made certain recommendations or certain changes during the current year. To what extent is the Navy bound in its consideration of the structure of the lower deck by the policy which has been pursued since the war of trying to equate branches of the Navy with branches of the other Services—a policy about which I think the Treasury feels much more keenly than does the Navy?

I want also to draw attention to Subhead L, dealing with education allowances. This is increasing enormously this year and is almost four times as large as it was last year. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us something about it. What interests me particularly about the allowances is that in the Estimates for this year £275,000 is on account of children of officers while only £45,000 is on account of children of seamen and marines. When we remember that there are seven or eight times as many men as there are officers, this seems to be disproportionate, and it certainly draws attention to the fact that we have still a long way to go before we have equality of opportunity in education.

Is the Minister satisfied that the men of the Navy know of these provisions? Possibly they do, but I am not certain. Is the hon. Member satisfied that these provisions are well known? It would help us if we could be given some idea of the number of seamen and marines who are expected to benefit this year. The hon. Member may not be able to give that figure, but it would help us in an appreciation of the situation if we had some idea of the numbers involved.

7.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing)

Dealing first with the question about education allowances, I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the whole Committee welcomed the recommendations of the Grigg Committee in this matter and welcomed still more the Government's acceptance of those recommendations. I remember making an impassioned speech on this issue from the back benches about three or four years ago, asking that the allowances should be made more realistic and that they should start not at 11, but at nine, so that a child had a chance of continuity of education before the 11-plus examination.

This is a very considerable step forward. The Estimate for which we are asking the Committee is very much what might describe as a "guestimate", because it is impossible to say how many officers and ratings will wan: to take up the new facilityes. If the hon. Member looks at the Supplementary Estimate he will find that in the current year we underestimated considerably. Instead of £.84.000, which the allowances were expected to cost, they cost, in fact, £134,000. Our guess is that in the coming year it will cost £320,000.

The hon. Gentleman will observe that we have increased the officers' allowance two and a half times—that is only a guess —and we have increased the ratings' allowance four and a half times, which suggests that we believe that more ratings will take the chance of educating their children under this scheme. The scheme starts on 8th April. when the allow-z rice goes up from £75 to £150. I have not the figures by me of the number of people who are expected to apply, and perhaps we can leave that point. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

It is not true to say that there is not scope and opportunity. It is just a question of the way in which ratings on the lower deck and officers wish to educate their children. I hope that we shall find seamen and marines applying in greater numbers.

I was also asked what progress was being made. The Committee on the Structure of the Lower Deck has recently made an interim Report, which is at present under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, it is a tremendous problem.

7.12 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port)

I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to Vote 1, page 20, Subhead Z. I wish to speak about appropriations-in-aid. I understand that naval recruiting has been very good. It is a great pity that the amount of money allowed should have been cut down from £120,000 to £80,000. Surely it is better for those who are not happy in the Service to be able to leave it by purchasing their way out.

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Lady is not in order in discussing appropriations-in-aid under the Estimate.

7.13 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I do not wish to he the cause of the truncation of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). If she has any other points to raise—

Miss Vickers

No.

Dr. Bennett

—I feel sure that when she has recovered from her consternation she will he able to make them.

If it is the pleasure of the Chair, I wish to raise one or two points which have come to my knowledge very recently, even yesterday, about the officers and men of the Reserve Fleet. I discovered one or two points while visiting my old friend H.M.S. "Guardsvan", that mighty ship which still dominates the upper reaches of Portsmouth Harbour. The first point is the astounding technical knowledge required of the ratings employed in the maintenance of these ships that are on what might be called immediate readiness reserve. I find that the ships are kept in such a condition that the men on board genuinely regret the fact that they may from time to time have to go into dockyard hands for refits in order to modernise them partially and in different departments. The men regret having their beautifully clean ships spoilt and the standard of maintenance reduced by a refit. That is a fine testimony to the way in which these chaps are maintaining. these first line reserve ships.

The point that I want to make on this is about the senior ratings, chief petty officers and petty officers, who are doing this highly technical work, as my hon. Friend will well know, in the radio, radar and other such divisions of the ship where very experienced men must be employed. I believe that there is a reluctance at the moment to employ chief petty officers and petty officers in their fifth five-year engagement, or even their sixth five-year engagement, because it is thought that, if they were embodied in the crew in the event of an emergency when the ship had to return to sea, they would constitute a substantial bar to advancement for the younger ratings on active service who hope to achieve the rank of petty officer or chief petty officer. I know that some of these men are so employed, as I have had the simplest of all ways of finding out. I believe that there is a reluctance on the part of my hon. Friends' Department to employ them in suitable numbers, perhaps as supernumeraries, throughout the whole of the Reserve Fleet, where a man whose time has otherwise largely expired could spend his last years on keeping in the most magnificent trim the highly technical gadgetry of these most complex ships.

My second point is on a somewhat more cheerful note. While on board this great ship, H.M.S. "Vanguard", I discovered that while she has now reverted to a purpose which we will all agree in the House is more suitable, namely, that of being a very appropriate accommodation and training ship while her life continues, she will in time have to be substituted by other no doubt smaller vessels. Nobody wants that time to be hastened in order that any excessive number of changes are brought about. In other words, if cruisers are to become flagships of the Reserve Fleet, any shift from H.M.S. "Vanguard" should not take place until such cruisers can be made available as will have a long life in the job.

A point I have to mention about the conditions of service in this ship is the little but very delicate matter of the understanding with the Treasury on the officers' counterpart to "Nelson's Blood", "Pusser's bubbly"—the duty—free privileges in the wardroom. I believe that these privileges will terminate in a few months' time in H.M.S. "Vanguard", as she is clearly in a low state of readiness for action, regardless of whether she is suitable.

Can my hon. Friend take a fresh grip on this subject and see if he can reach an understanding with his opposite numbers in the Treasury about the designation of ships to be entitled to duty-free privileges? It is a tricky problem, because clearly there are large numbers of ships almost ready for sea which are almost uninhabited. Also, ships which are inhabited may not be, as at present, particularly ready for sea. Her Majesty's Customs may feel that ships that are not particularly ready for sea are not particularly suitable for off-shore privileges. May I ask that the designation, de-designation, un-de-designation and re-unde-designation of these ships shall he taken firmly in hand so that the Treasury have no doubt which ships likely to be inhabited as depot ships, and also which ships being nearly ready for sea, can decently have these duty-free privileges.

7.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

I must confess to being in some difficulty, because the matter I want to raise comes partly under Vote 1, partly under Vote 6 and partly under Vote 10, all of which are due for consideration tonight. I cannot say with truth that this matter comes exclusively under any one of those Votes, but I must be guided by you, Mr. Hoy, and by the rules of order.

The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary is the staffing of the Royal Navy Engineering College at Manadon, which strictly speaking does not come under this Vote, although the pay of those concerned does and the establishment is covered by Vote 6, which covers scientific services and therefore scientific training, and the bricks and mortar of the establishment are no doubt comprised under Vote 10, which we will be considering later. For the convenience of the Committee it may be simpler to raise this point at an early stage.

The Temporary Chairman

If, as the hon. and gallant Member says, his subject is educational, it might come much more appropriately under Vote 5.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I understand that Vote 5 is not to be considered tonight, Mr. Hoy.

The Temporary Chairman

I certainly cannot see how this comes under Vote 1, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell me how it does I shall, of course. be delighted to listen to him.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I submit that it comes under Vote 1 because it concerns the pay of the officers who staff this establishment.

The Temporary Chairman

I do not know how far the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to go, but this Vote concerns pay only, and not conditions.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

If I may proceed, Mr. Hoy, perhaps you will be good enough to stop me if I overstep the limits.

In many of these establishments there are staffs of professional officers. That is very right and proper when the training is of such a nature that it needs to be done by officers of the active list of the Royal Navy. There comes a time, however, for scientific training, when the staff, in the opinion of some, should be civilian staff brought in—professors lent by universities, teachers who are not naval officers and the like—rather than exclusively professionally naval—

The Temporary Chairman

I know that the hon. and gallant Member is having some difficulty, but I must point out that those people do not come within this Vote, neither does training. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will riot have an opportunity on Vote 5, but perhaps he may get it when Vote 6 is debated.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

Thank you Mr. Hoy. In that case, I will await an opportunity on that Vote.

7.22 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett (Croydon, North-East)

Of two questions that I wish to ask my hon. Friend the first is whether there is to be any change during the coming year in the policy concerning Supplementary List officers. Is it intended to broaden the field of their employment, or is it still intended to confine them to aviation duties? I ask because there is some reference in the Explanatory Notes to the difficulty of obtaining officers with the necessary qualifications from the Dartmouth entry. It would repay the effort necessary to find out whether there are some technical jobs in the Navy that could be performed far more economically, and just as efficiently, by officers on the Supplementary List as by entry officers on a permanent career basis.

My second question refers to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday when he moved Vote A. He then referred to the changed qualifications for the entry of officers into Dartmouth. I presume, Mr. Hoy that it is in order to speak on this subject, because this is the Vote by which those officers are paid—

The Temporary Chairman

That may be so, but a study of their conditions certainly does not come within the Vote. I think that here we are pretty narrowly confined to pay itself, and not to conditions.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Then perhaps I can keep just within the bounds of order by asking whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that money is not to be wasted on this Vote by taking in under the new rules officers with insufficient qualifications.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to H.M.S. "Vanguard", which, as he rightly commented, is in the lower state of readiness. It would not be right, under this Vote, to engage in a long debate about duty-free liquor. I would not wish to rob the Committee of that enjoyment, but I also would not wish to rob the hon. Gentleman of his duty-free liquor, which might be the result of a long debate on the subject.

He also paid a well-deserved tribute to the standard achieved, and the pride that people feel on the ships at a high state of reserve. This is the result of the very wise policy of leaving the skeleton crews in their ships for some time so that the men feel that they are their ships, and that, in an emergency, they will sail with them. This has paid an abundant dividend, as I have seen for myself. They take a tremendous pride in keeping the ship very clean, and in a high state of readiness.

I should like to investigate my hon. Friend's point about allowing chief petty officers, particularly in the skilled trades —I think that he mentioned the electronics trade—to serve in that capacity during their fifth and sixth engagements. It is true that, with C.P.O.s generally, we are having to restrict those who wish to continue on a sixth engagement, in order, to some extent, to clear the promotion ladder and improve the career prospects of the younger men. I shall certainly look at the question whether we are screening those billets, and not employing the men in the later stages in that capacity.

I do not know quite how to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) while keeping within the bounds of order. About 50 per cent. of the serving officers —the "schoolies"—come from Manadon. It is difficult to say more and keep within order, but of that staff I can say that 50 per cent. are officers who come under this Vote.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked whether the Supplementary List was in any way to be broadened. No change in the employment of Supplementary List officers is planned in the next year. Their ranks will continue to be restricted to aviators, but the position might change in a few years' time, and we will certainly consider his representations.

I wondered at one time whether he intended to refer to the Supplementary List or to the Special List—the short-service officers or, in Service parlance, the branch officers—and whether those officers could serve in the capacity mentioned. In any case, no change is in- tended for the present, but we continue to have it under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £64,899,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.