HC Deb 10 March 1959 vol 601 cc1164-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £12,794,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis

I have only one question to ask and it refers to Subhead M. This Vote seems to have increased by 50 per cent. this year, and as there are now 6,000 fewer people serving in the Navy it would be interesting to have an explanation of that increase. I do not know whether or not it results from changes in uniform—something which, by the way, it is not a very good thing for the Admiralty to have done. That type of thing creates a certain amount of ill feeling. I do not want to press this matter unduly, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to let us know something about it.

7.31 p.m.

Miss Vickers

I wish to raise questions under Subhead M and Subhead K which deal with clothing and mess traps. I see that the amount for gratuities for civilian clothing to the W.R.N.S. on discharge is put down as £20,000, the same as for the current year, but gratuities in aid of outfits to petty officers, seamen and reservists have gone down from £38,000 to £27,000. I presume I shall be told that there are fewer of them, but I do not see why the gratuities for the W.R.N.S. who leave the Service should be the same as in the previous year.

The same amount is put down this year as last year for washing and other miscellaneous charges. If the number has decreased, as would appear from the amount allowed for kit upkeep allowances, I should have thought it necessary to change that also. I notice that the amount for soap and tobacco is less, but for the other materials it is not less.

I should like also to draw attention to the mess traps item, which is considerably down. I hope this does not mean that we are not going to put into our ships more modern gear. All ships should have the extra washing-up machines and all the necessary equipment to make work on board much easier. Also in the furnishing of married quarters the standard should not be allowed to become lower.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

A point which I proposed to raise on the Supplementary Estimates I shall raise now, as the matter has been brought to our notice. I should like to say a few words about it because there might be a very simple explanation of the whole matter. When one looks in page 22 at the wages table, particularly for the men, a very substantial decrease is indicated. Perhaps the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary may look at some other figures as well, which indicate what I have in mind.

There is a substantial decrease in the payments made and also a decrease in the allowances paid in the case of married men, which suggests that there has been a rather impressive reduction in the number of men employed in the Service, yet, when we come to Subhead M, we find that the increase for clothing, soap and tobacco and allowances in lieu of clothing has considerably increased for the period. I wonder what the explanation for this increase is when there is an apparent decrease in the number of ratings and officers. It is evidently not in soap and tobacco; one cannot imagine that the increase is on those items only.

Is some higher clothing allowance paid? I should be pleased to think that is the probable reason, because I had the experience of trying to buy clothes on the very meagre allowance given us in the First World War. It was very difficult to dress decently on the allowances given then. If this is an increase in the allowance for clothing, one would welcome it, but some explanation should be forthcoming.

I very much regret that I was not present yesterday to take part in the debate on the Supplementary Estimates. I had an engagement in Wales. I should have liked to have taken part because I regret that so few hon. Members take an interest in the affairs of the Royal Navy. Whatever its functions may be in the modern age, it is a fact that it was the medium whereby the lives of the people of this country were secured in two world wars and it merits great interest on the part of all hon. Members.

7.35 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I wish to pursue the question of the increase in the money required for clothing under this Vote and to ask what is the exact nature of the expenditure. I understand from announcements in the Press that a certain amount of changing of the uniform in the Service is in progress. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the changes amount to, whether they are complete or are still in progress, and whether the full cost of the changes is disclosed by these Estimates?

I understand that a certain number of junior ratings, whose class of uniform I forget, are now being changed into blue jackets. Does that involve the abandonment of large stocks of uniform and is expenditure under this head allowed for in the Estimates? Secondly, I do not know whether it is in order to ask, but I should like to know the reason for the change, which must involve a great deal of expenditure. Does anyone really suppose that these young ratings prefer to be dressed as "blue jackets"? I am bound to say that those whom I have asked have expressed a rather emphatic view in the reverse direction. Perhaps we could be enlightened on the subject.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)

Hon. Members are rightly concerned to seek from the Minister an explanation about the increase in this expenditure, but one class of case certainly has not incurred expenditure from the Admiralty. I take the opportunity of referring to a constituency case, although it may be typical of a kind of case.

It concerns a man who was a Regular sailor who parted company with the Navy, I think by mutual consent. Had he continued in the Navy he had reached the stage at which I think he would not have been a satisfactory servant. I am not concerned for a moment to say very much about that—I apologise to the Minister for springing a personal case on him without notice—except to say that it was not in any way a question of the sailor being involved in criminal proceedings.

When discharged, this man was sent from the depot with the very minimum of clothing. When I say "minimum" I really mean that. To the best of my recollection it was never denied, in correspondence with the Minister—not the present one, but the previous one—that the sailor had to do the best he could to obtain from mess traps and charitable sources enough clothing to take him to his home. When he attempted to make a new beginning in civilian life, his parents —ordinary working people who could not easily embark on the expenditure of considerable sums—were obliged to borrow to enable their son to have sufficient clothing to look presentable at the employment exchange or to appear before a prospective employer.

If the Minister can tell us that any expenditure on clothing in future will provide in a case such as that of my constituent at least a minimum of clothing—which, I am assured, was not the fact in this case—he will certainly have my sympathy.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives)

I wish to put two very short points to my hon. Friend. First, on the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) made about clothing, I wonder whether my hon. Friend could say whether there is a new design of the seaman's cap, which I think has been under discussion for some time, and whether some standard type has been evolved?

The other point is about mess accommodation in ships, which I mentioned in the general debate yesterday. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient time for an answer to be given to the point I raised. Is it a fact that dish-washing machines are being installed in all the larger ships, and, if so, in what types of ship they are being installed today.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing

Before dealing with the other questions raised in this debate, perhaps I should refer, first, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who said that the numbers involved in Vote 2, Subhead A, "Salaries and Allowances", have come down. I should explain that they have come down because we have been concentrating our victualling yards. This is part of our general realignment of the Fleet and part of the rundown of shore establishments for a smaller streamlined fleet. We have concentrated on three victualling yards in the eastern area, five in the southern area, three in the south-western area, three in the northern area and three in the Scottish area. Then, we have abroad victualling yards at Malta, Gibraltar, Singapore and Hong Kong. There has been a streamlining, and that, to some extent, accounts for the rundown in Subhead A.

If I may now turn to page 28 of the Estimates, Subhead M, which deals with clothing, etc., four hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that this subhead has risen almost 50 per cent. Even this figure does not in any way reflect the actual cost of clothing. What we are doing now, and have been doing for many years, is living on our fat. We have been living on our stocks of clothing, and we are coming to a time when this figure will have to start going up. If the figure were to reflect the replacement cost of the items under this subhead, the figure would be nearly £3 million, instead of the £961,000 which we find in the Estimates for the coming year.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Howard) both asked about changes made in clothing. No immediate changes are intended. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, but there is at present no new design in view for the seaman's cap.

Now I turn to mess traps, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers). Here, again, we are living on our cutlery and glass stocks. If we were not living on stocks, the actual figures would be nearer £340,000 in the current year, instead of the £41,000 which is to be seen in the Estimates. Again, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that it will not show any extravagance if in some future year these figures should go up very abruptly, when we finish the stocks, which were laid in at the time of Korea and even earlier, for a much bigger fleet. Therefore, we are coming to the time when there will be a marked increase in both these items for the same reason.

The hon. Member for the Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) asked whether civilian clothing was provided on discharge. I should like to look at the case which he mentioned, and not answer "off the cuff", but, normally, of course, a man who has served for some time in the Royal Navy, and goes out with a pension would also go out with a terminal grant, which, under present arrangements, is about three times the annual pension. This may be very substantial indeed, running into £500 or even £700.

However, I do not know the circumstances of this case, and would prefer to Fake it up and write to the hon. Gentleman. We would not wish it to be believed that people are discharged from he Royal Navy with nothing in which o go away, but, equally, I would have 1hought that someone who had done a long period of service would probably have provided for his future to the extent of a set of clothes for the time when he left the Navy. I think that I have now dealt with the important points which have arisen in the debate.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

My hon. Friend has not referred to the point about the change in uniform which I raised, because it was only last week, when some Members of the Select Committee on Estimates visited one big naval hospital, that we certainly saw all the sick berth attendants dressed in blue jackets, and we got the impression that this change had only just been made. Actually, we misunderstood that, and that is the only point I was trying to make—whether the cost of a change of this nature is reflected in these Estimates.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I should have to describe that as a little local difficulty. I was not aware that there had been a small change here, but it was not a policy change.

Mr. Howard

Could my hon. Friend tell us something about the dish-washing machine?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

It is our policy to try to provide up-to-date equipment in Her Majesty's new ships. It is a question of space, to some extent, and I absolutely agree with the point which was made both by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport and by the hon. Member for St. Ives that it is extremely important that we should minimise the chores and speed them up, because if things can be done by machines rather than by manpower we shall be saving space in the ships and altogether making them happier ships.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £12,794,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

    c1170
  1. VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 56 words